Reds stage stunning comeback to down Chiefs
By Jim Morton, 6 Mar 2010 Jim Morton is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Chiefs, Reds, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
120 Have your say
Queensland produced one of their most stunning Super rugby upsets on Friday night with a rousing 23-18 comeback win over the Chiefs in Hamilton.
Down 15-0 after conceding three tries in the first 20 minutes, the injury-hit Reds fixed their leaking defence and outmuscled the home side to end a five-year drought against the Waikato outfit.
Ewen McKenzie’s men, without their classy back three of fullback Peter Hynes and wingers Rod Davies and Digby Ioane as well as skipper James Horwill, were $8 outsiders against the previously-unbeaten Chiefs but rallied courageously around new team leaders Will Genia and Daniel Braid.
Former All Blacks flanker Braid, opposing younger brother Luke, was outstanding in all facets and produced the two pivotal plays which underpinned the shock result.
Trailing 18-16 midway through the second half and with the Chiefs deep in attack, Braid pounced on a Mils Muliaina fumble and hoofed it 50m down field for blazing teenage fullback Luke Morahan to outsprint his rivals, toe ahead and score next to the posts.
The Kiwi back-rower also snuffed out an almost certain late Chiefs try by forcing a penalty from Liam Messam after the Reds soaked up a series of pick and drives on the line.
It was also a long-awaited happy homecoming for mercurial Reds playmaker Quade Cooper, raised in Waikato, who put a poor history and a disastrous start behind him to continually ask questions of the defence and kick five from six efforts with the boot.
It ended up being the difference in the game as opposite number Stephen Donald kicked just one from five attempts at goal.
“We really dug deep and it was an outstanding effort,” enthused Genia, whose composure, service and vision were superb.
“Attitude was something we really wanted to change (in our team) and that’s shone through with our performance.
“A lot of people questioned our depth but our young guys really stood up.”
Without Hynes, Davies and Ioane, it was fitting Morahan, a surprise Wallabies tourist last year, scored the match-winner.
NRL recruit Will Chambers crossed for the Reds other try but his run-on debut was a mixed bag as he was exposed in defence early and botched a try that would have sealed the result earlier.
Both sides went into the round four opener with off-field issues plaguing their franchises with the cash-strapped QRU asking for an ARU bail-out and the Chiefs investigating an incident involving suspended star forward Sione Lauaki.
It promised to be a long night for the Reds when Sitiveni Sivivatu crossed from just the Chiefs’ second phase of play after Chambers was caught in no man’s land in defence and the All Blacks winger brushed past Cooper and Genia.
As dangerous as ever, Sivivatu then played a major role in a follow-up five-pointer to fellow winger Lelia Masaga from a punishing kick-return.
Nothing was going right for the visitors and when prop Arizona Taumalolo barged over for a third try following a Donald break they trailed 15-0.
But the tide turned and Cooper finally pulled the right rein by holding up a beautiful popped pass for Chambers to cross under the posts for his first Super 14 try.
Even the sin-binning of Brando Va’aulu for a desperate spearing tackle on Sivivatu didn’t stop their momentum as the 14-man Reds outscored the Chiefs 6-3 to close the gap to 18-13 at halftime.
© AAP 2012Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- France turns to Parra and Trinh-Duc
- Rebels look to lift for formidable Blues in rugby trial
- Mr Fix-It Lucas wants to nail down No.10
- Force roost loses ‘Mother Hen’ Sharpe
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW (7)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (202)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- Chiefs, Reds, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
Sportym said | March 6th 2010 @ 2:29am | Report comment
whatever Ewen McKenzie is putting in thier water, its working. I rate him highly as a coach, he really had positive impact when he joined the tahs, and just looks at the reds in 2010! I say give him sometime with the wallabies!
Balthazaar said | March 6th 2010 @ 4:45am | Report comment
Couldn’t agree more sportym that a huge part of the credit for the Reds improved performances in 2010 lies with Ewen McKenzive.
The turnaround in the Reds has been nothing short of remarkable.
