RugbyRebels

This should be interesting. World Cup Winner Richard Kahui has grabbed the underdog tag on behalf of all Australian teams. I’ve not watched a lot of the AU edition, but the Waratahs were fucking awful, with no wins and an average margin of -19.25 points. Compare that with the worst SRA team, the Hurricanes, with 2 wins and average margin of -2.88. Reds and Brumbies might be competitive, perhaps.

First up:
Highlanders v Reds: NZ 4th v AU champs should give us a good idea of the relative strengths. Home advantage for the Landers plus a week’s rest will give them the edge, I reckon.

Waratahs v Hurricanes: Cripple-fight between the respective wooden-spooners. Canes should walk this.

Crusaders v Brumbies: The Cru, right?

Rebs v Blues: might be close.

Force v Chiefs: If the Chiefs aren’t still hungover, and jetlagged, this still could be a difficult assignment after the emotional roller coaster of the NZ season.

Highlanders 40 - Reds 19, and that flatters the Reds who scored after the 80. Not looking good for the Aussies.

Well, the Waratahs did a bit better, putting 48 on the Hurricanes. Unfortunately, they conceded 64. Mad game. 17 tries, 112 points aggregate. Very silly.

The NZ teams are clearly stronger and I wouldn't be shocked if three of them get whitewashed. Some kind of tournament along these lines needed to happen though.

It is structured a little unfairly though. It is a good way of finding out which country's teams are stronger but not of finding the two best individual teams. Say, for example,the Reds are the second best team in the tournament and beat 4 of the 5 kiwi teams, there is a good chance they still go out as conceivably all the kiwi teams could have a better record simply because they are up against weaker opponents in the other weeks.

It's just a one year thing but I hope when thinking long term, they are trying to come up with a sportingly fair tournament.

Aggregate score NZ 205 - AU 119

Lizard wrote:Aggregate score NZ 205 - AU 119

Blues doing all the heavy lifting and being let down by the Crusaders and Chiefs. smh.

zer0 wrote:

Lizard wrote:Aggregate score NZ 205 - AU 119

Blues doing all the heavy lifting and being let down by the Crusaders and Chiefs. smh.

Bitch pleeze.

Brumbies had a good crack at it but.

Chiefs lucky and unlucky there. Jacobsen was very unlucky - seemed to be well away from the ball. Also looked like the force player came in at the side for the final try. Force deserve credit for sticking in there though they will kick themselves for not taking advantage when Chiefs were down to 13.

morepork wrote:Bitch pleeze.

Brumbies had a good crack at it but.

I'm sorry did you say something? It's hard to hear you from all the way up here in the penthouse at the top of the table.

A bag of Ados does not make Mt. Eden a Penthouse you egg.

Round 2:
Hurricanes v Rebels: Some talent in the Rebs backs, but the Hurricanes should walk this. Which means there’s a fair chance they won’t.

Force v Highlanders: Force performed with credit last week. Last Home game before coming over the ditch. Could be a good’ un but I’m backing the Landers who dispatched the AU Champs without breaking a sweat last week.

Blues v Waratahs: Afternoon match at EP, against the easybeats of the AU comp. Should get a good crowd in. Blues defence should be better than the Canes last week but this will be high scoring on at least one side of the ledger, maybe both.

Chiefs v Brumbies: Both involved in close matches last week. Tightest match of the round, I reckon. Chiefs by <7 with home advantage.

Reds v Crusaders: Billed as Champs v Champs, I’m fairly certain the Cru steamroller will continue, regardless.

No real trouble so far for the NZ teams.

Hurricanes tried hard to misapply their territory and possession advantage but couldn’t help but win in the end.

Highlanders scrapped well but were never really challenged.

Blues were indeed high scoring against the game but inadequate Waratahs.

Chiefs dealt with the Brumbies far more easily than I thought.

Crusaders’ steamroller in full effect with the Cru 28-0 up half an hour in.

