The Sharks play the first of their five games in Australasia after losing two in a row at home. Worse than that, they have now lost six of their last seven Super 14 games, and five of those defeats were at home. Sadly for the Sharks too, they have only one try to show for the 160 minutes played so far this year.
Len Kaplan – Rugby365
But they won three out of four games in New Zealand last year before their campaign imploded, so perhaps the opportunity to build team spirit and a winning game plan may be better accomplished away from the pressure of critical home supporters.
The Crusaders have only once ever lost a Super Rugby match to a South African team in Christchurch, and that was a 32-31 defeat to the now disbanded Cats way back in 1996.
Crusaders head coach Todd Blackadder said this week that the Crusaders were aware of the Sharks strengths and he believed they represented an even greater danger after having lost their opening two matches at home.
“They’ll be desperate. Both teams will be desperate which makes for a good feisty encounter. We know that the boys from Durban will be big units and good operators in the set pieces. They’ll be tough but in truth there are no easy games in the Super 14.”
Crusaders flyhalf Dan Carter said he could not recall a more inept display by the Crusaders than the error-ridden loss to the Reds, but he vowed there would be no repeat.
“We’re an extremely proud side and we have really high standards which we didn’t meet last weekend. We’re still confident in ourselves and will look to turn things around against the Sharks.”
Carter said that as one of the leaders in the team – his 71 appearances make him the most capped Crusaders back – he would be to the fore in ensuring the “boys kept their heads up and remained positive”.
“We know we are a much better side than our last game.”
Sharks coach John Plumtree and captain John Smit are amongst the most respected in the world in those capacities, but they are under enormous pressure to turn their team’s fortunes around. A third consecutive defeat will make an already tough tour a decidedly unenviable assignment.
But a victory would do wonders for their wavering confidence and set them up for a grand comeback.
The key to improved performance will be accuracy at breakdown, where they need to attain continuity and concede far fewer penalties, and the patience and ability to string together sufficient phases to score tries.
For their improved performance, simplistic as it may sound, the Crusaders just have to revert to being the Crusaders and playing to their normal high standards – and what happier place for them to do it than at AMI Stadium?
Super 14 results:
2009: Crusaders won 13-10 (Durban)
2008: Crusaders won 18-10 (Christchurch)
2007: Sharks won 27-26 (Durban)
2006: Crusaders won 22-20 (Timaru)
rugby365 Prediction: The Sharks last win against the Crusaders was by one point in Durban three years ago. The Reds proved last weekend that upsets are there for the taking if underdogs play with enough skill and intelligence and passion, but much as the Sharks would love to spring another surprise, it’s unlikely to happen to the Crusaders two weeks in a row. The home team should win by at least 10 or 12 points.
Teams:
Crusaders: 15 Jared Payne, 14 Sean Maitland, 13 Robbie Fruean, 12 Ryan Crotty, 11 Zac Guildford, 10 Dan Carter, 9 Andy Ellis, 8 Thomas Waldrom, 7 George Whitelock, 6 Kieran Read (captain), 5 Brad Thorn, 4 Sam Whitelock, 3 Ben Franks, 2 Ti’i Paulo, 1 Wyatt Crockett.
Replacements: 16 Quentin MacDonald, 17 Owen Franks, 18 Joe Wheeler, 19 Richie McCaw, 20 Kahn Fotuali’i, 21 Adam Whitelock, 22 Colin Slade.
Sharks: 15 Stefan Terblanche, 14 Odwa Ndungane, 13 Waylon Murray, 12 Adrian Jacobs, 11 JP Pietersen, 10 Ruan Pienaar, 9 Rory Kockott, 8 Ryan Kankowski, 7 Willem Alberts, 6 Jacques Botes, 5 Johann Muller, 4 Steven Sykes, 3 John Smit (captain), 2 Bismarck du Plessis, 1 Tendai Mtawarira.
Replacements: 16 Deon Carstens, 17 Jannie du Plessis, 18 Wilhelm Steenkamp, 19 Jean Deysel, 20 Keegan Daniel, 21 Andrew Goode, 22 Riaan Swanepoel.
