The Crusaders and the Waratahs lined up before their big match on Friday night for a minute of silence. The ground announcer read out a long tribute to the 29 Pike River miners entombed in an explosion and to the dead (which included a board member of the Crusaders franchise) and the shattered of Christchurch.
I was reminded during this poignant ceremony of a phrase from Virgil my high school Latin teacher had often talked about: “lacrimae rerum,” the tears of things.
The meaning of the phrase is that throughout our lives, even in moments when there are great successes and triumphs, there will be times of great sadness.
Events will often threaten to overwhelm us but while conceding the sadness of these events we have to live our way through them.
Ernest Hemingway’s old fishing man summed up this stoic attitude the best: “Man can be defeated but not destroyed.”
It was a perfect night for rugby. There was a bit of a breeze to add some complications for kickers aiming at accuracy. A red glowing sky was slowly turning grey. Two top teams with a history of competitive and hard-played were going to go at each like prize fighters.
But for one of the teams, the Crusaders, there was more than a game of rugby to be played. After the devastation of the earthquake, Christchurch’s iconic rugby team was playing for the very concept of a viable future for their city.
A city is more than a composite of its people and its buildings. A great city is about how it defines itself, how it identifies itself with other cities, how it present itself to its own people and to the rest of the world.
Christchurch has, from the 1850s when it was founded as a cathedral city, always seen itself as a habitat for hard workers and winners, in business, farming, the arts and sport.
Just a handful of names will do to make the point about Christchurch: Australasia won its first Davis Cup with a scion from Melbourne, Norman Brookes and a gilded young man from Christchurch, Anthony Wilding, the first antipodean to win the men’s singles at Wimbledon.
One of the inner city tourists spots that was destroyed in the earthquake was the first laboratory of Sir Ernest Rutherford, a former student from Canterbury University and one of the scientists credited with “splitting the atom.”
Among the first arrivals in Christchurch was a member of the Deans family. A later member “scored” the famous try at Cardiff which, if awarded, might have given victory to the 1905 All Blacks over Wales.
Later, two other Deans’, one of them Robbie Deans, played for the All Blacks and the family contribution to Canterbury rugby is commemorated in a stand being named after the family at the new stadium, which has suffered enough damage to take it out of play for most of the Super Rugby tournament.
Many people in New Zealand have been wondering whether the city has any future. The attitude of the majority of people in Christchurch seemed to be before the match, the Crusaders will show everyone that we are going to survive, and ultimately flourish once more.
Before the match there was a lot of commentary about the likelihood of the Crusaders being so energised by emotion that they would overwhelm the Waratahs.
I believed at the time that this was a misreading of the essential qualities that has made the Crusaders one of the great rugby sides around the world in the professional era.
It is the absence of emotionalism and an excess of pragmatism that has been the team’s driving force. My feeling was that if the players allowed the understandable emotionalism of the event to get to them, they’d be reasonably easy picking for the Waratahs.
Apparently, in their first training run the players could not do anything right. Their minds were (understandably) on other matters. The second training run according to their coach Todd Blackadder was almost perfect in its precision and execution.
For the first 20 minutes, the Crusaders seemed to be in their first training run mode. They were far too emotional, rushing things, pushing passes and playing with too much frenzy and not enough intelligence.
Sonny Bill Williams made four unforced passing errors in his first four touches. The last of these errors led to another error by Daniel Carter. The Waratahs turned a 5m scrum, after a couple of phases, into a well-worked try by Tom Carter.
Then the Waratahs fell apart. Tatafu Polota-Nau, a devastating runner, tackler and off-load (his pass created created Carter’s try) had to leave the field with a damaged knee.
The Waratahs scrum collapsed when he left the field. And the Crusaders spent the rest of the match scrumming the Waratahs into the turf winning turnovers and penalties.
Daniel Halangahu missed four shots at goal, none of them difficult. Carter kicked six out of six. As both sides scored three tries each, Carter’s dead-eyed kicking provided the winning margin in points for his side.
Outside centre Rob Horne, starved with attacking ball by the plodder Carter, made a series of massive tackles to keep the Crusaders onslaught at bay. But when he went off, the only two tacklers in the side were now on the sidelines.
The Waratahs were forced to confront 183 tackle situations in the match. They missed 29 tackles. Many of these misses were by Halangahu.
Quade Cooper now has a rival for the worst, or most ineffective tackler in Super Rugby. At least Cooper banged over most of his kicks to give the Reds their victory over the player-power Brumbies.
Halangahu’s card after this performance should be marked: “Never to start again for the Waratahs.”