It’s still early days in the Super 14 but if there was a game when the Reds of old were going to be thumped by fifty points, it was yesterday.
Especially after conceding 3 early tries. Especially with a new back three. Especially without Horwill. Especially against undefeated opposition from New Zealand in New Zealand.
Stormer said | March 6th 2010 @ 4:59am | Report comment
Good on the reds for winning this game.
Who Needs Melon said | March 6th 2010 @ 5:37am | Report comment
I’ve said it before this season: The most amazing thing about the Reds for me is their composure! They haven’t had it for years – nor looked like coming close to having it. Traditional thinking is that it’s not something you can develop overnight… but they have somehow managed it!
Skip said | March 6th 2010 @ 5:58am | Report comment
I think Mackenzie is doing a great Job and I am a fan of his. Lets not forget that he inherited a good side . The Reds had some fantastic results last year and should have won more games. As Melon has pointed out the 2010 Vintge has much better composure. The biggest difference to this team is the maturity shown by Cooper and Genia and the improvement in defence.
Lets hope they continue the good form.
Ora said | March 6th 2010 @ 6:30am | Report comment
COngratulations to the Reds,
The Reds didn’t win this game they were handed it on a a platter by a bumbling Chiefs outfit. The Chiefs should be totally ashamed of their performance last night it was one of if not the worst perfomances from any team this year in my opinion. I would love to know how many unforced errors they came up with. I was gobsmacked and left dreading the ball being passed because it was only a matter of time before one of them dropped it or passed it forward.
With these new interpretations it’s rather clear that you need to hold onto the ball to make any ground, however after the 20th minute the Chiefs discarded this philosophy and resorted to the Bulls tactics of last year and Kick Kick bloody Kick, I and countless others at the local were stunned that they would employ this tactic. Why Aled de Malmanche and Mike Delaney were on the bench was also a big question mark?
The Chiefs deserved to lose for putting on such an inept and disgusting display of rugby, to me their arrogance shone through ansd they expected to win just by turning up.
The reds didn’t do anything special their defence wasn’t the best int he first 20 especially but they did pick it up in the second forty. What kept them in this game was the appalling kicking of Donald and the confident and on song boot of Cooper.
Wavell Wakefield said | March 6th 2010 @ 6:46am | Report comment
‘COngratulations to the Reds,
The Reds didn’t win this game they were handed it on a a platter by a bumbling Chiefs outfit’
Goodness, can you not show the slightest humility and decency. You’re trotting out exactly the same guff we saw post-Reds v Crusaders.
Ora said | March 6th 2010 @ 6:53am | Report comment
Wavell how about you take a trip I haver no interest in what you say all you are here to do is try to provoke. I did not believe the Reds played that well at all, they did what they had to do and that was it. The Chiefs totally capitulated in this game and if you had even watched it you would have known that. But once again a big head like you comes in here thinking you know it all but you don’t.
The same thing happened Wavell re the Crusaders game go have a look at the dam errors and you will see tha, Do you watch any of the review shows post Reds vs Crusaders game champ??/
I’d once again say you didn’t because everyone including the Australias admitted that the Crusaders had a shocker in Brisbane but that doesn’t suit your argument one bit.
Noone picked the Reds this week at all absolutely noboby but then again because you are so wise I bet you did right?
The Chiefs were appalling last night the Reds were good they ground out a win by the grace of Quades boot. The chiefs still scored more tries did they not?
The biggest difference here Wavell was goal kicking pure and simple!
And like I said “What kept them in this game was the appalling kicking of Donald and the confident and on song boot of Cooper.”
Wavell Wakefield said | March 6th 2010 @ 6:58am | Report comment
Thanks for the angry rant, Ora. Firstly, your presumptions that I haven’t watched the games are odd because they have no connection whatsoever to my initial comment to you. Secondly, I did watch both games, however, as aforementioned, that is irrelevant given what is being questioned is your response to the games. Thirdly, I picked the Chiefs to win by 9 on my Superbru account, but yet again that is irrelevant as my pre-match choices have nothing to do with your post-match tirades. You’re very, very quick to be dismissive of any achievement scored against a NZ side, and that’s just a shame. It really is. And it certainly doesn’t ring true with a real rugby attitude.
warrenexpatinnz said | March 6th 2010 @ 7:24am | Report comment
Ora I have constantly heard from a large majority of NZ rugby fans the same tripe you have decided in your wisdom to share with us all.
