RugbyRebels

Cruden's success rate is just under 80%, if we're looking at players of similar stature (McKenzie is a shade taller and a shade lighter than Cruden, but they're roughly the same size), so it'll be a case of developing his technique.

Surprised there hasn't been more speculation in the press over the possibility of an all-NZ semi-finals. I don't think it'll happen, personally. 3 maybe, but one of the Kiwi sides is likely to trip up, and most likely one of te South Island franchises by the looks of the quarter-final draw. Still, an all-NZ semis has to be at least a 50/50 chance right now. What would that do to the credibility of this multi-national championship? Has a similar scenario ever occurred in European rugby or football, with 4 teams from the same country making up the semis?

rowan wrote:Surprised there hasn't been more speculation in the press over the possibility of an all-NZ semi-finals. I don't think it'll happen, personally. 3 maybe, but one of the Kiwi sides is likely to trip up, and most likely one of te South Island franchises by the looks of the quarter-final draw. Still, an all-NZ semis has to be at least a 50/50 chance right now. What would that do to the credibility of this multi-national championship? Has a similar scenario ever occurred in European rugby or football, with 4 teams from the same country making up the semis?

I don't believe so, although I'm pretty sure we've had 3 french and 3 english teams in the HC semifinals before now. These things tend to be a bit cyclical. It's not so long ago the English were wailing about being ineffective in Europe but recently they've been much better.

Not much of a cycle going on with Super Rugby tho. Kiwis have dominated from the outset, winning 14 of the 20 titles, and this year especially so. I would never have predicted this at the start. I remember thinking it would be Western Province, Northern Transvaal, NSW, Queensland, Canterbury & Auckland dominating, with Transvaal, Natal, Wellington and - perhaps - Otago battling in mid-table, and the other teams scrapping it out at the bottom. Of course, at that time, those 'other teams' were only ACT & Waikato (who have ironically both won it twicce), but I suspected expansion wouldn't be too far off in the future once they got it up & running.

14 of 20 titles.

I expect most New Zealanders will see that is 6 lost opportunities.

Canterbury has won more titles than all of the non-NZ sides combined!!

Anyway, I'm tipping 3 out of 4 Kiwi victories this weekend. Somewhat absurdly, three of them will have to play away, with only the Canes getting home advantage. I think it'll be one of the South Island teams who slips up, possibly the Saders themselves.

Well, yes, 12 NPC~ITM Cup titles plus 14 Ranfurly Shield reigns (including a couple of reigns with 20+ successful defences) is a pretty hefty record.

The Real Madrid of rugby!

Nah, Canterbury, and by extension the Crusaders actually develop their fair share of players. Yeah, they occasionally pick up dudes from elsewhere, but the majority of their guys are ones that they dug up and moulded into decent standard players. Richie McCaw is actually a classic example of this, where they basically swapped him with Sam Harding, who headed down to Otago as the next big thing at 7, and, well, you know the rest.

So, I was wondering if playing all its international and super rugby at stupid times of night to satisfy a northern hemisphere market has had positive or negative impact on the quality of super and all black rugby? Any thoughts?

Cashhead, sure, but it's only a comparison in terms of their success, not their structures. I think Real were developing a lot of their own players during their heyday too, btw.

Canta-brian, I've seen reports which suggest a negative impact, but that was back in the days when the All Blacks were RWC chokers and might just have been an excuse (one of many). Haven't heard it doing the rounds lately anyway...

canta_brian wrote:So, I was wondering if playing all its international and super rugby at stupid times of night to satisfy a northern hemisphere market has had positive or negative impact on the quality of super and all black rugby? Any thoughts?

Can't see why it would have any negative impact.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

canta_brian wrote:So, I was wondering if playing all its international and super rugby at stupid times of night to satisfy a northern hemisphere market has had positive or negative impact on the quality of super and all black rugby? Any thoughts?

Can't see why it would have any negative impact.

I thought for a few years it would be negative. Bad weather and cold etc. But then I thought if you can play in that you can play in anything, so good. But I guess we can't really know.

canta_brian wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

canta_brian wrote:So, I was wondering if playing all its international and super rugby at stupid times of night to satisfy a northern hemisphere market has had positive or negative impact on the quality of super and all black rugby? Any thoughts?

Can't see why it would have any negative impact.

I thought for a few years it would be negative. Bad weather and cold etc. But then I thought if you can play in that you can play in anything, so good. But I guess we can't really know.

Aye. For years people have hoped that it would piss it down against the ABs, claiming it was a leveller. i've always thought that was wrong because your boys are much better at playing in the pissing rain whereas we can barely string a pass together.

canta_brian wrote:I thought for a few years it would be negative. Bad weather and cold etc. But then I thought if you can play in that you can play in anything, so good. But I guess we can't really know.

It's a big deterrent for fans. But -- as you allude to -- for players it fits into the Don Bradman philosophy of learning to bat with a cricket stump. After all, learning to play total rugby in a middle-of-the-night sleet storm, driven by a biting south-westerly whipping up air straight from the Antarctic, makes playing on mild British November with a spot of drizzle and tea something of an afternoon a jolly jaunt.

I'd say what bugs me about it is the break near the tail-end of the competition, which honestly kills my interest in the last few weeks. I'd prefer an uninterrupted comp, then tests in July (I also head up to Auckland where the whanau are, and I feel like I'm missing out), then the domestic comps and then the EOYT.

Whew, that was hard work. Highlanders hold on to win in Canberra 9-15. Bad conditions, lots of errors. Brumbies had nothing but a scrum, a maul and some resolute defence, but it was nearly enough as they laid seige to the Otago line in the last 10 minutes. Highlanders played rugby, but had a hard time breaking through. Didn't help themselves with some ropey handling, but it was pissing down and blowing a fair breeze, so to be expected I suppose.

Elliot Dixon had a stormer. No more Australian sides left.

Likely a re-match of last year's final in store for the semis then. I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome were the same either. So a dismal year in Super Rugby for the Aussies, with only one team in the quarters and none in the semis. Can one of the Saffa teams squeeze through? That's the million dollar question right now . . .

rowan wrote:Canterbury has won more titles than all of the non-NZ sides combined!!

Anyway, I'm tipping 3 out of 4 Kiwi victories this weekend. Somewhat absurdly, three of them will have to play away, with only the Canes getting home advantage. I think it'll be one of the South Island teams who slips up, possibly the Saders themselves.

Lions running riot. Looks like I'm a Chiefs win away from getting this right - though I'd prefer the Stormers

Canes v Chiefs, Lions v Landers for the semis then. I picked the right teams, just got confused over the draw