Crusaders versus Lions

I know I've left but I still have to ponder:

Are the Crusaders superior to the Lions pride of 2013?

The basis for my comparison is the Way the Lions stumbled past a depleted Queensland Reds outfit in a nervous and error strewn display for a 22-12 return versus the clinical execution by the Crusaders who smashed a full strength Reds side in a competition knock out match, pummelling them at the breakdown, nullifying Genia and Cooper and then surgically dissected the midfield weakness with relentless and ruthless repetition. Result: 38-9. Reds try-less. Hard to believe Richie McCaw only played 10 minutes.

The Crusaders overwhelmed the Reds defensively and then applied collective rugby nous to isolate a weakness and continue to exploit it with deft running lines, silky execution and unity in the collective which at time bordered on telepathic awareness of the peerless playmakers thinking.

It's a shame that a Lions tour's warm up is not against neighbouring super rugby outfits who would have no need to hide their star players isn't it? Worth a thought.

I'd reply but you've already left.

You do raise an interesting philosophical question. If a WUM falls down but no is around to hear it, has he indeed fallen and did it make a sound?

I think you'll find the Crusader's key players are hitting their peak now and the Red's looked tired and out of sorts, notably in the forwards and the midfield. It was a commanding display from the Crusaders and the Reds tactics were naive and they thought they could take Canterbury up front. Worrying signs for the Wallabies if McKenzie assesses the gameplan so poorly with the Wallabies.

Gloriousempire you do realise that the Lions tour is at the end of their season. Plus the Lions are a team brought together for a few weeks. Not a club who train week in week out.

It wasn't the strongest Lions team either.

I know you like to shout from the rooftops how great NZ and their clubs are so your thread doesn't surprise.

kiakahaatorea greyghost hasn't left. He craves attention far too much.

Beshocked the fact that he posted a thread gave it away that he hadn't left.  

He's a bit like Voldemort. His physical form has been taken away but he's biding his time until he can once again assume physical form when he finds the right person to take over. Then his strength will return and he will once again feed on the living souls of the poor and unsuspecting.

I do agree with him though that NZ and the Crusaders are worth singing their praises from rooftops.  

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I do agree with him though that NZ and the Crusaders are worth singing their praises from rooftops.  

It's all about how you sing it though and whether or not you just use it to denigrate other nations like the OP is wont to do.

The OP tends to be a bit when it comes to this tune.

It was always too good to be true. I guess he's gathered his toys back into the pram ready for another big strop.

kiakahaatorea nice similie. You could also compare him to Sauron - perhaps more appropriate as obviously Lord of the Rings is filmed in NZ. Or perhaps Morgoth.

Singing praise from the rooftops is what most posters do but as Cyril says - greyghost likes to put down others a lot more than most others.

Plus the Lions tour is old news now.

Focus should surely be on the rugby championship (great name by the way) for you SH lot. For us NH lot the focus is next season.

beshocked wrote:kiakahaatorea nice similie.  You could also compare him to Sauron - perhaps more appropriate as obviously Lord of the Rings is filmed in NZ. Or perhaps Morgoth.

Singing praise from the rooftops is what most posters do but as Cyril says - greyghost likes to put down others a lot more than most others.
Plus the Lions tour is old news now.

Focus should surely be on the rugby championship (great name by the way) for you SH lot. For us NH lot the focus is next season.

Bit of a hard ballencing act that mind, after all in order to be the best you need to point out that the rest are not up to grade. Although constantly hearing it does get grating pretty quick. Also I am not too sure how good the Crusaders really are after all I can't remember them ever beating Connacht, Zebre or the Falcons before, so they can't be that good.

 It's just strange that Greyghost is claiming Crusaders are better than the Lions based on the Reds (an Aussie club side) being beaten less by the Lions than the Crusaders.

True Scarlets. I do perhaps put down Zebre and Connacht a little too much. Now is the time for their redemption in the HC. They have an opportunity to make me look like a fool for doubting them.

Focus is on the Super semi finals at the moment. At least for me and my beloved Crusaders.

Not too enamoured with the name Rugby Championship. Far too bland for my liking. An intriguing championship awaits though, that's for sure. Already have a thread up on that.

What GG says about the rugby on Saturday is accurate. Forget about the Lions subtext. Cyril used to rub a few Welsh posters the wrong way.  If you stick to discussing rugby, you'd be surprised what insights you can get out of a poster. If you feel there's no rugby to discuss then don't bother posting.

The third test in any event saw the Lions punish weakness in the scrum, smart counter attacking exposed the Wallaby defensive line and good support play saw the gaps convert into tries. A clinical and calculated display from both sides.

