Epic performance: Crusaders
Related links
Teams
Also see
A sublime lesson in running rugby saw the Crusaders defeat the Sharks 44-28 in a highly-entertaining Super Rugby clash at Twickenham on Sunday.
Victory and the amount of points posted by the Kiwis now means they have scored 140 in their last three games. They deserve their bye week.
The franchise from Durban were good value too though for fans who had turned out in support of helping the victims of the recent earthquake in Christchurch, scoring four tries of their own through Willem Alberts, Jacques-Louis Potgieter, Alistair Hargreaves and Odwa Ndungane.
But the day belonged to New Zealand as, in front of 35,094 at Twickenham, Sean Maitland (2), Dan Carter, Israel Dagg and a returning Zac Guildford crossed for what were mesmeric five-pointers.
Sunday was the first time a Super Rugby fixture had been held in the Northern Hemisphere and it was a fitting tribute to victims in Christchruch.
All Blacks maestro Carter scored 22 points including his try before limping off and Sonny Bill Williams also showed European fans what they can expect in the World Cup, displaying his full range of offloading and carrying skills. It seems he can do no wrong at the moment.
The Sharks had opened the scoring when powerful back-row forward Alberts scored from close-range, but were soon 34-10 behind after the Crusaders turned on the style.
However, then opposing fly-half Potgieter managed to navigate through some soft tackling just before the break and further scores from wing Ndungane and lock Hargreaves gave the Sharks serious hope of pulling off a stunning comeback in front of their vocal expats.
Unfortunately for the South Africans, the Crusaders put the game to bed with Maitland's second touchdown coming in the 66th minute, although play continued to flow from end to end until the final whistle in what was a glowing advert for the Super Rugby competition.
Man-of-the-match: Although not on the scoresheet, Sonny Bill Williams was the architect for the Crusaders, offloading at times when offloading seemed impossible. With Graham Henry at Twickenham, Ma'a Nonu must be seriously worried about his World Cup shirt.
The scorers:
For Crusaders:
Tries: Maitland 2, Carter, Dagg, Guildford
Con: Carter 4, Berquist
Pen: Carter 3
For Sharks:
Tries: Alberts, Potgieter, Hargreaves, Ndungane
Con: Potgieter
Pen: Potgieter 2
Crusaders: 15 Israel Dagg, 14 Sean Maitland, 13 Robbie Fruean, 12 Sonny Bill Williams, 11 Zac Guildford, 10 Daniel Carter, 9 Andy Ellis, 8 Kieran Read (capt), 7 Matt Todd, 6 George Whitelock, 5 Sam Whitelock, 4 Brad Thorn, 3 Owen Franks, 2 Corey Flynn, 1 Wyatt Crockett .
Replacements: 16 Quentin MacDonald, 17 Ben Franks, 18 Chris Jack, 19 Jonathan Poff, 20 Kahn Fotuali'i, 21 Matt Berquist, 22 Adam Whitelock.
Sharks: 15 Louis Ludik, 14 Odwa Ndungane, 13 Stefan Terblanche, 12 Meyer Bosman, 11 Lwazi Mvovo, 10 Jacques-Louis Potgieter, 9 Charl McLeod, 8 Ryan Kankowski, 7 Willem Alberts, 6 Keegan Daniel, 5 Alistair Hargreaves, 4 Steven Sykes, 3 Jannie du Plessis, 2 Bismarck du Plessis, 1 John Smit (capt).
Replacements: 16 Eugene van Staden, 17 Tendai Mtawarira, 18 Gerhard Mostert, 19 Jacques Botes, 20 Conrad Hoffmann, 21 Adrian Jacobs, 22 JP Pietersen.
Referee: Steve Walsh
By Adam Kyriacou
Comments
trappa says...
really enjoying the banter here...One of the justifications that keeps coming up for NH sides to not play the expansive game, is that of weather conditions. Now correct me if Im wrong Kiwis, but playing all my junior rugby in NZ, I was constantly playing in wet weather. Moreover, now here in Oz there were times of playing in near cyclonic weather. Im not denying that weather can play a big part, my point is that running rugby is largely to do with culture and confidence, which in turn builds skills.
Posted 01:06 30th March 2011
Kdog says...
Sillysonofa - i'm still not quite 100% conviced (that the HC and S15 are absolutely comparable) but you do make a very good point - and I think the rest of your comment is spot on too. well said.
Posted 12:17 29th March 2011
Sillysonofa says...
@ Kdog - While true that the Super Rugby franchises pull players from other domestic regions (apart from in Australia where there isn't really an established domestic competition of note), you forget that the teams in the Heineken Cup assemble squads by acquiring the best players, not only in Europe, but from all over the world. These aren't just any players, they are often some of the best in their position in their respective countries. In addition to this, the teams that compete in the Heineken Cup aren't just any teams, they are the teams which have competed at the top end of their domestic competitions, and normally in the Heineken Cup, the previous seasons. Big clubs with the pedigree, financial ability and year-on-year performance to draw and assemble the best squads. I think these two competitions are absolutely comparable in that they are the best teams containing the best players pitted against each other.