Having a good blow is sometimes a good thing, I have done it in the past myself but you need to view the entire picture.
It does not matter if this is the just into the start of the competiton, towards the end of the competiton, or if it had been the final itself all that matters was that one team during an 80 minute game put themselves in a position to win, defend and get past the post first.
The Chiefs were up 15 nil and played great rugby in the first 15-20 minutes so there is no excuses. Taking the reds lightly is one factor but being shown up by a team that had a better all round defense and attack balance and a game plan to suit was the real reason the Chiefs lost.
I think the Reds for most True rugby fans are the team that will cross all supporter boundaries this year as their youthfulness, guts and sublime skills are a pleasure to watch. Well done boys, from a WF supporter
JK said | March 6th 2010 @ 7:56am | Report comment
Agree re the supporter boundaries, I’m a Diehard Tah fan, but I am serioulsy cheering on the Reds, the two games last night proved the adage that a team full of champions does’nt mean a champion team, Brumbies were very ordinary and just like the Chiefs seem to believe it’s thier right to beat these teams.
Apelu Tielu said | March 6th 2010 @ 8:41am | Report comment
But the Brumbies won. You need to consider the conditions; they were not conducive to playing good rugby. Which means if administrators want to make rugby an entertaining sport, they need to consider playing the game in covered stadia.
JamesI said | March 6th 2010 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Ora I don’t usually get involved in the school yard slanging matches that many Roar discussions become but as you asked ‘I would love to know how many unforced errors they came up with’, well here you are from Sports Data:
Turnovers:
Chiefs 14 (13 in general play, 1 ruck and maul)
Reds 20 (12 in general play, 3 ruck and maul, 4 lineout, 1 restart)
So, Reds far worse that Chiefs in handling
‘…after the 20th minute the Chiefs discarded this philosophy and resorted to the Bulls tactics of last year and Kick Kick bloody Kick..’
Kicks:
Chiefs 16 (7 Halfback, 5 five-eighth)
Reds 15 (4 halfback, 4 five-eighth)
So Chiefs only 1 more kick than the Reds.
Tackles:
Chiefs 93 made (112 attempted, 19 missed – 83%)
Reds 52 made (75 attempted, 23 missed – 69%)
Sorry to bring facts into this argument. It doesn’t look like the Chiefs had such an inept night as you suggest. And yes it was Quade’s great kicking v Donald having an off night – but mate that’s rugby.
Ora said | March 6th 2010 @ 9:21am | Report comment
James that was what I was asking for facts so lose the sarcastic tone, I said I would like to know the stats and you have given them to me so thankyou for that.
However it only proves one point and that is the goal kicking was the biggest difference between the two sides in the end, looking at tries scored by both teams the Chiefs had three to two if Donald had got the conversions alone the Chiefs would have won,
I don’t know what all this BS from most of you is about because not once have I said the Reds didn’t deserve to win or have I attacked their choices what I have done is say and it is only my opinion is the Chiefs were arrogant made too many basic errors and didn’t deserve to win, they handed it to the Reds when everything should have been against the boys from QLD.
So get a grip and settle the hell down if I have had a go at anyone it was the Chiefs and only the bloody Chiefs how the hell you have turned this around to me having a go at the Reds is ludicrous
bruski said | March 6th 2010 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Ora,I dont think the Chiefs gave it to the Reds, the Reds stole it from the Cheifs because they wanted the contest more.
The Reds defense is the hero of the game, never does a team give away a game. The game has to be taken from them, not because the want to give it up but because they are not good enough on the night to compete.