Nice one SS. The most consistent and most successful SH franchise will keep doing all the unseen work and leave the plaudits to big international club names like Swansea.  A bit like Lydiate. You'll only realise he's gone when he's no longer there.

'Shocked - that wasn't meant as an aside at you, I was just thinking that the Crusaders are arguably the best side in the SH, but have never really proven themselves against an NH side (to my memory), so on the scale of greatness we can't really carry out a comparison between them and the likes of Leinster, Toulouse, Clermont etc.

Kia -  That is the best Lydiate comparison I have read on here in a while.

We played in London at Twickers in 2011 and won convincingly SS. The British commentary team gushed over the scintillating play on offer. What more do you need?  

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:What GG says about the rugby on Saturday is accurate. Forget about the Lions subtext. Cyril used to rub a few Welsh posters the wrong way.

The subtext is the text. There would be no article otherwise. The other stuff is just padding.

I get on fine with the Welsh, disregarding a few of the more rabid ones.

Crusaders aren't as good as they used to be, I remember as far back as 2005/6 they could go to Pretoria and put 50 past the Bulls without looking like they broke a sweat. They also only lost one game in an entire season in successive years (it may have been 2008), and that was to the Chiefs. As the years have gone on they've been thrashed themselves by Reds, Stormers, Blues and probably more; I can't remember them all. Believing that this average Crusaders team can beat the Lions team that thrashed Aus is ridiculous when you put in all the mitigating factors that posters have already listed above. Now I don't really see what else there is to discuss which makes this a very poor article.

This so-called average side The Saint has made the play offs 14 out of the past 16 times. I hardly think that an average side would be able to do that.

Of course they haven't won a title since 2008 so by that definition they haven't been as successful as they have been. But they have won all their play off games at home. The thing that has hurt the Crusaders in the playoffs is that they haven't had home advantage for the latter games. There are very few teams historically who have been able to overcome the home advantage.

The season is getting longer and the ABs have to be managed well. That has been a failing in the past but Blackadder seems to be getting his stars to fire at the right end of the season. They now have two away games to claim the title. A tall ask but the way it should be as the Crusaders have dropped too many games against sides they should beat.

The Brumbies managed to beat the Lions The Saint. The Crusaders wouldn't be playing the test side so your claims don't make much sense. As are GG's. Many complained that teams like the Force didn't respect the Lions but the Crusaders would've been no different resting their key players in a game that wouldn't have served them any purpose.

This Crusaders outfit of the past 2-3 seasons is average compared to the previous Crusaders sides that have dominated the competition. How many times have they made the play-offs since 2008?
Why don't my claims make sense? Nobody specified what sort of Lions team would be on the pitch playing against the Crusaders. If we assume it's the final test team then I would have to strongly disagree with the Saders beating them. Surely if GG believes they would then he also believes the Crusaders to be in the top 3 of world rugby.

Since 2008 I'm not sure but they've made the last three out of 3 playoffs. There'd be Just the one time I suspect. They have beaten the Stormers twice away but have fallen in away games afterwards.

It's all hypothetical but if the Lions test team faced the Crusaders of last Saturday the result wouldn't be as clear cut as you think.

The Crusaders would probably win, tbh. They'd lose in the scrum but be tougher than Aus. They'd dominate the breakdown with as strong a back row as any int team. They have carter and though he may be on the decline his recent form is sublime, and don't forget he has destroyed a Lions team on his own before. In a composite 15 they probably have as many starters as the lions and are far more used to playing together. It would be incredibly tough

ChequeredJersey wrote:The Crusaders would probably win, tbh. They'd lose in the scrum but be tougher than Aus. They'd dominate the breakdown with as strong a back row as any int team. They have carter and though he may be on the decline his recent form is sublime, and don't forget he has destroyed a Lions team on his own before. In a composite 15 they probably have as many starters as the lions and are far more used to playing together. It would be incredibly tough

Yepthe only reason the Lions won a match was Australian ineptitude,1st Test with the boot and 3rd Test in the scrum.If the Lions played the Crusaders with the same shockingly conservative gameplan they wouldn't stand a chance.I think a few of the top French clubs would have beaten them too.

A well-drilled 'club' side from most of the top leagues could have beaten the Lions. I don't think there's much doubt about that.

Preparation and superior tactics will always do well against a cobbled-together side. Especially one without much in the way of variation.

Cyril wrote:A well-drilled 'club' side from most of the top leagues could have beaten the Lions. I don't think there's much doubt about that.