Referee: Chris Pollock (New Zealand)
Assistant referees: Vinny Munro (New Zealand), Keith Brown (New Zealand)
TMO: Kane McBride (New Zealand)
February 26th, 2010 at 8:23 am
O
February 26th, 2010 at 8:34 am
Die Sharks se truie lyk nogals bef*k, hoop hulle kan ook speel
February 26th, 2010 at 8:38 am
Another Spear from Thorn, no punishment again.
Sharks 3-0
February 26th, 2010 at 8:40 am
Sharks look good with ball in hand, can they keep it?
February 26th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Hier kom ‘n lang dag vir John op stut
February 26th, 2010 at 8:44 am
No fire power in the midfield for the sharks, Jacobs to slow.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:45 am
Domkrag Du Plissis first penalty against(1)
February 26th, 2010 at 8:46 am
Saders showing the way under the new interpretation – no contesting at the breakdown, just spreading across the field to defend and apply pressure.
league style – who said this would happen 
February 26th, 2010 at 8:48 am
Saders wanna run the ball today
February 26th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Reply to JT @ 8:46 am: Wait for Richie to come on
February 26th, 2010 at 8:50 am
Another penalty in the scrum against John. 2 for John in scrums.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:52 am
Carter miss
February 26th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Reply to Jacques(Bunny) @ 8:50 am:
only 1! the first was for engaging early and that is initiated by the hooker – Bismark
February 26th, 2010 at 8:56 am
no one wants the ball!
February 26th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Beutiful try from Saders, Golden Boy jaag aan kak after forwards gave kak ball.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:57 am
Reply to JT @ 8:53 am: Ref penalize John not Bismark, but I understand what you say
February 26th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Sanders really wanna run this ball.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Good tactic to stay away from rucks.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:00 am
Golden boy overcook the kick.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Reply to Jacques(Bunny) @ 8:57 am: no he did not – he penalized white! JS spoke to him because he is the captain.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Sharks need to make the game slower, the saders is gonna run them off the park
February 26th, 2010 at 9:03 am
What happen to not diving over the ball, does that law not exist anymore?
February 26th, 2010 at 9:04 am
1 for John in the scrums.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Nobody is making the backline straight in the sharks
February 26th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Reply to Jacques(Bunny) @ 9:04 am:
see – not so hard was it
February 26th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Hmmm
Telling stat before the game
Sharks v Saders = 13 games
Sharks won 2 and drew one
10 wins for Saders
Guess that makes the Sharks their bunnies
February 26th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Reply to JT @ 9:06 am:
February 26th, 2010 at 9:08 am
guppies look very unfit!
February 26th, 2010 at 9:08 am
Shit the Saders look good running into space
February 26th, 2010 at 9:08 am
Reply to JT @ 9:08 am:
is JS the fitness coach??
February 26th, 2010 at 9:09 am
Reply to DavidS @ 9:07 am:
February 26th, 2010 at 9:11 am
BS decision – Saders 1 was on the downward angle at contact and there was nowhere for JS to go.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:13 am
Reply to JT @ 9:11 am: Jip
February 26th, 2010 at 9:13 am
hands are terrible by the Guppies – no excuse of condition here though!
February 26th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Nice turnover from kankakski
February 26th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Reply to JT @ 9:13 am:
handspeed is slow, control is bad hence slow hand speed etc. did these guys do any pre-season bascs??
February 26th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Nice kick
February 26th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Reply to JT @ 9:15 am: They try but got hammered by Force and Stormers
February 26th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Hands
February 26th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Reply to Jacques(Bunny) @ 9:09 am: Last win for the Sharks was 2007
February 26th, 2010 at 9:19 am
No clue in the Sharks backline, hands are
, defense is 
, kankakski playing good and forwards at least compete for the ball
February 26th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Reply to DavidS @ 9:19 am: Well if they go one like this they need to wait another year if they wanna win
February 26th, 2010 at 9:21 am
HT – just does not look like their heart is in the game
Baiscs by guppies are woeful and fitness looks to be a huge problem!
Ag nee man – are professionals or not??
February 26th, 2010 at 9:31 am
Springbok front-row going back, where did I see it before
February 26th, 2010 at 9:35 am
no one in the guppies team running onto the ball at pace!!