Anyway, no need to get upset about it. It is just footy after all, you win some and loose some! Ask any Reds supporter
Cheers.
Colin N said | March 6th 2010 @ 10:10am | Report comment
“Anyway, no need to get upset about it. It is just footy after all, you win some and loose some! Ask any Reds supporter”
If it’s a Reds supporter shouldn’ that phrase read, you win a few, you lose most?
Jimmy said | March 7th 2010 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
Wavell, I have been reading the threads here for some time and it’s not surprising seeing you once again trying to antagonise a situation, While Ora’s post may be a little heartfelt it is hardly degrading to the Reds far from it.
He is right the Reds defence did not win them this game nor did their attack. I think you’ll find that the Chiefs scored more tries so this proves their attack was superior and their defence was better. Discipline let them down in the end as well as schoolyard errors this in turn lead to oppurtunities for Quade, It was his kicking alone that got the Reds across the line
Cattledog said | March 7th 2010 @ 5:13pm | Report comment
…’it was his kicking alone that got the Reds across the line’…What game were you watching? QC kicked far better than Mcdonald, no doubt. But that alone didn’t in anyone’s wild imagination, get them across the line. In addition, just because a team scores more tries than another in no way reflects they have a better attack and defence. Fact is, the Chiefs chocked and didn’t have an answer to the reds far superior performance to theirs, for 60 minutes of the game.
Mind you, I suppose you shouldn’t let fact spoil a good yarn!
Jimmy said | March 7th 2010 @ 5:41pm | Report comment
Thats absolutely what I’m saying mate,
Are you honestly trying to tell me that a team that had three tries scored against them had better defense?
Also are you also trying to tell me that a team that only scored two tries has a better attack.
Puff puff give I say cattledog, share and share alike I say.
Look don’t get me wrong I’m absolutely stoked the Reds nailed it, although i am a realist and I do not live in this fantasy world it seems the majority of Australian rugby fans reside in. The Reds kept it cool and took full advantage of the indiscretions of the Chiefs and all credit to them.
But to try and say they had a better attack and defense when in fact the numbers of for and against tries is against them is pushing it.
It’s been a long time since the boys strung two together surely our Western countrymen won’t spoil the party hopefully they’ll lie down and take one for the good of Queensland and Australian rugby and not burst the bubble we once again have blown for ourselves.
Cattledog said | March 7th 2010 @ 5:56pm | Report comment
Share and share alike what?? If they had a better attack and defence, they would have won the game! Lies, damn lies and statistics. Fact is, the Chiefs had a great 20 minutes. That unfortunately doesn’t win rugby matches. Hey, I’d be the last one to say the Reds have finally come of age. A couple of wins doesn’t do that for me, but boy, their showing alot more potential than some of their fancied opponents.
Still a long way to go, we’ll wait and see what transpires…and they need to put a string of wins together.
ohtani's jacket said | March 7th 2010 @ 6:01pm | Report comment
The Chiefs looked better than the Reds the entire game long.
Cattledog said | March 7th 2010 @ 7:07pm | Report comment
Course they looked better, OJ. Nice outfit, all had combs in their pockets, let’s not commit to too many rucks, might put a hair out of place. Lol. You couldn’t be serious with that statement so I won’t either!
ohtani's jacket said | March 7th 2010 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
The Chiefs were better than the Reds with the ball in hand and better across the park. They went off the boil after the yellow card, but it’s not that uncommon for the offending side to benefit more from a yellow card than the side that’s a man up. The Reds played well, but there was nothing to suggest that they’re better than the Chiefs. I don’t think they’re better than the Crusaders either. There’s too much nonsense on this site about being better on the day, blah, blah, blah… Sometimes the better team loses and not because they were outplayed.
Cattledog said | March 7th 2010 @ 10:40pm | Report comment
You were serious, unbelievable!
ohtani's jacket said | March 7th 2010 @ 10:51pm | Report comment
I wouldn’t have said it if I wasn’t serious.
reds fan said | March 7th 2010 @ 6:27pm | Report comment
To say one team’s errors allowed another team to win is to consider each team as a separate entity, when for 80 minutes they are not. For 80 minutes the two teams form one entity with its own unique dynamic. Thats what makes every game unique, and allows us all to believe that our team can do better next week.