Preparation and superior tactics will always do well against a cobbled-together side. Especially one without much in the way of variation.

+1 to that. To be fair most top clubs are far superior to their own national sides too.

Well we know how badly the Crusaders did against the Saracens ultimately.

Don't start the Leinster is the second best team in world rugby debate!

A good club side with its normal squad is always a challenge for a touring test side. But a good test side will always be the favourite. They are expected to win which doesn't mean they always do.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Don't start the Leinster is the second best team in world rugby debate!

A good club side with its normal squad is always a challenge for a touring test side. But a good test side will always be the favourite. They are expected to win which doesn't mean they always do.

Leinster didnt have a great year by their lofty standards despite winning two trophies. Their stellar run is probably winding down unfortunatly. Sad because they rarely get to play touring sides unlike our neighbouring provinces. The last time they played NZ for example was in '89. Cant remember the last time they played OZ or SA.

Munster and Connacht have played NZ, AUS and SA quite recently.

Just referring to a thread a while back before the November internationals where a UK or Irish journo claimed there were only two sides of playing decent attacking rugby - NZ and Leinster - and our Phantom Menace had a field day.

Club games vs test sides are certainly compelling viewing. We could well do with a few more.

This is the age old argument about the advantages clubs have over international teams and which would be stronger - the team full of internationals who only play together for short blocks at a time, or the club team who are together all year round, do pre-season practice, etc. I personally think that club sides who are able to train together all the time, know each other's ins and outs, have perhaps a few seasons worth of experience together, are potentially stronger than a team full of internationals pulled together in short time and coming from different coaching environments - however, we usually only see international v international teams so they're all in the same boat there. International v Club exposes some of the issues of international rugby. The Baa Baas are a good example of this problem - international quality but thrown together last minute doesn't always mean they are as good as the sum of their parts.

But to back up my 'club can be better than international' point, just look at how Newport and Llanelli have beaten the All Blacks more recently than Wales have; the Ospreys beating Australia more recently than Wales have (no the Lions doesn't count, naughty!); how Munster pushed the All Blacks closer than Ireland did at home (if memory serves), Leicester beating Australia recently(?), etc.

So yes, the Crusaders may well be better than the Lions because IMO club sides are often better than international sides by virtue of their settled nature, practice together, etc. Where it gets interesting in this debate is where you consider a team like Toulon - a club side AND full of internationals in all positions include in the bench. I reckon they'd beat a few international sides as they have the best of both worlds.

Back to the Crusaders - here's the money question: would the Crusaders beat the All Blacks???

Difficult to answer Griff as there are a number of ABs in the Crusaders! They'd certainly be a handful like any other decent club side.

I think that club sides who have been successful have often played mid week test sides rather than the best team on offer. The test team is still expected to win but they face teams that are well drilled and familiar with their combinations. Often the mid week teams are trying out new combinations. That's what makes them exciting to watch as they're normally evenly matched due to the circumstances in which they play.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Difficult to answer Griff as there are a number of ABs in the Crusaders! They'd certainly be a handful like any other decent club side.

I think that club sides who have been successful have often played mid week test sides rather than the best team on offer. The test team is still expected to win but they face teams that are well drilled and familiar with their combinations. Often the mid week teams are trying out new combinations. That's what makes them exciting to watch as they're normally evenly matched due to the circumstances in which they play.

Recently that has been true of the club sides as well.Leicester beat S.A. with a pretty experimental team and Munster beat Aus and ran N.Z. very close with teams that were a mix of 1st,2nd and 3rd string players.

That's true. I guess that's the difficulty of scheduling games like that or the Lions game. The test and club calendar overlap and add in injuries and it's becoming increasingly rare to get your best side out on the field be it club or test side.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Difficult to answer Griff as there are a number of ABs in the Crusaders! They'd certainly be a handful like any other decent club side.

I think that club sides who have been successful have often played mid week test sides rather than the best team on offer. The test team is still expected to win but they face teams that are well drilled and familiar with their combinations. Often the mid week teams are trying out new combinations. That's what makes them exciting to watch as they're normally evenly matched due to the circumstances in which they play.

Recently that has been true of the club sides as well.Leicester beat S.A. with a pretty experimental team and Munster beat Aus and ran N.Z. very close with teams that were a mix of 1st,2nd and 3rd string players.