February 26th, 2010 at 9:37 am
Problems in the scrum
February 26th, 2010 at 9:37 am
sharks lack confidence but at least they are staying calm. They dont put so much pressure on themselves when playing away from home.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Stupid penalty
February 26th, 2010 at 9:39 am
here comes Richie
February 26th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Alberts off did not do much
February 26th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Reply to JT @ 9:35 am:
Sharks have no strike runners.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Reply to Morné @ 9:50 am: Can not remember when last did I see a Sharks side so
overall.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:55 am
I am hating it to say but the only palyers looking good for the Sharks is my friends Domkrag and Kankakski
February 26th, 2010 at 10:01 am
F**k
February 26th, 2010 at 10:01 am
Plummo and the boys killing many a bok career right now. This team needs inspiration.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Richie show how to steel a ball
February 26th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Reply to newbokshields @ 10:01 am: Reserves for the Sharks making no impact
February 26th, 2010 at 10:06 am
F..king pommie
February 26th, 2010 at 10:08 am
you gotta love them crusaders when they get going though! That quick ball from breakdown!
Thanks Sharkies for giving this lot momentum, now we all gonna kak!
February 26th, 2010 at 10:12 am
bonus point
February 26th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Who said pre-season games means nothing and is no indication?
February 26th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Sharks need new coach, need new ideas. Brings nothing to the game and they have 15 Springboks in that squad today.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Nee o herre, het nou nie n wen vannie sharks verwag nie, maar…
February 26th, 2010 at 10:23 am
Reply to manvanstaal @ 10:20 am: Hulle speel soos laerskool seuns in die agterlyn, pass net die bal van die skrumskakel na die vleul, niemand val die lyn aan nie.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:23 am
Shields is correct.
But rumour has it Plummo doesn’t want to be there so he’s been given a little contract performance management thingie so if the Sharks go this way…. tatta Plumbago and good riddance you git…
And “AN Other” is virtually signed and sealed…
Many players also unhappy with the Kiwi
February 26th, 2010 at 10:23 am
Lions looked bad.
Sorry, I mean Sharks.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Reply to DavidS @ 10:23 am: He’s kak, will they look at White? or have they someone in mind?
February 26th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Reply to Morné @ 9:50 am:
then what is Murray and JPP in the squad for? Look how well JPP does it for SA…
Kings going to replace the Guppies in the S15?
February 26th, 2010 at 10:25 am
DavidS hears rumours that Plumbago is on No 99 and AN Other is almost signed and sealed….
Many players would like to see the back of Plumbago too
Good riddance IMO
February 26th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Reply to JT @ 10:24 am: JPP is good because he is put into space by Boks.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Reply to Jacques(Bunny) @ 10:24 am: Talks under way and can’t say
February 26th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Reply to DavidS @ 10:23 am:
Wat sê die kwak van jou siekte?
Te min seks?
February 26th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Jake White to be
coaching Wilgenhof
at the Maties.
Murray has always been
useless.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Reply to Jacques(Bunny) @ 10:24 am:
Straeuli and Todd Louden
February 26th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Reply to Boertjie @ 10:28 am:
Give me that back-line for a month! I bet I can have them playing better than they are now! BASICS, BASICS, BASICS! Some Running angles by SPP and WM – símples!
February 26th, 2010 at 10:31 am
SPP = JPP
February 26th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Reply to Jacques(Bunny) @ 10:23 am: Gelukkig maar min gesien daarvan.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Three things stand out
1. Sharks have no attacjking plan so Tiger’s genius is not existent.
2. When they went via the middle they made ground but didn’t seem to know when to do it.
3. The “Bok Front Three” are in dire need of retread and that means lose the Marck and take Barney back to hooker*
* Of course this means the Pieter De Villiers fellaters will now have to admit the hero “coats” f—ked that one up with a Royal Flush… same as he did with poor Tiger who now need a release from his Sharks contract so he can somewhere to learn how to play again….
February 26th, 2010 at 10:37 am
Reply to DavidS @ 10:32 am: Strangely I must agree, Pienaar played better at 9 though.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Reply to Morné @ 10:29 am: Didn’t know we were allowed to say….
Sharks embarrassed us tonight.
Can’t believe the core is the same as the Dick Muir 2007 side….