The formats differ and so do the mindsets of the coaches, players, ref's, administrators, etc. This all makes for a different spectacle. I enjoy both. I love the balls to the wall style of running rugby employed in the South. I love the huge, tribal, blood and guts clashes of the North. They're different and that's what makes this game so awesome. There are so many facets to the game and so many different ways of playing the game that could all lead to victory or defeat.
It would be a bit rubbish if everyone played the same way day-in-day out. For one thing this forum would be really boring to read. We can't have that! I don't agreed with the guys, and dare I say girls (?), here who completely rag other nations. That's a little silly really. But the debate around the various forms of the game is interesting and almost as entertaining as the game itself. There's no right answer, just a different one.
Posted 09:50 29th March 2011
Carpelone says...
@ StunTheMallet
tell Kankowky to harden up???
It was a plain yellow card, any SA's player would be cited and get 3/4 week ban for a similar offence.
Then do not whinge about forward pass, like you Kiwis did for the past four years.....what comes around, goes around.
Posted 09:34 29th March 2011
rugbylover says...
I just want to add ¿ for the benefit of my fellow countrymen - the glories of the B&I Lions whose displays have been synonymous with all that is great in running rugby with powerful ball-winning [and using] forwards. The 1955 Lions in SA [before my time ] and again in 1974 ¿ heard of them Carpelone? In the meantime Carwyn James with a magnificent side showed the kiwis a new form of rugby ¿ which they adopted forthwith.
I sincerely hope that the current bashem-smashem style SA side doesn¿t prevail. Oz certainly. Perhaps France will have a resurgence and destroy NZ ¿ again!
Posted 08:07 29th March 2011
rugbylover says...
@carpelone
....just remember 45 : 33 : 3................
Posted 07:54 29th March 2011
carpelone says...
@ rolf
Your guess is absolutely correct, they played Smit tighthead, which I thought was disrespectul. I can not see Smit making the Bok's starting XV and this would have negative impact in the leadership on the pitch.
Posted 22:16 28th March 2011
carpelone says...
By the way, what is all this fuss about SH? Being a Bok supporter, I don't like to be in the bunch with Kiwis and Australians. The way we play rugby is different and much more effective.We enjoy beating NZ as well as England, no difference. To be honest, the atmosphere among the Kiwis now is so similar to 2003 and 2007, isn't it?
Posted 22:05 28th March 2011
rugbylover says...
............let's put this into perspective. This was a Super15 game. It was not an international. Moreover, it was not a WRC match, let alone a final.
My point is that when the stakes are higher the win-at-all costs mentality comes out, & rugby union running football disappears - look at the stats for the last dire event.
IF the Crusaders [or the Sharks] played their game-style against an England XV who, under Martin Johnson, are trying to do just that, I suspect that the Crusaders might prevail. Score more points than the opposition & you¿ll win.
But IF MJ decided it was win-at-all-costs it might well be a different matter. It takes two teams to PLAY the game - & WHEN they do it must thrill Mr Webb-Ellis to his fingernails. To have seen soaring SA three-quarter lines with a fullback into the line or earlier [anyone remember Ken Scotland?] or the sheer speed & beauty of Christian Cullen, the power of Jonah Lomu the incisive running of Matt Burke or Rory Underwood ¿ get the picture? Great forward play ¿ by athletes ¿ playing a game where the idea is to pick up the ball and run with it..............
Of course, the climate [both the weather & the ¿attitude¿] has an enormous influence on how the game is played.
The NZers keep inventing the game [followed swiftly by the Aussies who always ran the ball, & less swiftly by Saffa] ¿ the IRB keeps changing the rules.
Whether or not those pesky Kiwis can pull it off in September/October remains the $60m question. For myself, I shall be there [¿as usual¿ I'm pleased to say] as I was at Twickenham, & I just hope that whoever wins it ¿ does so in the traditions AND STYLE the All Blacks evince. Let's just hope the NZers have the courage [in the face of almost unbelievable pressure] to win and do it ¿their way¿ &, if not, may it be a side that actually plays even more adventurous, running rugby.
Posted 21:24 28th March 2011
rugbylover says...
@bluelion
?
Posted 20:43 28th March 2011
Carpelone says...
Super Rugby players are undoubtely more skillful and physical than NH ones.
Refereeing is definitely different, more inclined to facilitate free flowing rugby.
Comparing 6N games to Super Rugby is pointless, since there is no much at stake at this time in SR. In the final rounds, tryless games appear in SR too (I remember a final between Crusaders and Hurricanes, awful).
However, still the Rugby Union rules apply (set apiece is still important, forward passes at offloads should be punished....) even though Kiwi's referees consider them as suggestions rather than laws to enforce on the pitch. They did not like the way Italy' s scrum dealt with the AB's one, but they have to come to terms with them.
