Crusaders versus Lions

First topic message reminder :

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.

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

Jeez, I wish my wife would say that to me..........

C'mon mate, just a laugh.

All good Dr

Just on the 'depleted' bit.  16 of the Red players who turned up for the game against the Lions were in the match day 23 for the game against Crusaders?  Correct?  So they were 'depleted' of seven players when facing the Lions?

18 of the Lions players who turned up for the Reds game were in the match day 23 for the final test against Australia.

So Reds against Crusaders were up 7 players - making them tougher?  The (less tough/depleted) Lions team still beat the 'depleted' Reds by ten points... and when the Lions came to the game that mattered in their tour, and Gatland had his team of choice, and he was of a mind to stop petending on tactics - ie, undepleted and ready for a real game - they ripped Australia apart and scored 41 points.

I don't see how the maths works, Glorious.  One game is a nothing one for both sides (Lions tour game outing and a Reds depleted unit), the other two games (Crusaders - Australia) were much more important and each result proved the point.

I remember Captain Warburton saying all Lions games were important and that they wanted to be undefeated and that would be the real measure of success. So the game was not a "nothing".

7 players is an awful lot (half the starting team) especially when they are your seven BEST players

As it stands the Crusaders significantly outplayed the Lions and the score is merely reflective of their superiority.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I remember Captain Warburton saying all Lions games were important and that they wanted to be undefeated and that would be the real measure of success. So the game was not a "nothing".

7 players is an awful lot (half the starting team) especially when they are your seven BEST players

As it stands the Crusaders significantly outplayed the Lions and the score is merely reflective of their superiority.

I'm afraid that's crud Glorious. Never quote Captain Warburton. He was a token Headmaster. The real leader and strategist was always Gatland. You believe otherwise and you know less about rugby than I had expected. I assumed you knew quite a bit

You concocted a little comparison venture and it doesn't work out. Had the Lions adopted the tactics they used in the third test for the other two (like many of us were shouting for because we knew that last game was in his bag of tricks had he stopped fooling around) you wouldn't even be bringing up the Crusaders now as Australia would have been blown away in all three. Is Australia now a weaker side than a full strength Reds?

I'm not in the group that think that the Saders would beat the Lions on a level pegging basis- they certainly would in a tour match. Our ITM level sides have been knocking over touring sides ad nauseum over the decades let alone the stronger sxv squads- Auckland had a period there where no international side could beat them for around 10 years- the Lions twice included.

In a 3 test series the Lions would beat any sxv side in a level pegging series. Why? Because they are simply resource superior though the squad. The Saders have a couple of players better than the Lions and many on par, but not right through the squad and into the bench in the same way, experienced internationals coming through to cover injuries, form etc. The saders do not bat that deep, nor does any non test side in the world.

SecretFly wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I remember Captain Warburton saying all Lions games were important and that they wanted to be undefeated and that would be the real measure of success. So the game was not a "nothing".

7 players is an awful lot (half the starting team) especially when they are your seven BEST players

As it stands the Crusaders significantly outplayed the Lions and the score is merely reflective of their superiority.

I'm afraid that's crud Glorious.  Never quote Captain Warburton.  He was a token Headmaster.  The real leader and strategist was always Gatland.  You believe otherwise and you know less about rugby than I had expected.  I assumed you knew quite a bit

You concocted a little comparison venture and it doesn't work out.  Had the Lions adopted the tactics they used in the third test for the other two (like many of us were shouting for because we knew that last game was in his bag of tricks had he stopped fooling around) you wouldn't even be bringing up the Crusaders now as Australia would have been blown away in all three.  Is Australia now a weaker side than a full strength Reds?

I'm always astonished at the what the exploits of so many NH teams *would have* been.

That's the difference and why the crusaders are as I say, superior, they invariably get it right and live up to their hype instead of requiring retrospective excuse making and supposition

The Debate is pointless because it never happened,BUT here are a few facts for your general enlightenment.THE LIONS are the last remnance along with the Barbarians of a past age so worth preserving.