February 26th, 2010 at 10:42 am
So no blaming the ref this week then?
February 26th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Now we know why RP wants to be 9 – he wants nothing to do with that back-line and the way they play
February 26th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Reply to DavidS @ 10:39 am:
Seen it on a one or two other sites as rumours as-well.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:46 am
So is this a
moment?
February 26th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Reply to Morné @ 10:29 am: Oom Rudi?
February 26th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Reply to manvanstaal @ 10:46 am: Plumbago can go to the NZAir and book his flight home so long….
Other rumours are that staff losses at Sharks are very imminent….
February 26th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Reply to DavidS @ 10:51 am: Thanks. Staff? Players, admin or coaches? Or all of the above?
February 26th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Reply to DavidS @ 10:51 am: Not as head coach… just caretaker while Todd Louden signs
February 26th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Reply to DavidS @ 10:53 am: Ooh right. Interesting.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:55 am
:WTF: Ag nee man – All the hype and hoo-hah and sponsors and tv programs and supporter clubs and academies and marketing ….. and then????
Poooooooof!!!!! It all goes up in smoke.
Nog ‘n jaar van
rugby.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Reply to manvanstaal @ 10:52 am: Players
February 26th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Reply to DavidS @ 10:58 am: Thanks..
February 26th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Reply to Minora @ 10:55 am:
I think ignoring their damned acadenmmy is half of what caused the problems.
Also look at what the academy has produced in the past three years….
Uhm…. nothing
And how many players from that academy are still around?
Beast
Kankowski
Keegan Daniel
Waylon Murray
JP Pietersen
Not a rich crop is it?
The Sharks have had to admit that in contrast with their northern cousins in Bloemfontein raiding grounds they DO NOT have the great crop of talented players bursting through their rich private schools near Howick as what they’d usually think…. in fact none are.
Now they can do nothing but look in envy at the Bulls with their Craven Week raiding system
Cheetahs and Stormers with their natural talents bursting out system
They’re in trouble as far as I am concerned
February 26th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Now that is how you score a bonus point with only 10 minutes left needing 2 tries.
And the Stormers couldn’t even score 1 in 20 minutes.
If that is the Bok frontrow that started for the Sharks, the Boks are in serious shit.
Toothless Sharks
February 26th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Reply to Deon @ 11:24 am: I’m sure if was the Sharks instead of the Waratahs they would have managed it.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Last time the Sharks started this badly, they ended last.
As I said will be poetic justice if they have to make way for the Kings.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Reply to manvanstaal @ 11:30 am:
The Sharks played better than the Waratahs in those clsoing minutes.
Nah the Saders had a plan and they executed it to perfection. The Stormers didn’t have a plan. But in any case let us talk again when they miss the semis or a home semi needing one log point or a bigger point difference.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Reply to Deon @ 11:32 am: Greatly assisted by the Sharks who where planless.
Maar ja, the Stormers will need to collect a few 5 pointers to be in with a shout.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Reply to Deon @ 11:32 am:
Then i especially want Morne here so he can answer seeing as he had the big mouth after the Tahs game
February 26th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 12:24 pm:
He’ll will say it is because they didn’t have JdV @10
February 26th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 12:24 pm:
Why? I already proved Deon is talking through his ass claiming the Stormers were all over the Tahs in the last 20 to 30 minutes.
He will also probably claim that because the Lions scored 9 tries against last year’s finalists it was supposed to be a given that the Stormers score at least 4 against a team that did not even make the semi’s in 2009…
February 26th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Reply to Morné @ 1:10 pm:
What did you prove?
That at 3 minute intervals the Stormers made so many mistakes that robbed themselves from a BP. Pull the other one and have a drag.
Exactly what I said. No plan, no patience to plant the knock out punch.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Husband: Everytime I stand infront of the mirror, I get a hard-on. Is it because I am so sexy? Or is it because I am so good-looking?
Wife: Maybe it is because you look like a doos.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Reply to Deon @ 1:15 pm:
No that they hardly had the ball to punch anything.
Move on, don’t let facts stand in your way.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Reply to Morné @ 1:19 pm:
I am going to ask you again. Please read what I am saying?