The irony in all of this is that the Waratahs coach Chris Hickey had identified Williams as the weak defensive backline player for the Crusaders. After he got over his nerves (presumably) Williams proceeded to play the role of chief executioner with his trade-mark flick passes and then a storming run to the try line.,
Williams was complemented by Robbie Fruean whose intercept pass from a convoluted Waratahs backline trick movement started his team’s point surge. Fruean, who is big and chunky, proved impossible for tackle for many of the Waratahs.
Even before the Crusaders began their points rampage, they were winning the battle of the break-downs. Matt Todd, the substitute for Richie McCaw, totally out-played Phil Waugh. I wonder if it is a good thing for the team for Waugh to playing on with his current arm injury.
The Crusaders will get better when they get back to their ruthless, pragmatic play. So the Brumbies could be in for a tough match on Friday night.
The Waratahs have been given a wake-up call. They have to improve their scrum. Why Benn Robinson is not a starter defies belief, in my view.
The loose forwards have to be more accurate and assertive in the collisions. Berrick Barnes will be back (thank goodness) which should steady things a bit in the backline.
They need to drop Carter to the bench and find someone, anyone (but not Halangahu) with a bit of zip to play inside centre.
The Waratahs will be back. I expect them to be the top Australian side in the tournament.
As for the Crusaders, they have used a rugby match to redeem the future for their shattered city. Whether they can continue to play their remorselessly efficient rugby while where they live and train is in such chaos remains, in my view, an open question.
Whatever happens for the rest of their season, though, they can say with pride and truth that they won the match their community demanded they win.
yeh right
Guest
I am on the band wagon now Cross for inside centre for the Waratahs if they are to win the super 15
yeh right
Guest
Spiro I think you are right Halangahu’s performance was the difference. Tom Carter on the other hand is a solid toiler. Not Flashy but doesn't let too many people down. The other Option for the Waratahs is of course Ryan Cross. He can tackle (a leaguie of some stature) and penetrate the denfensive line in attack. He certainly seems a lot quicker than Carter and he would be on more money than Carter and must be wondering why he is sitting on the sidelines in place of Carter. Against the Cheetahs they should start Cross and have carter on the bench at least we could see if he can play there.
vaguely
Roar Pro
Did you watch the game? How many tackles did Horne miss (a few), How many did Carter (none). Carter wasn't the biggest back on the field but he is bigger than Horne, probably what you need going up against those big Kiwi centres. I don't like carter but that's only because I see him as a liability in attack, most other aspects of his game are alright.
max power
Guest
BKH? He started out playing inside for Randwick a couple of years ago in second grade before moving to Southern Districts to get a crack at first grade. He is capable of playing outside centre too so you could move Horne to inside.
abnutta
Roar Guru
Agreed about neutral referees
chester
Guest
what crap- the tahs have scored 73 points in first 2 games then 3 tries on Friday. Carter was playing in the first 2 games remember and they played an expansive style. So Tom Carter is to blame for the loss The whole team played very badly. End of story
chester
Guest
Spiros Open your eyes. Rob Horne missed several important tackles including one on his opposie number Fruen. Also most backlines operate on a drift defence system ie 5/8tth marks opposition 12 and 12 marks 13 and 13 marks 15. This means that SBW would be marked by the 5/8th and not Carter. You along with many other roarers clearly hate him. Read this article by John Eales http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/world-of-hurt-on-and-off-the-field-20110228-1baad.html He has a role to play in this team. the real reason the tahs lost was not Carter but the fowards capitulating and 29 missedd tackles
Jerry
Guest
Whetton's teams? Hardly. The All Blacks were on a downslide when he took over and didn't show nearly the ruthlessness under him that they had under Shelford. I'd hardly call beating Italy by 10 and Canada by 16 "grinding the opposition into dust".
The Chosen
Guest
Fully concur with `The Carter Defence'! What wacky tobaacy are you on Spiro- the 15 Carter tackles certainly were noted by myself and others. Obviously once Polota-Nau went off and the scrum came under pressure it allowed the Crusader backline to have much more room,for their various tricks. Sure it wasn't the result the Tahs wanted but once a fit Polota-Nau & Palu are back on board and the forwards gain the go-forward I feel it will be a different story. Carter has had an impressive all-round start to his season-fll-stop!
Bruce Rankin
Guest
Thanks Parisien, In that case I'd be interested to learn who did settle earlier on the Canterbury Plains. There were quite a number of settlers in the bays of Banks Peninsula, including Akaroa and the whaling station at Peraki(?) from the 1820's on. A bit of a sideshow to the rugby!
Jerry
Guest
Thelma, I know the incident - the Tahs player stepped into the TACKLE (note, not ruck) area without retreating behind Thorn. It was a tight call, but he never got his front foot behind Thorn before he stepped over him to try and play the ball. Thorn still had the ball when this occurred.
Parisien
Guest
good comments Bruce, but just one correction: the Deans family was not the very first to settle on the Canterbury plains, but the others don't have a plaque to prove it!