ALL Lions side were picked on availibilty many players making huge sacrifices to becoming one.They are usually based on THE strongest 4Ns side of the current term ask a dozen people t o select a TEAM[not SQUAD] and you would get a dozen different answers.
NO AllBlacks touring side EVER won a series in SA or a Grand Slam in Europe[ALL 5 Home sides].Unbeaten Touring sides were very rare 1928 and 1967 sides for ABs for example didn't play Scotland,and Ireland for various reasons.
The Tour has been devalued by the recent practice of hiding Test players until the Tests or playing the Series at the end of Tour .
THE Classic Tour was of up to 36 matches,15 a side NO Substitutes and a case of giving all the players a game.
Club sides that beat a Touring side often did in the first three games London Counties v SA1951-2,Waikato v SA1956,Newport v NZ 1963.
The Touring sides wouldn't be playing there strongest 15,often far from it,EVERY side then
wanted an unbeaten tour few achieved it.
Lions v Reds or Crusaders top 15 players ONLY now that would be a fair matchup no injury
or subs allowed a REAL game.

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.

One Wum to annoy them all, One Wum to find them,
One Wum to bring them all and in the darkness bind them...or something

emack2 wrote:The Debate is pointless because it never happened,BUT here are a few facts for your general enlightenment.THE LIONS are the last remnance along with the Barbarians of a past age so worth preserving.

ALL Lions side were picked on availibilty many players making huge sacrifices to becoming one.They are usually based on THE strongest 4Ns side of the current term ask a dozen people t o select a TEAM[not SQUAD] and you would get a dozen different answers.
NO AllBlacks touring side EVER won a series in SA or a Grand Slam in Europe[ALL 5 Home sides].Unbeaten Touring sides were very rare 1928 and 1967 sides for ABs for example didn't play Scotland,and Ireland for various reasons.
The Tour has been devalued by the recent practice of hiding Test players until the Tests or playing the Series at the end of Tour .
THE Classic Tour was of up to 36 matches,15 a side NO Substitutes and a case of giving all the players a game.
Club sides that beat a Touring side often did in the first three games London Counties v SA1951-2,Waikato v SA1956,Newport v NZ 1963.
The Touring sides wouldn't be playing there strongest 15,often far from it,EVERY side then
wanted an unbeaten tour few achieved it.
Lions v Reds or Crusaders top 15 players ONLY now that would be a fair matchup no injury
or subs allowed a REAL game.

Think you'll find in 1996 NZ won the series Alan. A Grand Slam in Europe by your definition is a rare beast. Most tours nowadays are 4 tests at most and the last 3 Grand Slams (England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland) have all been taken by NZ, as well as in the 95 RWC. But I take your point that an unbeaten tour is practically nigh on impossible.

Sorry Kia,you are incorrect Tours in the traditional sense ceased1981-2 only Boks 1937 having won away.Nz wins 1992 1-0 in SA,2-1[or 3-0]in SA1996.NZ 2-0,one drawn in Nz were NOT Tours
by my definition.

Then if you are going to use those criteria, you need to specify that because the 1996 was a touring side and they did win. Quite why you wish to make that distinction is beyond me but if you wish to make it, it'd be nice to have a heads up.  

Professional rugby has changed many things and amateur institutions such as the Barbarians have crumbled in the professional era. The Lions series win this year gives them fuel to continue. We will never see the tours of old like they used to be. For one thing, we have planes now and a calendar that is stuffed to the gills with rugby.

Kia,Hi my point was precisely that I as you know am as great an AllBlack fan as any Kiwi BUT
I consider the Tour as a thing of the Amateur era which is why I Stated Tours
meaning the traditional kind.Winning 4 out of 5 Tests versus the Boks 4 in SA was a huge
achievement but was not the same as winning a series on a major Tour.
That is in no way belittling the achievement BUT putting things in perspective,during the
traditional tours.At least one loss was expected on tour[club] and the series going to the home side[SA v NZ].That is putting the current thread in perspective.

A 5 match test series in SA against NZ complete with a series of provincial matches would be rugby nirvana. Unfortunately, we have to make do with one home and away match per year. Who said change is progress?  

It's probably no coincidence the ends of the earth the IRB went to in order to ensure a face saving lions victory in light of the revenue generated from legitimate lions. A series loss would surely have ended the tradition.

