Return of The Evil Dead

Take noticing Mr Meyer! The zombied corpse of Old Springbok rugby that stalked the world in the middle part of the naughties was reanimated in the form of the Bulls hopefully for the last time to the oddly deserted Rugby League Park in Christchurch, and like the zombie hand relentlessly and hopelessly carrying out the simple and evidently doomed mission all over again they were cut to pieces.

The Crusaders, like the chainsaw bearing assailant easily butcher the corpse one more time and maybe the empty stands reveal that the fans in NZ are just about as bored by Old Springbok Rugby as the home fans in Durban who booed Morne Steyn off the park in the final ENG v SA test.

The contrast between name of the stadium and sport played in it was only just short of stark metaphor of the contest between two different games on field. The Bulls with the tiresome option to avoid playing rugby at all costs matched only by the desire of the Crusaders to do just the opposite and play another 80 minutes of intense thoughtful and skilful game plan.

Take note Mr Meyer! Look how the Sharks by contrasting dismantle the Reds and take away a rare handsome victory from Brisbanes fortress SunCorp Stadium! This is the direction to take the Springboks. He must make the new era base on this style and not reanimate the Zombie corpse again! like the comical parody of Zombies made in Evil Dead, so the tiresome anti-rugby play by the Springboks against ENG and the Bulls against Crusaders is now just a humorous parody of a once success genre. We don't need another sequel please!

Crusaders didn't look much better to be honest. I expect the winner of this competition to be a South African franchise, which in turn still gives Meyer a lot of good options.

A zombie corpse can be re-animated over and over. And can be quite effective eating brains, as that is what they do best.
Case in point: My old girlfriend's mother..............

AWOP the Bulls outscored the Crusaders two tries to one,the last one was a bit of a lucky bounce too.Bulls sans Smit,Matfield,Botha did`nt have the savage edge they used too.If they had been content too take them in 3`s the Bulls would have been closer.When Hougaard had to go to the wing there was a lot more zip from the Bulls.IF they had played that way for the full 80 it could have been closer.The turning point was when Fruen levelled a big Bulls forward from the ensueing plays Guildford scored game over.The Crusaders had the right game plan Scrum,stop the Lineout/Maul which they did very effectively.Keep the Scoreboard ticking over ,offensive.defence with ferocious tackling and counter rucking.This isn`t the Bulls of 2009 and the Crusaders are now infortunate position of a World Class tight five,a very good back row.Even without Read and a very good set of backs which apart from Dan Carter.Is not star studded but plays unselfishly as a team rather than some who have prima donnas who hog the limelite.There are at least 4 better 10`s than Morne Steyn on current form,to be fair the Bok sides have lost a lot of experience and suffered badly from injuries.By Comparison only Thorn,Kaino,Cowan and SBW are unavalable to NZ.True Borich,Williams,Kahui,and Slade are long term injured and Toeva is away but he has been carrying injuries as debilitating as those tha beset JonahLomu.A side with the defence of the Sormers and attack of the Sharks will be formidable indeed.

AWOP

In fairness the Bulls scored more trys than the Canterbury boys. or have I missed your point?

I did however get the feeling that Carter just had to sit back and kick the points as they were being offered, and there wasnt any shortage of those.

Morgannwg you must have very high standards the Crusaders except for a few miskicks were clinicall y efficent.Stormers because of home advantage and on that ALONE would be favourites.IF the Sharks beat the Stormers then a NZ side
will win it without doubt.Crusaders have the game to go to SA and win as they proved last year.

Emack, Crusaders were exactly everything you say. It's just the OP seemed to make out one team played all the rubgy. Both were unspectacular. I think the saders could beat the Stormers, but probably not the Sharks, they look more powerful than any other team. I also don't buy into this myth that SA do not play rugby. They can run it from their own 22 like anyone else. Just my view.

Yeah, I felt the crusaders were on cruise mode. Keeping their gunpowder dry for when they need to go bang. The last two weeks they've made plenty of subs when the game was considered won early. And why the heck were the bulls kicking the ball away when they needed to score tries? It was crazy.

Although I thought the sharks were impressive, the reds may not have been the best yard stick. This w/e will be when we find out, now that the rightful top 4 have been decided.

Morgan its the fact that the Crusaders can, at will, change a gameplan to counter whats thrown at them.