MattyP
Guest
Agreed. They had the ready-made excuse already lined up. And once Baxter started doing his impersonation of a hinge again every time the pressure came on, you could see the game was gone.
ThelmaWrites
Guest
OJ and Jerry If you watch from the 14th minute onwards, Brad Thorn goes to ground with the ball and a ruck forms. He presents the ball behind him but G Whitelock (not sure) inadvertently kicks the ball so that it comes out on the side. A Waratah scoops up the ball and is penalised. The kiwi commentator (Justin Marshall?) says the Waratahs were wrongly penalised for coming through the side. He said there was no longer a ruck and the Waratahs were hard done by. I agree, because when the ball came out of the ruck, the ruck had ceased. The players have to be OVER the ball to have a ruck.
Ben S
Roar Guru
You miss the point: the Wallaby starting team in November does not measure who the best is now, because November is not now. Now is March. The fact of the matter is that both sides had 10 Test players apiece in their starting XVs. Also, your reference to Baxter ignores the fact that props improve with age, and regardless of when he last played for Australia he basically has 70 caps worth of Test experience. That experience doesn't become redundant over time. Further, The Waratahs have had one of the best Super scrums over the past few seasons, so attempting to pass off a thrashing with this argument really doesn't hold any weight whatsoever.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
Roar Guru
"this stopped their momentum and kept the crusadres in the game" I disagree, PeterK. The Crusaders chucked it back to third about 15 minutes before half time and performed excellently, then knocked it up a notch for about 10 minutes in the second half to put on 27 points. That's what kept them in the game. It happens frequently with them, and with the All Blacks, and they do it better than anyone else - start scratchy, absorb the early pace and pressure and then click into their rythym (then get ahead and start thinking where they'll be having a feed after, failing to grind the opposition into the dust as Whetton's and Buck's teams did - but that's for another discussion). The Waratahs were responsible for stopping their own momentum kicking off and kicking out, holding a committee meeting before the non-kick that looked like a kick designed by a committee, and by just not tackling (Williams ran past five of 'em, Beale headed fast in the opposite direction when someone big ran his way and scored later on). Reid, Thorn, Whitelock squared and Todd had a bit to do with that momentum-stopping thing too.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
I think you'll find that Kiwis abide to the law of "play on", i.e. if the ref doesn't call it you play on. The Crusaders' dominance amounted to a 15 minute period where they put 27 points on the board. It was a rather freakish period and not something you see in every match. How the referee was responsible for this is beyond me. I mean there was a guy on here saying that the Waratahs should've never been penalised for failing to take the mark properly because it ended up costing them points at an inopportune time right after the big scrum push. Right, okay.
Hawko
Guest
OJ, Nice post, but go back and re-watch the game, pausing and slowing it down where necessary and make a list of all the Pollock mistakes. If you do it fairly and carefully you'll be surprised how bad he was. For both teams. However most Kiwis have a rule which says if one team is dominant they should be given extra lattitude in respect to the laws. Its the great unwritten law that sees bad refereeing rewarded week after week. And its what gets opposition teams and supporters so riled up. No, we did not deserve to win. But we did deserve better refereeing.
Hawko
Guest
This article especially and the comments of most are an absolute load of cobblers. The Crusaders had an absolute belter of a game, the sort usually reserved for finals. And they are a team full of All Blacks, and those who aren't are looking good for the future. They had a clear win against the best team in Oz, but they would have put 50+ on the other four teams. That is no reason to asassinate Tom Carter, who was one of the Tahs better players. But people who believe Carter is the evil that prevents the Tahs backline working have no understanding of what his role in the team is, what he has brought to the team (especially this year) nor how well he performs in that role. Take off the blinkers and have another look. Follow him around the field and look at his workrate and positioning. And then watch Horne in the Crusaders game and see why he missed so many tackles. He missed four out of ten in one half of football and Carter missed none out of fifteen in the whole game. What can you say about the Crusaders? Beaten comprehensively by the Blues in the previous game. The same Blues who lost to the Sharks next week. So they can't be any good either, can they? And the best Aussie team must be the Reds, right? Except they got thrashed in round two. The Tahs got beaten. They will come back from that stronger and wiser. Its time for people like Spiro to stop babbling on and pandering to the worst of the nay-sayers. Its so easy to be negative when everybody will forget what you write in a week or two's time.
PeterK
Roar Guru
test caps dont equal each other. Remember caps are rewarded for bench players who come on for 1 min. Of course being a starting Wallaby counts. A player like Baxter with a LOT of caps has not been in the side for a few years AND it is unlikely he ever will be again. So with your method a player like Mortlock a veteran past his best should count for the most? Current starting team measure who are the best NOW.