The SA team that lost to Leicester was very much a midweek team, with some players even Biltong may struggle to remember. some good ones too though:

South Africa: Rose, Ndungane, De Jongh, Olivier, Nokwe, Pienaar, Adams, Steenkamp, Ralepelle, Du Plessis, Rossouw, Bekker, Potgeiter, Raubenheimer, Johnson.
Replacements: Maku for Ralepelle (20), Van der Merwe for Steenkamp (43), Deysel for Raubenhemier (49), Hougaard for Adams (55), Hargreaves for Rossouw (60), Bosman for Olivier (64), Viljoen for Rose (70).



The Leicester team was very much experimental, missing their 6 EPS players (Moody, Kay, Croft, Crane, Deacon and Hipkiss) and had 7 first team regulars unavailable due to injury. Manu mad his first ever appearance for us while Ben youngs was the goal kicker:

Leicester: Hamilton, Amorosino, Forsyth, M Tuilagi, Murphy, Mauger, Youngs, Stankovich, Davies, Castrogiovanni, Green, Hemingway, Parling, Pienaar, Deacon.
Replacements: Hammond for Deacon (13), Chuter for Davies (52), Tuqiri for Amorosino (55), Armes for Pienaar (61), Cole for Castrogiovanni (66).

Anyway, I think a fully fit Canterbury Crusaders lineup would beat most international teams, and woudl probably beat the Kiwis (excluding their Crusaders of course who would be playing for the club team).Against a scratch side like the Lions, you would expect them to go very well, though maybe lose a 3 match series against the test team 2:1.


I think that in a lot of cases the best club sides could match up very well against their International team that would be shorn of any representatives of the club side. You would expect Toulon to beat France. Glagow to beat Scotland etc.

In england a Tigers team of:

Ayerza, Youngs, Cole, Kitchener, Parling, Croft, Sali, Crane, Youngs, Flood, Thompstone, Allen, Tuilagi, Morris, Tait

Would match up pretty well against (based on the current EPS):

Corbisiero, Hartley, Wilson, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Robshaw, Morgan, Care, Farrell, Brown, Barritt, Joseph, Ashton, Goode.

I know I've left, but I have to respond to get this thread back on track.

What about my thought that a touring Lions squad should "warm up" against neighbouring super rugby franchises without the need for top players to be hidden/rested?

They could even go on tour to the host nation. Better warm ups, better rugby surely?

Imagine the Lions playing the chiefs full strength in Sydney or Melbourne. You'd get bigger crowds there for a start.

Also like to point out that NH clubs are stronger than their internationals because the clubs lure so many SANZAR ex reps who once upon a time were in eligible for full NH international status. Not true in the SH where club sides would and have benefited little from the likes of Haskell and Cipriani only.

You crack me up. You're not here but we can still see and hear you.  

The Super tournament was going on when the Lions came. Even if the Crusaders didn't play in order to play the Lions, they would have no vested interest in risking their top players to injury or fatigue when their goals are winning the Super tournament.

Which is why I found some of the vehement criticism of the sides the Lions faced a little hypocritical. If the NH clubs don't put out their top team to play the touring SH test teams why should the Australian franchise teams do the same?

I know I've left but ill answer that one:

Because it's more embarrassing when they lose to the second string Brumbies than the first team. That's why.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:You crack me up. You're not here but we can still see and hear you.  

The Super tournament was going on when the Lions came. Even if the Crusaders didn't play in order to play the Lions, they would have no vested interest in risking their top players to injury or fatigue when their goals are winning the Super tournament.

Which is why I found some of the vehement criticism of the sides the Lions faced a little hypocritical. If the NH clubs don't put out their top team to play the touring SH test teams why should the Australian franchise teams do the same?

I'd guess that since the Lions are such a rare occurence and make such a substantial amount of money for the host nation that they expect different treatment.I'm pretty sure that when the next contract is drawn up between Sanzar and the Lions there will be clauses that hold the host nation to putting out a higher standard of opposition in the warm ups.

The reason club sides are able to knock off touring sides is because in terms of the success of the tour they are by default secondary to the cause and there are many more opportunities to do so.

Sure llanelli and Newport knocked off the ABs more recently than Wales but they were also two of 50 other sides to have a crack at the AB's outside the tests on those two long tours. If it werent Llanelli and Newport it would be two other names, whereas the Welsh only had two matches in either tour.

If the Lions toured NZ with the ultimate goal a 3 test series vs the Saders I would expect a 3-0 win to the Lions. The depth of the Saders just doesnt run that deep to hold off the resources of a fully laden international touring side, even if it isnt from the top two or three.

Same with the munster win in 78. The ABs lost for sure but the primary goal- the Grand slam, was achieved. If the tours primary focus was munster...no chance. Just the way tours were...numbers versus primary goals.