Its well known that in general the saders have been the best attacking side for some seasons now so even though they werent in that mode as Alan says they were able to dictate to the Bulls where they needed to- up front, punishing mistakes- all the methods used by past Bulls sides.

Against the Sharks if they meet they'll employ different tactics again but that front five is possibly the best there is at the moment. Expanse may not be the Sharks ally and they'll need a plan B should their all out attacking go awry, as it has this season. They havnt lost 6 matches for nothing.

Mind you, Im not even sure the saders will beat the Chiefs but I'm very confident in a NZ-played final win, the Sharks needing to do a first when in the past no SA or Oz side has come close to doing.

Sharks may beat the Stormers but a Stormers win would make for a more likely SA sxv win all the same, being at home.

Ok I need to answering some point here about the Bulls 2:1 try count to the game.

Well, the answer is : Look at the penalty count. Like any good Zombies, the Bulls were in simple term out to zombify the opponent and did not care to play to any kind of laws. The once suffocating defense of the francise has devolving through the reanimator process and get sloppy! Now they concede the penalty every time the Crusaders get to the 22. And good finals footbalists are the Crusaders they don't miss the chance!

But contrast the style of tries. Crusaders were all zip and angle and pinache. The Bulls were just like a herd of elephants rampage at the line without any subtle. Also by the time second Bulls try came, the game was well over and the Crusaders made a lot of changes already.

Morgannwg wrote:Crusaders didn't look much better to be honest. I expect the winner of this competition to be a South African franchise, which in turn still gives Meyer a lot of good options.

I think you watch the wrong channel Morgannwg! The Crusaders were excellent. They dominate the breakdown, won the set pieces, rattled Morne Steyn completely (who was terrible kicking form, and also out of position to allow the Crusaders try, and then give away 3 kickable penalties - he was terrible. probably is the worst fall in form of any leading international player ever I can remembering about exception of Gavin Heston! ). Carter kicked all the points squander by the Bulls through ill-discipline emanate from their beaten pack, and when they choose the back-line route, they had pace and creative and accurate! For a high stake finals game, was some very attractive rugby, and mostly composure. The Crusaders never look like losing this game from 3-0 up and leading all the way!

Looking at the sharks results last few weeks there is some serious consistency there I must agree.

If they do win it might suggest a shift to the more expansive game as with the combination of so many of the old guard finishing up the lions cheetahs and sharks look to be leading the way with some very scintillating and attacking rugby, but in the sharks maintaining some of that forward power as well.

Surely Meyers got to start looking at real backline attack options given a dominant pack is not likely this year. And to do that better 10 options is where to start.

Meyer cannot keep on selecting his pivotal positions of 8, 9, 10 and 15 with Spies, Hougaard, steyn and Kirchner.

Kankowski is better than Spies, Vermeulen is better than Spies, when Burger returns and Marcell Coetzee being in such prodigious form, Burger will be twice the player Spies is.

Hougaard has promise, but he needs to be released from this kick and chase game, it doesn't suit his natural flair.

Lambie, Grant and Goosen is all better than Steyn, better suited to an attacking game, and more accurate this season with the boot, even Jantjies shows more promise.

If Lambie is not selected at 10 then he is the best candidate for 15, even Jaco Taute and Louis Ludick is better than Kirchner.

Meyer need to remove his blinkers, then the Boks will show they can score tries as creative as the All Blacks.

The sharks, Lions ad Cheetahs have shown that in heaps this year.

Zombies playing rugby???

are you sure you werent watching the walking dead?

You play to your strengths. But the Crusaders knew what the Bulls' strengths are. They haven't changed their gameplan in years. So the Crusaders went out to nullify the Bulls. Why? Because they offer up nothing else. They don't have a plan B. So match or better them at the breakdown and set piece and through pressure watch them get frustrated and give away penalties. It wasn't pretty from the Saders but it sure was effective. That's why SA should remove the axis of evil and put in players who can mix it up on attack. That doesn't mean score tries like the Sharks did in Brisbane. That was beautiful to watch but it won't be that easy in the backs at test level. But certainly the ball in hand with short offloads from forwards and backs alike is a lot more difficult to defend against than players battering the line and looking to break through the line with power.

Yes and I think Steyn has perhaps shown just enough last few weeks to warrant his very overdue ommission even in Meyers thinking.

