RugbyRebels

A lot will depend on the track at Christchurch. Home-team will be sure to grind out a win on a slushy wet pitch, but given a dry track the Canes' lethal attacking game could surprise them.

rowan wrote:A lot will depend on the track at Christchurch. Home-team will be sure to grind out a win on a slushy wet pitch, but given a dry track the Canes' lethal attacking game could surprise them.

thats true because lets face it the Crusaders have been anything but lethal all season...

It is true, but your premise is flawed.

morepork wrote:You do realise that you are posting links to NZ news sites to people that actually live in NZ don't you?

morepork wrote:What an insight. Thanks. I would never have found that if you were employed.

You heard it here second.

Don't disrespect Rowan's posts. It's his "role" don't you know.

(For clarification, in the above comment I have extended the stated remit of Rowan, who sees his role on rugby rebels as that of posting third tier results for the benefit of those rugby fans who have joined a rugby forum successfully but are unable to Google rugby fixtures and results).

I thought people joined rugby forums to read juvenile, bitchy spite like yours, Canta.

rowan wrote:I thought people joined rugby forums to read juvenile, bitchy spite like yours, Canta.

I don't know what others have joined for. Just you. As you are the only person to explicitly state that they think they have a role on this site.

http://www.rugbyrebels.co/board/viewtop ... 30#p142530

You fukin weirdo

So you're bringing your redneck political views onto this thread now. In other words, this is about your own narrow-mindedness and juvenile bitchiness. Congratulations on your heroic lifestyle!

Let's get back to the rugby. Who thinks this is true? Would it be better for the comp if someone aside from the Saders wins this year?

rowan wrote:

rowan wrote:So you're bringing your redneck political views onto this thread now. In other words, this is about your own narrow-mindedness and juvenile bitchiness. Congratulations on your heroic lifestyle!

I'm sorry, what specific political views are contained within the post you quoted?

morepork wrote:

rowan wrote:So you're bringing your redneck political views onto this thread now. In other words, this is about your own narrow-mindedness and juvenile bitchiness. Congratulations on your heroic lifestyle!

I'm sorry, what specific political views are contained within the post you quoted?

Hes applying the ruling that Canta_brian is obviously a member of the White Power based on hes from the halfway down the Mainland so will share the political views of yer average white fella in Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky etc etc.. Well thats the only reason I can think.

rowan wrote:Let's get back to the rugby. Who thinks this is true? Would it be better for the comp if someone aside from the Saders wins this year?

rowan wrote:

Do you think that? If so why?

It was a question, not a declaration, and I'm not the cartoonist. But since, unlike you, I can distinguish between a question and a declaration I'd say that it probably would be good for the comp to see another team win. Obviously I'm a Canes fan, because I grew up in that region and played my rugby there, but if they don't take it my second choice would be the Lions. A first-time winner is always enjoyable to see, and a South African victory might help to revive interest in that part of the world, where they seem to have grown a little weary of watching their teams coming off 2nd best to the Kiwis far more often than not. Same applies to the Aussies, of course, so my third choice would be the Tahs. Probably I'm going to be disappointed, however, as the Saders are overwhelming favorites. & if they win in style, so be it. I have nothing but admiration for Canterbury rugby, which is why I refer to them as the 'Real Madrid of rugby.'

rowan wrote:It was a question, not a declaration, and I'm not the cartoonist. But since, unlike you, I can distinguish between a question and a declaration I'd say that it probably would be good for the comp to see another team win. Obviously I'm a Canes fan, because I grew up in that region and played my rugby there, but if they don't take it my second choice would be the Lions. A first-time winner is always enjoyable to see, and a South African victory might help to revive interest in that part of the world, where they seem to have grown a little weary of watching their teams coming off 2nd best to the Kiwis far more often than not. Same applies to the Aussies, of course, so my third choice would be the Tahs. Probably I'm going to be disappointed, however, as the Saders are overwhelming favorites. & if they win in style, so be it. I have nothing but admiration for Canterbury rugby, which is why I refer to them as the 'Real Madrid of rugby.'

I did say in my post "Do you think that? If so why?" I never made any remark that you'd declared it. No wonder this board is going to the dogs, Ive asked you a question regarding your question and you come back with a snidey remark followed up with a decent response to my question. If you cut out the snidey shit people would probably treat you with a bit more respect but unfortunately you cant help yourself it seems. It used to be bloody great in days gone by with a decent mix across the board but now its left to just a few die hards and you.