A stronger Brumbies side?

I doubt it very much. Part of the alleged mystique of the Lions is the ability to put apparently strong sides to the sword inspiring the part time fan who knows not the difference. Some
Rugby "fans" I've spoken to who only really follow lions tours because of the hype still don't realise just how depleted Australia were going into the third test. Or first or second for that matter.

Deans was already out before the third test, thats obvious now, not so much beforehand- theyd already spoken to McKenzie before the test. That must have meant the side wasnt operating on full throttle.

But the Lions were in the same position selection wise, Gatland changing at least 5 positions every test- he didnt get it right until the third test. For me they were still very even sides but Oz just didnt have it together, from the burger boy attitude to the missed kicks etc and on the other hand the Lions stuck with it, hung on grimly in one and nearly the other and finally got their sh*(t together in the last.

Two even sides, one working out how to win the series in the end, one working out how not to.

Credit where credits due I'm afraid GE.

Is this a serious statement or a WUM?the following are facts the Crusaders record,only twice
missing the knockout stages in 14 years.Winners 7 times,beaten finalists3 times all away the
ONLY side to have won it away off shore.
Question not the strongest Lions side?THAT will always be debatable because everyone has there own ideas about it.
How many sides did the Lions face at FULL STRENGTH?on this tour MOST strong Club sides
world wide would give ANY Lions side a good game.
Injuries in the First test almost certainly cost Australia the game,the Reds at Home have a good record versus the Crusaders.
BUT away haven't won in NZ since 1997 versus them,most Super sides win there Home games.
Comparing teams past and present is invidious the Crusaders culture has always been the
the Journeymen backing up the stars.
These incidentally would probably walk in to any NH Test side eg Maitland,Waldron etc.
The current side has a Pack of AllBlacks plus 2 more on the bench and 4 more behind in the backs.
The LIONS would have them at Scrum time?again debatable,end of a long Season?well
so was the AB`s when they lost to England after a Nurovirus attack.
THAT did`nt stop NH fans saying the AB`s were Rubbish did it?   

emack2 wrote:Is this a serious statement or a WUM?the following are facts the Crusaders record,only twice
missing the knockout stages in 14 years.Winners 7 times,beaten finalists3 times all away the
ONLY side to have won it away off shore.
Question not the strongest Lions side?THAT will always be debatable because everyone has there own ideas about it.
How many sides did the Lions face at FULL STRENGTH?on this tour MOST strong Club sides
world wide would give ANY Lions side a good game.
Injuries in the First test almost certainly cost Australia the game,the Reds at Home have a good record versus the Crusaders.
BUT away haven't won in NZ since 1997 versus them,most Super sides win there Home games.
Comparing teams past and present is invidious the Crusaders culture has always been the
the Journeymen backing up the stars.
These incidentally would probably walk in to any NH Test side eg Maitland,Waldron etc.
The current side has a Pack of AllBlacks plus 2 more on the bench and 4 more behind in the backs.
The LIONS would have them at Scrum time?again debatable,end of a long Season?well
so was the AB`s when they lost to England after a Nurovirus attack.
THAT did`nt stop NH fans saying the AB`s were Rubbish did it?   

Well that was a rant that came out of nowhere.

It's good to have you back Alan. I've missed those angry capital letters.  

My goodness.
Methinks no one really cares if the post was intended as tongue in cheek or not.  Most of us are treating this as a bit of a laugh.
Sauron or Voldemort, indeed. The dynamic duo.

I know I've left, but I was serious.

Nice one Alan. I missed you in my emotional tearful leaving speech.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I know I've left, but I was serious.............

Sorry.
No.
But yeah,
But no.
But yeah.

Finally........no. Just a laugh.

doctor_grey wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I know I've left, but I was serious.............

Sorry.
No.
But yeah,
But no.
But yeah.

Finally........no.  Just a laugh.

From now on I will always picture GE writing his posts as Matt Lucas in drag. It explains a lot. Many thanks DrG

Ad Hominem

Technically GE I think it's ad feminam...

I know I've left but I wish 606v2 posters could debate the very real topics raised and not devolve into personal attacks all the time.

LondonTiger wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I know I've left, but I was serious.............

Sorry.
No.
But yeah,
But no.
But yeah.

Finally........no.  Just a laugh.

From now on I will always picture GE writing his posts as Matt Lucas in drag. It explains a lot. Many thanks DrG

Pleasure, mate.

Vicky Pollard is one of my favourite 'women' of all time.........

And you one of my favourite "contributors", dr grey.

Lazarus Syndrome;does it exist?