A few points to be fair to the Bulls they lost there First Choice hooker and leading winger early.When they ran at the Crusaders early in the second half they won penalties.Morne Steyn is very one dimensional BUT is it him or the Coach?I do not know personally if the SA Coaches[Bulls/Boks] encourage there players to think.OR act like robots the game Plan is every thing don`t deviate from it.Fourie Du preez was very much the attacking brain,Steyn the goal kicker
his stats still are relatively good at that.The most feared weapon over the last few seasons was the Bulls/Boks Lineout/Rolling Maul.It made sense play to your strength Matfield/Botha/Spies were the best Lineout unit in the game.BUT a season or so ago the Blues showed how to stop the Rolling Maul by breaking it up into Pods.the AllBlacks/Crusaders using those methods have successfully defended it since.The Bok Scrum has`nt been any thing like dominant for several years compared to the AllBlacks Scrum.This year that is likely to continue the AB`s have lost physicality at 4 and 6 BUT gained in athleticsm.There Lineout with 5 Genuine options assuming Thomson/Vito ,Read, McCaw,Whitelock,Romano is better than at time since 2005/6.The Scrum if Woodcock is out Crockett at loosehead is not weakened and is probably THE strongest of the 3Ns sides.Argentina always have a strong set piece.Spies is a great athlete but a Number 8 he is not,Kankowski is now Europe bound Alberts for me at 8.Juan Smith and Burger would be my flanker choice,but one won`t and the other is unlikely to play all matches.Gio Aplon or Lambie at 15,Hougaard at 9.Peter Grant,Lambie or Earl Rose at 10.Franny Steyn needs the Weepu treatment benched until his game is back up to SH speed he`s still in NH mode.
Meyer is supposedly an intelligent Coach,he has players who can win games without rigid thinking use them.Are Habana and Pietersen now the best available wings they are solid and dependable is that enough ?Rigid thinking will be death for sides in the 4Ns.Crusaders show the way they think on there feet and adapt
a couple of seasons ago Dan Carter would`nt dream of Dropping goals.Now he does them as a matter of course.Only Grant Fox[7] has dropped more for NZ Carter has 5 equal with Merthens,Don Clarke,Mac Herewini.SA and Nz don`t have the luxury of other sides there expected to win every game.If they don`t the Media looks for scapegoats.

alan a few notes.

Frans Steyn is in good form, he has lost a lot of weight and has done some sublime stuff for the Boks in the two tests he played, for the sharks in thelast two matches he was allowed to play was excellent.

Pietersen is in the form of his life, he looks confident and has scored some scintilating tries for the Boks against England, some very good tries for the sharks, is very dangerous from deep at the moment, was brilliant in defence against the Reds on the weekend, and in my humble opinion the form 14 of the super XV.

Habana is not back to his best, but currently still good enough, his attack form is slowly returning, he has had some good runs over the past two months, his positional play and defence is still better than any other 11 we have.

Alan a few notes.

Yes carter kicked a drop goal, the thing was they (crusaders) were right in front, on the 22 and playing "under adavantage", so if it had of missed he would of just been kicking another penalty anyway. By the way it was off his right foot.

THAT was`nt my point a few years ago Dan Carter would`nt have tried he has done it recently for Crusaders too.Setting up drop goals in tight games is also coming into AB`s thinking.Frans Steyn was good inthe last two Bok matches he played BUT that was in RWC 2011.Frans has been reported to have been a bit in and out with his form since return from NH.Biltong I know you rate him highly.

He was good against england in june as well Alan.

Pieterson has been good this year. Very good. In fact the pick of the SA backs. Its an odd situation we have with the final scenarios. The most unlikeliest is the sharks winning in all three countries to take the title. They're good but that's a big ask.

A chiefs or saders stormers match is the other in SA and for me its still anyones game. Injuries might have a big say and if carter is still standing after 80 minutes in SA I'll be amazed.

The quiet ones here are the chiefs. Rumour has it they've trained 'rigourously' throughout the layoff and they'll be ready.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:Crusaders didn't look much better to be honest. I expect the winner of this competition to be a South African franchise, which in turn still gives Meyer a lot of good options.

I think you watch the wrong channel Morgannwg! The Crusaders were excellent. They dominate the breakdown, won the set pieces, rattled Morne Steyn completely (who was terrible kicking form, and also out of position to allow the Crusaders try, and then give away 3 kickable penalties - he was terrible. probably is the worst fall in form of any leading international player ever I can remembering about exception of Gavin Heston! ). Carter kicked all the points squander by the Bulls through ill-discipline emanate from their beaten pack, and when they choose the back-line route, they had pace and creative and accurate! For a high stake finals game, was some very attractive rugby, and mostly composure. The Crusaders never look like losing this game from 3-0 up and leading all the way!