The result of a game is not the accumulation of points from a set number of opportunities that we can now view in the past. Its the culmination of all the events that occurred in sequence, and of the collective decisions made by those on the field, including the refs.
It’s not as easy as saying, if Donald had kicked better they would have won. If he had converted the first three tries he may have broken the Reds spirit and they go on to score 50. Maybe it would have driven the Reds to take more chances which may have resulted in the Reds winning by scoring more tries. We can’t know this. Nor can we simply add up the missed kicks as proof one side should have won. We can say that inaccurate kicking didn’t give the Chiefs as large a lead as they might have got.
Just some random thoughts on logic.
Jimmy said | March 7th 2010 @ 8:31pm | Report comment
What a load of poopy co ck redsfan, keep telling yourself that and you might start believing it.
Have you forgotten that the Reds lost to both the Tahs and the hopeless Blues as well????
Actually maybe it’s something to do with the colour when reds comes up against Blue they just crumble.
Like I said I’m a realist and don’t get carried away, you can’t pick and choose what you celebrate, the Reds still lost two games to rather ordinary opponents. You can not argue this hippy nonsense and write speils to detract from what is fact the Reds kicked more goals therefore they won the game. this game simply came down to who was a better goal kicker and thankfully for us Quade was on fire.
This is what annoys me about Australian rugby we are generally a very fickle bunch and cherry pick
reds fan said | March 8th 2010 @ 10:35am | Report comment
Mate you need to read a bit more. This ain’t hippy nonsense. And it certainly wasn’t a case for why we won or lost this particular game. I was referring to how many of us look back on a game and single out individual incidents to say they won or lost a game. Players react to what happens during a game. We can’t know what the reaction would have been to something that didn’t occur. This is called logic.
Justin said | March 6th 2010 @ 7:01am | Report comment
That rant smells of someone who lost a bit if cash to the bookies
whether or not the Chiefs played poorly (Crusaders too) the Reds were better in the night. To comeback down with so many injuries was a terrific effort. If you can’t acknowledge that then you are in denial.
Hoy said | March 6th 2010 @ 7:17am | Report comment
Particularly as you have been writing the Reds off for the last few weeks Ora.
As Wavell said earlier, you are anything but gracious in defeat, particularly when the Reds are involved. They drop a game in the wet, and you are scathing of them. They pick one up away, and you go on about how the home team lost it, begrudginly saying the Reds won because of their kicker. How many other teams have won because of their kicker? Could you say in the massive try-athon that the Chiefs won because of Donald’s kicks?
The Reds are now 2 from 4. Not too bad. I haven’t seen any of the game really except for some news highlights, and that is pretty limited. From what I have been told, Quade Cooper, after that game, is now the top 5/8 in Aus. I have been told by those that watched, that he was fantastic in the second half. Anyone care to elaborate?
Harry said | March 6th 2010 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Cooper is playing excellent rugby at the moment Hoy and is gaining in confidence – that doesn’t mean doing outlandish, high-risk moves, but taking the right options and controlling the game better. He has always had the ability to spark an attack and a wide range of attacking skills – lovely long pass, can beat a player 1 on 1, pace and acceleration, an eye for a gap, now there is good football sense as well. Defence is still iffy – he missed a few tackles last night – but there is no doubt he has improved and you can see he is working on that weakness.
Banged over the place kicks last night as well and kicked well out of hand. Definetely playing better than Giteau and as for Barnes, well its going at the Tahs for Berrick like it has elsewhere.
Apelu Tielu said | March 6th 2010 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Cooper is good in attack when he underplays his hand. But he still cannot tackle. Three tries have now being scored through his tackle. One cost the Reds the win against a team from Sydney when Palu went straight through him. Until he can show he can tackle, I would not rate him.