Rugby Union is a compromise between the expansive style of SH and the tactical one in the NH. Of course I liked the show, even though I would have preferred a better results for the Sharks. Sadly, the Sharks got better when Smit went off, worrying. One question for the Kiwis: is the much advertised Dagg at AB's level? Very poor and lazy disply yesterday, Mils is still so much better.
@ Dafydd I would not rule out Toulouse against Crusaders, not to mention England. Catch Clerc and Medard if you can, the ABs could not, couple of years ago.
And I would not rule out any of the top SA three team against the 'Saders.
Posted 15:17 28th March 2011
Cass402 says...
@supersecondrow,
there are many among us NH rugby fans who tuned in to watch the game on saturday, who will have been impressed with what they had just witnessed. I opened up PR to read these comments on here and sure enough we get the "our rugby's better than yours ya boo sucks" comment...way to win over more people to Super rugby. It was rugby of the highest standard and i enjoyed every facet of it. For me one of the highlights was SBW's play throughout. The only negative aspect was with the same player..he did lose the plot during the second half and even "did" one of his own players. Good to see most adult commentators on the match in agreement as to the value of the fixture in depessing circumstances...well done RFU, Super rugby and the two teams..rugby won.
Posted 14:30 28th March 2011
olepete says...
Kdog - good comment.
Posted 14:09 28th March 2011
Kdog says...
AdrianK - the most sensible comment on the threat.
As an engish Super rugby fan, I've waited a long time to see a game up close and it didn't disappoint. A masterclass in running rugby, two teams willing to entertain and a great atmosphere. It was good to see so many fans of other teams there too. I hope that there's a regular fixture held up here every year from now on.
I believe that super rugby sets the standard for attacking rugby and long may it continue. Yes, in some games the defences are a bit open and unstructured (i'm thinking Chiefs v Blues in 2009. ...and every Cheetahs game for the last 3 seasons) but even with the loose defending, there is always some world class attacking on show - and I for one would take that any day over the a stodgy, line-out and maul filled premiership game.
Having said that, there's alot of southern hemespher snobbery on show in this thread which is a shame.
btw it's pointless to compare the Hieneken Cup to Super Rugby. Remember that the S15 franchises are so star-studded becuase they pull their players from numerous other proffessional domestic clubs. Whereas the teams in the HC are exactly as they are in the domestic competition. If the likes of Toulon, Perpignan and Toulouse all merged to form 'the Blue Berets' they would have a team to match the best S15 teams...
Posted 13:12 28th March 2011
Jonblaze says...
Crusaders would beat any NH team pitted against them at the moment. Be it Munster, Leicester, Clermont, Ospreys, England, France or Ireland. This has been the case for a number of years I might add.
They play as a complete unit, know each other inside out and play with so much width. The support lines these guys run are amazing too.
If NZ want to win the WC they would not hurt their chances by just putting the entire crusaders 1stXV on to start and the best of the rest on the bench!!
It may also be worth noting that the amazing team you watched at Twickenham on Sunday was missing a guy you may have heard of before by the name of McCaw
Posted 13:03 28th March 2011
timbo262 says...
liewehexie, you claim your comments about Crusaders having kiwi refs all the time is 'interesting', it's not the least bit interesting to anyone... you've clearly never been a ref of anything... I have, so will give you a lesson, it's irrelevant where you come from, it never comes into your mind, refs are non-bias or they would not be refs, it's offensive to refs that you think otherwise especially when you're trying to spread your inaccurate comments to others.
Posted 11:01 28th March 2011
StunTheMullet says...
@ dafydd29 - Unlikely as they'd be too busy waving their arms at the ref (or spectators or whatever it is) or killing the ball or trying "a bit of "niggle" or working on their sparrow diving or having the number 10 crimping one out around the field.
Posted 10:44 28th March 2011
StunTheMullet says...
@ Springbok1995 - tell Kankowski to harden up.
Posted 10:29 28th March 2011
Sillysonofa says...
Continued... Before this game, the Sharks had a good defensive record with an average of 16 points against per game. I think this shows two things:
1. While the North has a slightly superior defensive record, taking into consideration the attacking mindset of the South, this would indicate that that defensive patterns in the South are sound and that there is parity in this area in both hemispheres.
2. I believe that this game gives a very good example of why the Crusaders and New Zealand are such a force. Against a side that had one of the best defensive records in the competition, their support play and off-the-ball running lines, particularly the wings, ripped the Sharks to pieces. The only real comparison I can think of in the North is Chris Ashton. It is very difficult to defend against. Once you have someone like SWB get over the gain line and then offload in the tackle to a chap like Maitland on his shoulder, they are behind the defence and halfway to scoring every time.
I'm no statistician and, at the moment, am just finding excuses not to study, but food for thought.
Stormers all the way!!
Posted 10:25 28th March 2011
olepete says...
Must be the first time a PR report on a match reffed by Steve hasn't been able to find an adverse comment about him (but he did miss SBW's shoulder). However, I agree with dafydd29 who seems to be pleading for 3rd country refs - then, SW is Australian these days.
Great match!
Posted 09:56 28th March 2011