It's just a shame to see the integrity of the game jeopardised for money. Is rugby a lady of loose morals?

It must be, seeing as the IRB also went to the ends of the earth (and found Craig Joubert) in order to ensure NZ won a RWC in their backyard.

I don't recall the IRB having half the French team banned, looks like they have to try harder to ensure victories for some than others?

Perhaps organising an impartial referee for 2011 was just their guilt playing after Wayne Barnes in 2007?

The Saint wrote:It must be, seeing as the IRB also went to the ends of the earth (and found Craig Joubert) in order to ensure NZ won a RWC in their backyard.

Good on yer Saint...spoken like a true defender of the French...Allez Francais!

GloriousEmpire wrote:I don't recall the IRB having half the French team banned, looks like they have to try harder to ensure victories for some than others?

Perhaps organising an impartial referee for 2011 was just their guilt playing after Wayne Barnes in 2007?

I don't recall the IRB having half the All Black team banned either.

Wayne Barnes again, really?

It's you dragging up the past mate I'm merely pointing out that in terms of refereeing appointment blunders and disasterous one sided performances by a referee if Joubert is a 1 on the spectrum then Barnes tends to infinity.

And yes: frankly there is a disturbing trend of SH teams to get the raw end of the pineapple in terms of firings and the judiciary, especially NZ on tour in the UK.

Isn`t it strange Joubert prior to the Final was considered THE best Ref in the Tournament.
By contrast Wayne Barnes was his first big appointment in potentially the biggest match of
2007.In both cases the losing sides had chances to win the match concerned but didn't.
Yes on both occasions the Ref gave marginal decisions to the Home side that is the norm.
At least the AllBlacks played to win EVERY match NOT finesse getting out of a Group after
two losses.One of those a blatant fix ,incidentally just what has the RWC results to do with this thread

Well The Saint dragged in the RWC by pointing out that the Crusaders probably would have won that too if they'd been allowed to enter and managed to avoid getting One eyed Wayne in a knock out match.

Have to say its hard to disagree with him.

I see  has put his Barnes back on the gramaphone.

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.

No way mate. Wales have got SA first up in the AIs. Huge game. Are we going forward or not? I love Biltong's mantra "make the MS a fortress!" Atm the 6Ns seem quite parochial. Beat the Boks(who are there to be taken and all the Bok guys I knew in NZ thought we should have beaten) and we are taking our game forward. 6Ns will be a walk in the park then. Might even start a revival and get fans back from footie

GloriousEmpire wrote:It's you dragging up the past mate I'm merely pointing out that in terms of refereeing appointment blunders and disasterous one sided performances by a referee if Joubert is a 1 on the spectrum then Barnes tends to infinity.

And yes: frankly there is a disturbing trend of SH teams to get the raw end of the pineapple in terms of firings and the judiciary, especially NZ on tour in the UK.

Is there anything else you remember from NZs last tour to the UK GE?

The victory over Wales I believe was the target of the tour, with Wales being grandslam champions and the best team in the NH - so that victory stands out in the memory given the fact that so many first choice ABs were either suspended by the IRB in dubious circumstances or injured.

Here's the real point you need to be making: Given that the Brumbies beat the Lions, and the Southern Kings drew with the Brumbies....I think it's fair to say that the Southern Kings are better than the Lions (clearly this is faultless logic)

And it wasn't even the Brumbies first team! Good point

Mr.fishpaste you will soon know playing two legs in S15 playoffs over weekend.

Mr Fishpaste wrote:Here's the real point you need to be making: Given that the Brumbies beat the Lions, and the Southern Kings drew with the Brumbies....I think it's fair to say that the Southern Kings are better than the Lions (clearly this is faultless logic)

Given that they just lost to the Lions an hour ago I think not...

Super15 going to the book Home win to the Chiefs,narrow true but expected[sadly to a Crusaders fan.Home final hopefully another NZwin.

Yes Alan it was a great game, and how about that try from Israel Dagg? Back to his best truly.

I was just about to start my Lions v Chiefs thread but thought better if it.

Lions versus Waikato...

Now thats got a Gatland ring to it.

I'm sure he'll be on the phone shortly if that's what you mean

GloriousEmpire wrote:And it wasn't even the Brumbies first team! Good point

Nor was it the Lions.  