Ora said | March 6th 2010 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Ok so you say the Reds are two from four 1 at home and 1 away the Chiefs are 3 from 4, 3 away and 0 at home who’s the better team then Hoy come on son do tell me? Because using simple numbers logic you would have to say the Chiefs right?
After last nights game I would say hell no It’s the Reds.
Quade Cooper as I said was confident and on song last night and he was the difference it all came down to the kicking in the end. If Donald had made the conversions alone the Chiefs would have won, but that doesn’t fit your argument doesn’t Hoy you are trying to make this into something it never was.
I still don’t believe the Reds will make the top 4 let alone the final and thats what counts there are no prizes for getting 7th or being the next best of the also rans is there?
After last nights performance I don’t think the Chiefs will either if they keep playing pigheaded rugby like they did against the Reds. Everything was wrong in my opinion from their selections right through to their tactics especially in the second 40.
But you and it seems Wavell want to have ago when neither of you seen the game and just want to pick a fight thats all you want to do. I don’t give two shits that the chiefs lost they aren’t my team and if you know anything about NZ rugby they are one of my own teams biggest rivals be it Super or Provincial rugby. I was applauding Cooper all through the game because to me he and Genia are the glue of the Reds and what will get them over the line in a few more matches
tarpo said | March 6th 2010 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Ora, a small point, “there are no prizes for getting 7th”, you are of course correct in absolute terms.
But for the Reds after anchoring the bottom of the ladder for so many years, 7th would be a relatively welcome result. It would contribute to greater retention of good players & may bring back some fans, and respect for themselves, rugby folk & the wider community.
Hoy said | March 7th 2010 @ 5:38am | Report comment
Ora, the only thing I was saying is that you seem to have been blindly deathriding the Reds recently, without recognising their improvement, saying they were still the Reds of old, and were no good etc. Can you agree that they are playing a hell of a lot better this year than the last several years, even putting results aside? Most people would agree, but I am not even sure you can agree to that.
Heaps of teams have been beaten by a kicker, and two teams have won world cups on the back of their kickers. Hell the difference last week was arguably Coopers kicking, as the Reds could have been leading at the death instead of needing to run it, had Cooper kicked his conversion and penalty. Of course Brett missed some too earlier in the game so swings and roundabouts. That is footy.
Surely you must see the Reds have vastly improved their play, even putting results aside, and as Tarpo says, finishing outside the bottom four would be a great result for a team that has been in the bottom three for years.
Anyway, just my thoughts,
Ora said | March 6th 2010 @ 9:03am | Report comment
This is where all of you are so dam wrong I never criticised the bloody Reds I just don’t believe they won it by themselves the Chiefs were utter Sh!t and I have saisd they didn’t deserve to win that game. Not once have I said the Reds didn’t deserve to win the game, if anything my posts are in favour of the bloody Reds.
I still don’t believe they are a sh!t show of winning this title they just to me aren’t a complete team yet. the Chiefs were shown up to be an arrogant bunch of posers last night who thought just by taking the field they would beat the Reds and as we all know they were bery wrong
JK said | March 6th 2010 @ 10:09am | Report comment
“The Reds didn’t win this game they were handed it on a a platter by a bumbling Chiefs outfit. The Chiefs should be totally ashamed of their performance last night it was one of if not the worst perfomances from any team this year in my opinion”
“Not once have I said the Reds didn’t deserve to win the game, if anything my posts are in favour of the bloody Reds.
Contradiction?
Ora said | March 6th 2010 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
No its not a contradiction at all JK,
The Chiefs missed three conversions which would have had them in front not to metion a penalty.
The Reds defense was poorer through the match hence why they had 3 tries scored against them. Their attack wasn’t as sharp and that’s why they only scored two tries. What kept them in this game like I continue to say is the Kicking, Quade was excellent and Donald was pathetic.
Keith said | March 6th 2010 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
I lost money on that game last night. It was the first game in my multi bet. Lucky I’m so cheap and only bet $5. Well done Reds.
Also, Van Humphries motivational speech caught on camera afterwards was pure gold.