February 26th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Reply to Deon @ 1:20 pm:
I did, you obviously did not.
Quite difficult to score if you do not have the ball.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Reply to Morné @ 1:25 pm:
That at 3 minute intervals the Stormers made so many mistakes that robbed themselves from a BP
I will put it in bold. Now put on the fan and get rid of the smog between you and the computer screen.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Reply to Deon @ 1:30 pm:
Those 3 minute intervals describes the game in the last 20 minutes, of which the Tahs had well over 80% of the ball
Let’s see if you can follow your own advice…
February 26th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
And why did the Tahs get the ball? Because of the Stormers’ mistakes. Lost their concentration.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Reply to Deon @ 1:38 pm:
Because they were playing the better rugby.
Because they were the better team during that period same as in the first 20 minutes of the match.
You don’t just make mistakes in rugby, you are forced into them by good opposition.
But somehow you forgot rugby is actually played by TWO teams…
February 26th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Reply to Morné @ 1:43 pm:
So they were forced to knock the ball. Shit I must remember to tell boys that it is not their fault for taking their eyes off the ball.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Reply to Deon @ 1:52 pm:
I would avoid telling them anything for a while!!!
Mind you it is the Aussies…
On second thought, coach away dude!
February 26th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Reply to Deon @ 1:52 pm:
Since you quoted Philip the other day – go read his theories again on offensive defense and how to force errors…
February 26th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Reply to Morné @ 1:43 pm:
Really?? TWO TEAMS?? Wow! That is something new isn’t it. And the other team can also affect how you play?? WOW! Deon did you know this?
February 26th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Let’s see how teh Bulls handle the Tahs – I hope they win with a BP but what if they don’t? Could that mean that the Tahs defense is maybe a little better than expected?
HOWEVER – I was very dissapointed in the Stormers by NOT getting the BP in the Lions game! But as I said before this back-line & team is still finding it’s feet as a unit. I hope they will improve! To be honest they will have to to take on the likes of the Bulls, Canes and Saders!
February 26th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Reply to JT @ 2:00 pm:
Oh no that one is already covered as-well.
You see the Aussies and Tahs are only shit in their first week in SA, but distinctly better in their second.
So if the Bulls fail to score a BP victory against the Tahs it will be nothing to do with their ability as a team, or the Tahs as a team.
If they do however, then it will just highlight how kak the Stormers were.
You see it is a win-win situation for the Bulls and the argument above from Deon and Davids.
Now what type of logic or line of debate does that remind you of in recent years on RW???
February 26th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Reply to Morné @ 2:06 pm:
of course, how silly of me!!
February 26th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Reply to Morné @ 1:19 pm: Ja and don’t let your brain stand in the way of a good debate…
Uhm let’s see again
27 points first scored means the Stormers SHOULD have been able to knock the fiove pointer in 20 minutes but don’t let logic stand in your way … let the booze do the talking…
Reply to Morné @ 1:43 pm:
Jisis Morne but you are one eyed You’ve got your one eyed self aggradising opinion and you just refuse to see that there is merit to what Deon says….
Do you seriously not understand that Deon is saying if the Stormers could score 27 points, which included three tries…. they SHOLD have finished the job…. if the Tahs were that great where was their try?
I could turn your argument against you and say
There are two teams on the field and for forty minutes of the match the Stormers dominated scoring three tries and racking up 27 points so the question is why could they overrun the tahs for forty minutes of the match and not the other forty… what made the other forty different? Nothing… nothing at all…. but I suspect you cannot sense the logic or understand that your argument is so flawed it could be used to justify apartheid…. on religious grounds
Please I am trying to appeal to the intellectual who was in Namibia… not the drunken self opinionated barfly from Simonstown….
February 26th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 2:55 pm:
Barfly!
Hy suip darem nog
meestal by die huis
waar Heksie ‘n oog
oor hom kan hou.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 2:55 pm:
I explained it all on the other thread, if you did not get the point there it is no use repeating it.
Context is a wonderful thing.
You see without it, you would reckon the Lions played one blinder of a game scoring 65 points and coming within 7 points of the losing finalists of last year.
Context will however show you that this was a rubbish game of rugby with people on magazine shows (even in NZ) seriously questioning the law adaptations of 2010 and calling this game, an anomoly – or they wish it will be.