Only you could bring Gavin Henson into a SXV thread. I watched the game, and agreed with Emacks summisation of the saders. You seemed to make out one team was playing some breathtaking rugby, but no team was. The Crusaders never looked like losing, that I agree with.

You keep seeing what you want Morgan! And I'll keep talking about the true!

anotherworldofpain wrote:You keep seeing what you want Morgan! And I'll keep talking about the true!

its truth.

It's it's.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:It's it's.

got me

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:It's it's.

It's It's isn't it?

11 was a racehorse. 22 was 12. When 1111 race 22112...


or...


One one was a race horse. Two two was one too. When One one won one race, Two two won one too.

80085

Although this thread was started about the Bulls in relation to the Boks,it is obvious to even the most biased observer.Despite losing at least eight top players,some who may have gone over the top.Barring injuries they can field a very good side the key for them.Will like the other SH sides be WHEN they field
the younger guys.Many like England this year have been good at Club/Provincial level.But failed to step up consistently enough to replace the current incumbent.
The Super title is usually won by the Home Finalist,and often the top of the league as well.THAT is the norm for the 3Ns too travel being the main factor.
No one could quibble at a Chiefs/Stormers final they have been the form teams all year.Unfortunately the bean counters by continuing to expand the Super Comp which is now Super in name only.Is hurting the National sides with player burn out,injuries etc.Injuries which in amateur days would have been shrugged off now mean several weeks lay off every thing has to be PC for fear of litigation.

Having looked at the comparative results I agree with most that the Sharks will beat the Stormers now. the last few games the Stormers have played table bottoms and only just won. Theyve hardly scored tries and before that were beaten by the sharks.

Since that match the Sharks have got stronger and will be pumped by the Reds win.

Funnily enough the only sides to beat the Stormers are the two theyve potentially yet to play- Sharks and Crusaders. (they didnt face the Chiefs)

So most things point to a NZ based final and a tough road for the Sharks.

But overall it is probably the best thing for SA rugby for a non Bulls/ Stormers (ie 'attacking') side to contest the final. Should make for a better match and perhaps a slight changing of the guard a little to get Meyer thinking along a slightly more expansive approach for the RC?

Yes, is my point really Taylorman. Meyer must discontinue the zombie apocolypse and change to some thinking, expansive and skillful rugby instead of the mindless shambling relentless forward amble of the walking brain dead.

Yes
I agree awop we've said exactly the same thing yet funnily enough never used a single same word to do so.

When was the last time SA really embraced a 'running' or expansive style? I recall in recent memory they tried, but don't think it was that successful.

Transition take the time.

I recall in this BULLS v CRUSADER game when the bulls get so far behind they try to switch to run the ball but from rust and not practise the skills it was some disaster. They just shuffle sideways and get knocked backwards each tackle and lose the turn over.

SA must start to build around the correct combinator for the running game, which means sacrifice some power and there is a cultural change that might be hard to accepting. Like when ENG's scrum become fragile because they picking more mobile forwards there was some minor rioting in rugby fans because they can't accept this shift to the focus.

Is all about BALANCE!

If you look at the super series over the years the SA sides have always been among the most attacking of teams in the entire competition. This year the sharks lions and cheetahs were easily amongst the most open sides, and at times, so were the bulls and stormers.

The issue isn't that they don't have attacking rugby, its that they don't embrace it at the higher levels...sxv finals time and internationals. Selection of the bok xv should logically start with either the well established incumbants providing they are still the best in their position, or, the best in each position throughout the sxv.

But they don't. They select a team based on those who are famliar with the tried and true formula of bok power based rugby. That's why they get such a wide variation in form. Players are picked on their ability to work to the plan regardless of how they are actually playing individually. This is why players like steyn and smit kept on getting selected.

EBOP wrote:When was the last time SA really embraced a 'running' or expansive style? I recall in recent memory they tried, but don't think it was that successful.

You have to go back to Nick Mallet.

Taylorman wrote:Yes
I agree awop we've said exactly the same thing yet funnily enough never used a single same word to do so.

I expect it has to do with respect Taylorman.

biltongbek wrote:

EBOP wrote:When was the last time SA really embraced a 'running' or expansive style? I recall in recent memory they tried, but don't think it was that successful.