Lizard wrote:Aggregate score NZ 205 - AU 119

NZ 416 - AU 215 after 2 rounds.

Looking pretty grim for the Aussies.

Lizard wrote:Blues were indeed high scoring against the game but inadequate Waratahs.

Chiefs dealt with the Brumbies far more easily than I thought.

Crusaders’ steamroller in full effect with the Cru 28-0 up half an hour in.

Crusaders really are something. I took a while but I'm fully Inthe Richie Mounga for first choice All Black 10 bandwagon now. Barrett can bench once he's back.

Hoo boy. Round 3 off to an unsurprising start.

43 - 6 Canes over the Force.

To come:
Waratahs v Crusaders. I saw a bit of the 2002 edition of this fixture last night. It will probably go the same way this year.

Blues v Brumbies: Could be close?

Reds v Chiefs: Precisely the sort of game the Chiefs can fuck up, and Reds have a point to prove. Aussie's best shot this round.

Highlanders v Rebels: Pointless fixture.

On paper, Hurricanes v any of their remaining fixtures could be close but even when they don't look that good, they seem to have so much more firepower than the Aussie teams.

There's been some talk of Australia wanting to keep the tournament's the same next year (and not merge again) but I really hope that doesn't happen. Surely they could jiggle the fixture list so there is always at least one Australian derby and one Kiwi derby each week thereby meaning at least two competitive games (in theory) and one Aussie winner. The PI teams will be a nice wildcard too.

Comfortable win for the Crusaders although the Waratahs stuck at it.

Interesting ref I thought. Give Crusaders a warning on their line. The Waratahs scored, off the kick off, a Crusaders guy concedes a penalty, straight to the bin "I warned you". Fair yellow for Haviili later on but ref looking at penalty try possibility "there's cover but there would still have been a two on one" - got talked down by the TMO. Then gave an immediate yellow for the next ruck penalty near the Crusaders' line.

Didn't matter, just seemed to have a real bee in his bonnet.

So what are the odds that this comp will finally convince the powers that be in Australian Rugby that Aussie does not have the depth for 5 fully pro teams?

It's zero, isn't it?

The Blues followed the sensible approach that was effective against the Rebels, Highlanders @ Eden Park, the first half of 2020, and it yielded the same excellent results. Who would've thought that playing to your strengths can work so well? Pls just carry that approach for the next two matches and they'll have the best possible chance of making the final.

Also Robinson obviously gives zero bothers about the sanitised PR interview training.

> Wilson: "The scoreboard says it was 38-10. Did it really feel like that on the field?"
> Robinson: "Yeah it did."

Then follows it up by describing Christie's run "like a ginger running from the sun". lol. Just let him do the interviews regardless of who the actual captain is.

Also also, the fact that the Crusaders could win every match and still not make the final arouses me.

The Chufs.

lol.

Lizard wrote:Hoo boy. Round 3 off to an unsurprising start.

...

Reds v Chiefs: Precisely the sort of game the Chiefs can fuck up, and Reds have a point to prove. Aussie's best shot this round.

...

Yup. Even more annoying that they nearly unfucked it, too.

Lizard wrote:So what are the odds that this comp will finally convince the powers that be in Australian Rugby that Aussie does not have the depth for 5 fully pro teams?

It's zero, isn't it?

Looking at it very much as an outsider, it feels like the results shouldn't be the reason not to have 5 teams. Australia is too big a country geographically to have just 3 teams on the east coast (cause having 4 would be neither nothing nor something) and they need to be developing players and fans from different markets or they'll stagnate even further (not to mention that Force are commercially one of the stronger brands). Yes, the Kiwi teams are winning almost every game, but that'd likely happen if they had 3 teams - you're currently better than them.

I'll note again I am a complete outsider, but it does feel like they should try and build up their 5 teams and try and make them good (maybe allow additional foreign player slots as well?) rather than go back into their shells and end up with a smaller footprint and teams that still lose most of the time anyway.

Puja