Now there's a definition of hypocrisy. After writing a bunch of snidey remarks yourself (which I chose to ignore because I'm not super highly-strung like your precious little self), you chose to answer my question with a question. & I gave you a full answer to that question regardless. But you have failed to comment on that response - quite clearly because you were never interested in it in the first place. So stop crying about evil villains destroying the forum all around you and try to engage in constructive discussion for a change. Here is my answer to your question again. Perhaps you can read it and answer mine:

" I'd say that it probably would be good for the comp to see another team win. Obviously I'm a Canes fan, because I grew up in that region and played my rugby there, but if they don't take it my second choice would be the Lions. A first-time winner is always enjoyable to see, and a South African victory might help to revive interest in that part of the world, where they seem to have grown a little weary of watching their teams coming off 2nd best to the Kiwis far more often than not. Same applies to the Aussies, of course, so my third choice would be the Tahs. Probably I'm going to be disappointed, however, as the Saders are overwhelming favorites. & if they win in style, so be it. I have nothing but admiration for Canterbury rugby, which is why I refer to them as the 'Real Madrid of rugby.'"

This is a brilliant column in defense of the Super Rugby format and playoffs system, but expressing concern over the Kiwi sides' growing domination. Exactly what I've been saying all along https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/a ... d=12094965

Hi Rowan.

I'm giving you fair warning. Doorz and Canta are more than welcome on here and don't need you sniping at them with petty baseless accusations. Please lay off.

rowan wrote:This is a brilliant column in defense of the Super Rugby format and playoffs system, but expressing concern over the Kiwi sides' growing domination. Exactly what I've been saying all along https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/a ... d=12094965

The Chiefs finished third in their division. Third! The fact that the New Zealand division was clearly stronger than the others (this is a genuine problem of Super Rugby that I will touch on later) is actually irrelevant. If you finish third in a five-team competition you don't deserve a rails run into the semifinals.

The Waratahs got a home semifinal because they did what they had to do, which was finish ahead of the Brumbies, Rebels, Reds and, say it quietly, Sunwolves. That's their division. Okay, it's not a great one, but it's theirs and they did the job.

As it was, the system allowed the New Zealand division to supply four of the eight quarter-finalists. We really have nothing to complain about the format unless we just love complaining.

This is really the crux of it here. I suspect if the Tahs and Chiefs traded places the former would end up with more points than the latter because they would have to battle harder for their playoff spot. More than half the teams progress the tournament playoffs with the 15-team model, but we can see what a massive advantage the home ground is, particularly when the visitors are flying in from abroad.

Interesting read:





http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6142- ... 1503232340

More interesting graphics here:

In 2015, the average crowd size across the competition was 19,163, making it easily the world's biggest rugby competition by average attendance.

Last year, that overall average had dropped to just 14,436, a 24.67 per cent drop in attendance in just two years, and brings Super Rugby back to the chasing pack.

Super Rugby remains the rugby competition with the highest average attendance, based on 2017 figures. It averaged about 300 people a game more than the Aviva Premiership in England, and 900 more than the Top 14 in France.

But those big European leagues are holding steady with their attendance figures. In England, average attendance increased four per cent from 2015 to 2017, while the Top 14 declined by 5.59 per cent. The Pro14, which includes Italy, Ireland, and now a pair of South African teams, had an increase of one per cent.

Surprisingly, the team with the highest average attendance in world rugby is the Stormers, who had 28,700 through the gates on average last year.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/sup ... fe-support

The remarkable success of the Jaguares in reaching the playoffs after just three seasons in the competition seems to have slipped under the radar a little in terms of international press attention. They were a dismal 13th in their debut season, not too surprisingly, and finished 10th last year, albeit with a respectable 7-8 win-loss record. This year they made a disastrous start with three straight losses, then slumped to a 2-4 record after the lowly Reds inflicted another loss in Buenos Aires. But just when they were beginning to be written off as another disastrous experiment of the Sunwolves variety, they went on a truly remarkable unbeaten tour of Australia and NZ, culminating with a win over the Chiefs in Hamilton! This they followed up with three straight wins at home, including a 54-24 thumping of the Bulls, to hit the home-straight with a 9-4 record. 3 straight losses at the end of the season, when they were required to tour SA, saw them slip down the ladder a little, but a first appearance in the playoffs was confirmed by results elsewhere in the penultimate week of the regular season. At this rate, who knows what's in store next year?

Error-ridden first half from the Canes sees them behind 18-7 at the break. You can't go to Christchurch and get away with mistakes like that.

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:Crusaders by 18

I rest my case...

Bloody good game though, Crusaders best team in the World, would beat the AB's imo.

Good call!

Canes resume tournament chokers status then. 3 wins from 10 semis now, I believe.

Oh, well, remember 2016 !!

rowan wrote:Good call!

Canes resume tournament chokers status then. 3 wins from 10 semis now, I believe.

Oh, well, remember 2016 !!

As Marshall and Co were saying though what was the gameplan from the Canes? Seemed very odd to keep giving the ball back to probably the best side at taking half a chance...