You have to go back to Nick Mallet.

Biltong, did the div'meister have a little flirt with a running the ball back game plan?

Good morning Biltong! And congratulation to you for beating my team of ENG at cricket! It was some great day of enjoyment to go on the Oval and watch some cricket! Well done SA! and I apologise for any lacking of respect in my zombie analogy.

EBOP wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

EBOP wrote:When was the last time SA really embraced a 'running' or expansive style? I recall in recent memory they tried, but don't think it was that successful.

You have to go back to Nick Mallet.

Biltong, did the div'meister have a little flirt with a running the ball back game plan?

He did EBOP, we beat OZ by 50 oints on our return from the antipodes in 2008.

Then his players overpowered him and well the rest is sad history.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Good morning Biltong! And congratulation to you for beating my team of ENG at cricket! It was some great day of enjoyment to go on the Oval and watch some cricket! Well done SA! and I apologise for any lacking of respect in my zombie analogy.

AWOP, thanks for the congratulations, as far as the springbok gameplan, you have made your opinions clear on it for some time now, so it doesn't bother me in the slightest, I take it from wence it comes.

I mean it in good fun Biltong on the "off-season" in break to the international rugby, but maybe it miss the mark and make some frustration so I will cut it out now since already this point is made.

biltongbek wrote:

EBOP wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

EBOP wrote:When was the last time SA really embraced a 'running' or expansive style? I recall in recent memory they tried, but don't think it was that successful.

You have to go back to Nick Mallet.

Biltong, did the div'meister have a little flirt with a running the ball back game plan?

He did EBOP, we beat OZ by 50 oints on our return from the antipodes in 2008.

Then his players overpowered him and well the rest is sad history.

Whoa, why why why!!! I thought they'd tried running willy nilly at some point and it wasn't a great success, my bad.

Yeah, well done on the cricket win, número uno coming your way. That Amla knows what he's doing

Hi ya biltong. Just watching Reunion.

Huge respect for the sharks coming through. Suggestions that plumtrees influence has brought some NZ flavour in terms of the width but also the form of some of those guys...coetsee, peterearson, etc. They're really thriving out there and if meyer gets it right he could put out a truly formidable side.

Peterson particularly, even though he's always been strong he seems to have much more purpose in going forward. There's a definite change in the way their attacking in that its more planned rather than finding themselves in space through pressure such as the bulls do and there's none of this needing the up front domination before they can attack stuff. They just went for it from anywhere. Nice and wide...quick and all the right stuff.

Agree that the sharks will beat the stormers and its a pity theyll be stuffed when they get here as like most sxv finals its not been an even playground.

Taylorman, I am actually in two minds here.

For the springboks I would like it if the Sharks lose against the stormers as the Boks will get some rest. But then I want the sharks to win because hopefully it will be further proof to Heyneke Meyer that our future lies elsewhere than the Bulls and stormers game plan or should I say their intent on how to play the game.

The other side of the coin from the SR perspective is, the sharks will have almost no chance of travelling back again to the antipodes and win.

Where as the stormers might win at home in a bore fest.

So what to do?

Talking about how the sharks played. It is just another confirmation that we have players with the ability to make something out of nothing, and we have discussed this numerous times. That is what you need when you are down by ten in the last quarter. Not some indiot who keeps on kicking away possession.

EBOP wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

EBOP wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

EBOP wrote:When was the last time SA really embraced a 'running' or expansive style? I recall in recent memory they tried, but don't think it was that successful.

You have to go back to Nick Mallet.

Biltong, did the div'meister have a little flirt with a running the ball back game plan?

He did EBOP, we beat OZ by 50 oints on our return from the antipodes in 2008.

Then his players overpowered him and well the rest is sad history.

Whoa, why why why!!! I thought they'd tried running willy nilly at some point and it wasn't a great success, my bad.

Yeah, well done on the cricket win, número uno coming your way. That Amla knows what he's doing

EBOP, they can keep the numero uno, it means little to me, I just want the series win.

Sharks are on high biltong and they're really enjoying their rugby..really enjoying it and theyll be pumped. Taking on the reds with a wide game like that and doing them at home at their own game. They have all the energy. Stormers meanwhile have injuries and bye after some not too convincing wins.

Chiefs v Stormers final.

I will wager for it because I am certaity and when I am certainty I am not wrong.