You can only beat the team in front of you, or in the Lions case on this occasion, lose to them.

Seems odd for A Kiwi to be so supportive of Aussie rugby.

Guess he must really hate the home nations.

GloriousEmpire wrote:The victory over Wales I believe was the target of the tour, with Wales being grandslam champions and the best team in the NH - so that victory stands out in the memory given the fact that so many first choice ABs were either suspended by the IRB in dubious circumstances or injured.

Haha, well played. I thought that one might stick in your memory. I was so hoping a previous poster on these boards had been around to discuss some of the other games on the tour, ah well. Presume he was affected by that whole Norovirus doing the rounds. I think one of the middling international teams was affected by it actually, don't suppose you remember which?

Cyril wrote:Seems odd for A Kiwi to be so supportive of Aussie rugby.

Guess he must really hate the home nations.

You have to feel for him really as he lives among us and has to interact with the locals on a daily basis.

On the other hand he just might live a solitary existence!

Hood83 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:The victory over Wales I believe was the target of the tour, with Wales being grandslam champions and the best team in the NH - so that victory stands out in the memory given the fact that so many first choice ABs were either suspended by the IRB in dubious circumstances or injured.

Haha, well played. I thought that one might stick in your memory. I was so hoping a previous poster on these boards had been around to discuss some of the other games on the tour, ah well. Presume he was affected by that whole Norovirus doing the rounds. I think one of the middling international teams was affected by it actually, don't suppose you remember which?

I can't recall a middling international team with the norovirus personally. Jog my memory?

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:The victory over Wales I believe was the target of the tour, with Wales being grandslam champions and the best team in the NH - so that victory stands out in the memory given the fact that so many first choice ABs were either suspended by the IRB in dubious circumstances or injured.

Haha, well played. I thought that one might stick in your memory. I was so hoping a previous poster on these boards had been around to discuss some of the other games on the tour, ah well. Presume he was affected by that whole Norovirus doing the rounds. I think one of the middling international teams was affected by it actually, don't suppose you remember which?

I can't recall a middling international team with the norovirus personally. Jog my memory?

Not sure, do you remember any team getting ill a lot during that Tour or other matches? We could probably go on doing this forever couldn't we? Our collective memory seems to have more holes than a second-hand sieve.   Anyway, I've sidetracked your entirely serious point in the OP. As you were.

Cyril wrote:Seems odd for A Kiwi to be so supportive of Aussie rugby.

Guess he must really hate the home nations.

Cyril, you underestimate the power of the ANZAC.

I'm very supportive of oz rugby...many of them are ours anyway, and its our constant contact with oz sport and rugby in particular that keeps our game where it is.

Taylorman wrote:I'm very supportive of oz rugby...many of them are ours anyway, and its our constant contact with oz sport and rugby in particular that keeps our game where it is.

I always wonder if England would be better if we played the SH teams more regularly. I think it's an obvious yes, but I still think the most significant factor is weather. If rugby was a summer sport here I think we might produce a few more backs with brains and a few less leaden footed lumps in the forwards. Who knows.

Hood83 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:I'm very supportive of oz rugby...many of them are ours anyway, and its our constant contact with oz sport and rugby in particular that keeps our game where it is.

I always wonder if England would be better if we played the SH teams more regularly. I think it's an obvious yes, but I still think the most significant factor is weather. If rugby was a summer sport here I think we might produce a few more backs with brains and a few less leaden footed lumps in the forwards. Who knows.

I agree about England playing the teams above them making them better.  But not sure about the summer sport part.  South Africa has more often than not fast hard pitches and yet their traditional style is the forward oriented game.  Your'e right, though.  We will never really know.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Cyril wrote:Seems odd for A Kiwi to be so supportive of Aussie rugby.

Guess he must really hate the home nations.

Cyril, you underestimate the power of the ANZAC.

I've seen ghostie's previous wumming of Australia so I guess he must just be in a mood for bashing the poms at the moment.

Australia is a marvellous country with a proud sporting tradition.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Australia is a marvellous country with a proud sporting tradition.

Much like England eh GE?

How is that relevant to the thread?

I thought you weren't a Kiwi anyway?