Also, without context you would think that the Reds win over the Crusaders a week ago was the biggest upset in the last 10 years in Super rugby given the comprehensive final score on the board that the Crusaders was beaten in.
Context however will show you no less than 3 tries scored from turn-overs and unforced errors from the Crusaders inflated that score which makes it no less a comprehensive a win, but also shows you the Crusaders are not a kak a team as that score suggest as this morning’s snotting of the Sharks showed.
So in a similar trend, a winning score of 27 or 26-6 over the Tahs will make you believe or ask why they were unable to score a bonus point try in this match.
Context will however show you the Tahs dominated the first and last 20 minutes of this match, with two of the three Stormers tries coming through turn-overs, charge downs and/or a lucky break dodgy TMO/referee call and that in FACT, the Stormers were not all over the Tahs, did not have them on the ropes for the majority of this game, did not dominate in possession and territory which would suggest they should have scored 4 tries and the only thing the Stormers effectively outplayed the Waratahs on, was that their defense which was outstanding, as it was in game 1, and as it was the most of 2009…
But like I said – do not let all these logical things stand in your guys’ way.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 3:02 pm:
Sy check hom vandat hy
daai slag met ‘n kar in
die branders gaan staan
het.
Reply to Morné @ 3:07 pm:
Die ERT verstaan net
die eerste deel van
die woord.
Cheers, ek is op pad
Hoenners toe. Mis al
weer die wedstryd,
sal darem met een oog
loer.
S T O R M E R S
February 26th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Reply to Morné @ 3:07 pm: Morne
Let me start by actually being serious for a change
WILL YOU STOP TALKING SHIT AND DAMNED WELL READ WHAT I AM WRITING AND DO SO BLADDY CRITICALLY
I am sorry but you are really irritating me by refusing to see logic and trying to change the subject. I am going to indulge your attempted change this one time.
1. The only positive thing about the Lions game was that it was entertaining.
2. The Crusaders and Reds have fuckall to dio with this argument
End of discussion on attempts to derail debate
Now in spite of what you say the fact is that often times tries are scored via turnovers. It is part of the game Jake White taught and that Alister Coetzee still espouses with his players.
Fact is let us look at othert context shall we
1. Apparently critic silencing Bok lock
2. Apparent best opensider after Rischie McCaw
3. FIVE internationals in the backline, two of whom are reckoned as the best in their position in the world.
4. Opponents who are in steady decline since 2005 with few real stars and a skipper who does not understand new applications and new coach and key player losses like Kanaar, Norton-Knight and Tequiri…
5. Aussie team that always backfires in their first game in SA
There is some context too.
Despite playing as kak as you allege the Stormers did they still managed to nail the Tahs with stoney defence and one try was pure class… so all we are saying is…
IN CONTEXT THEY SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE BP*
The Reds did….just for some more context…
Canadian chicks celebrate beating yanks… naughty hotties with cigars… nice
February 26th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 3:36 pm: Candian chicks
http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/vancouver/slideshow/ss.124;_ylt=AjKuIRnXHwmoKTP.0Vg.En5otLV_
February 26th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 3:36 pm:
No see obviously you do not understand context…
Your points:
1. No context to the game
2. No context to the game
3. No context to the game
4. No context to the game
5. No context to the game
You see all of that has nothing to do with what actually happened ON THE FIELD OF PLAY FOR 80 MINUTES.
The same as 14 years of Super rugby history involving the Crusaders HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT HAPPENED ON THE PARK FOR THE 80 MINUTES AGAINST THE REDS.
And what happened FOR 80 MINUTES ON THE PARK AGAINST THE REDS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT HAPPENED FOR 80 MINUTES AGAINST THE SHARKS THIS MORNING.
Because if it did, the result would not have been the snotting you saw.
So (and really try and see what is said here);
What happened for 80 minutes on the field in the Stormers/Tahs game, i.e. territory, possession, strike rates, tackles made etc. does in NO WAY suggest the Stormers should have scored 4 tries.
THAT… is relevant context, not the quantum mechanics theories you guys are proposing here.