Cattledog said | March 6th 2010 @ 12:52pm | Report comment
Keith, I was watching on a SA channel OS and thought it would only be them that would allow such expletives to be heard. Apparently not. They were obviously just taking the feed…expletives and all. Van should perhaps consider not giving up his day job to become a motivational speaker. Take out the expletives and he really had little to say!! lol
Sambobly said | March 6th 2010 @ 1:33pm | Report comment
No way! Van Humphries speech was inspiring as! I liked hearing it at the end of the game anyway. He was trying to get the young blokes (considering he is about a decade older than all of the other players) to put the win into perspective and prepare to (and i quote the great man) “roll the C&*#s” next sunday. HUZZAH!
Cattledog said | March 6th 2010 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
It’s a blight on our society that the only way to get a point across is to punctuate it with expletives…no doubt he was fired up and wanted to put things in perspective. However, if you feel the expletives used were appropriate, then we can agree to disagree
Sambobly said | March 6th 2010 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Mate, just having a joke. I just thought it was funny to hear how the players talk to each other unsanitised for the camera. Clearly didn’t convey that msg clearly enough. Opps, ah well.
Cattledog said | March 6th 2010 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
No problem Sam, me thinks we all say things in the heat of the moment which after, we may have rephrased somewhat!! lol
CraigB said | March 6th 2010 @ 8:55am | Report comment
ORa, WHile I would have agreed with this statement against the Crusaders. The fact they have had 2 premier sides in the comp look like ordinary suggests that the Reds are doing something to ‘encourage’ this. Their defense was awful early and the Chiefs looked great. After that they pluged the holes and suddenly the Chiefs looked bad and had no plan B. To me the credit lies with the Reds for making the oppn play badly because they frustrated them out of it. Then it starts to feed on itself.
stu said | March 6th 2010 @ 7:09am | Report comment
Ora – So why then have the two best kiwi teams been slammed by last years wooden spooner?
Arrogance, poor play, poor tactics, poor skill you say – yeah i’d agree in both cases.
Maybe also they didn’t take the Reds seriously…
You can’t say either snatched defeat from the Jaws of victory. The chief and crusaders were BEATEN by a team displaying commitment & heart that could successfully apply pressure enough to make these kiwi teams choke – here in Oz that counts as a win.
BTW the Reds got a bit of luck – but winners make their own luck
formeropenside said | March 6th 2010 @ 7:09am | Report comment
Ref had no clue come scrum time – the penalty for the Chiefs THP standing up should have gone to the Reds, and also the scrum before the Chiefs scored their second try went through 90, and should have been re-packed to the Reds. So thats the first two Chiefs tries coming directly from ref errors, right there.
reds fan said | March 6th 2010 @ 7:12am | Report comment
What a brave and gutsy effort. Adjusting after the initial onslaught to close down the attacking flair of the Chiefs. Our no-name forward pack is showing great discipline and intensity. Backed up by a great game from Will Genia and Quade Cooper. Gee I hope Braid has settled into Brisbane life and decides to stay.
Comrade Bear said | March 8th 2010 @ 11:50am | Report comment
Agree!
…and with Melbourne no doubt grabbing some Reds – Kingii just the first to go – lets hope the ARU allow Braid to stay.
However – I heard Braid wants to play for the All Blacks again – so if he stays he would not be elligible for slection fior NZ??
Ora said | March 8th 2010 @ 11:58am | Report comment
Your right there CB,
Braid is rumoured to want to play for the ABs again and he is not quite satisfied with his time at QLD, if he did choose to stay at the Reds he automatically is ruled out for AB selection
Looks highly likely he could be returning to the Blues for next years S15
Rockin Rod said | March 6th 2010 @ 7:36am | Report comment
Amazing effort REDS, now you can put 2 in a row with a win v the force next week.
How old in Van Humphries, he seems to get better with age. The game has done a full circle now that possession in vital in winning and he showed the value of a true lock with excellent lineout calling and retstarts.
Keep him away from the Rebels