The best backline in the world does not mean the team is 4 tries good for any game – it is what happens on the day – same with the Saders example, their history, strenght, depth, experience should have guarranteed a comfortable win in Brisbane, on the day, and for the 80 minutes – it was a different story – context…
If you do not get this, you never will and this discussion is pointless.
February 26th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
You are still not reading what I said
In that respect you are incapable of rational debate…
Perhaps you do not underatnd context so let me explain to you
1. Reds v Saders = nothing to do with Stormers Tahs
2. Lions Chiefs = nothing to do with Stormers Tahs
And yes amazingly it is as easy as that
My five points are exactly contextualized within the four corners of the discussion concerning a match that occurred last weekend between the Stormers and the Waratahs.
Your stats, your airs your attempted intelectualization and ad hominem sideling remarks concerning rugby knowldge from Deon and I are smoke and mirrors that simply underline your own inability to actually engage in a discussion postulated on the basis that in the Stormers Waratahs game the Stormers should have scored a bonus point… no bullshit about 2008, or the reds getting lucky margins or anything like that… just in the eighty minutes last week should or should the Stormers not have scored the BP..
Bt Morne you are apparently hardwires genetically programmed not to be able to debate inside a designated point so as long as what you are going to do all sorts of girly flights of fancy about the Tahs record back to 2005(if you saw the Caveman plays you will understand but that is too intellectual for you so I’ll just smugly smile at my own humour – hectic that an ERT is your intelelctual superior) this discussion serves no purpose.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 3:59 pm:
No you see everything I state is relevant to the game itself, not some cock-o-hoop perception you want to pass on as actual and physical fact.
So if you want smoke and mirrors, re-read your own posts.
All I am doing, is making you, and Deon aware of what happened for 80 minutes on the field, nothing more, nothing less.
So what I am proposing is not a theory of what should’ve, or could’ve happened, but what actually happened.
And what happens on the park for 80 minutes is what counts.
On the day, the Stormers were not good enough, and the opposition not weak enough to have them score 4 tries, simple.
I have shown you why, countless times, but you fail to see this, because you fail to see context and what actually happened.
So again, dont let the fact stand in your way – continue with your theories of could haves and should haves – it makes for entertaining reading at least, but means nothing.
February 26th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Anycase, as fun as this is, I am out.
Ciao
February 26th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Reply to Morné @ 4:07 pm: No you are not Morne
You are trying to contextualize what happened on the field by reference to irrelevancies in games and eras that differe markedly from Cape Town 2010 Stormers vs Waratahs
I am sorry your attempts to parrallell what occurred last weekend in Newlands with other matches and other reas is ridiculous.
You are from an intellectual perspective refusing to see the gaping holes in your own argument and you are still trying to postulate theorems to support the insupportable theorems you have built on clouds.
You are simply incapable of understanding that there could be a viable opinion other than your own… or believe that anyone could have the temerity to successfully undermine your opiniionated theorems.
Let me extract this for you:
_________________________________________________________________________________
All I am doing, is making you, and Deon aware of what happened for 80 minutes on the field, nothing more, nothing less.
So what I am proposing is not a theory of what should’ve, or could’ve happened, but what actually happened.
And what happens on the park for 80 minutes is what counts.
On the day, the Stormers were not good enough, and the opposition not weak enough to have them score 4 tries, simple.
I have shown you why, countless times, but you fail to see this, because you fail to see context and what actually happened.
______________________________________________________________________________________
This tells me you have not read anything either of Deo or I said about this game and you are actually clacking back exactly what both Deon and I said… so in efefct trying to use our initial views to now try and justify your own by yet again changing subject. Only this time you have chosen the wrong direction.
So let me correct your “Gatherer”* mentality
1. I was the one who said on the day the Stormers did not play well enough to earn the BP
2. I was(am) the one who told you to stick your refernces to crap outside of the game and concentrate on what happened on the field for 80 minutes
3. I was the one (inluding others) who said that given their dominance on the scoreboard and other RELEVANT context that occurred directly on the field in that 80 minutes the Stormers should have done a five point win…**
* Insider joke on you…
** you have still not answered that one though… and I suspect no matter how hard Deon and try you will never be able to — I’ll keep my reason speculation to myself because it is not complimentary