Last Saturday evening, the Queensland Reds overwhelmed the Blues with their ferocity at the breakdown and in the tackle, combined with their breathtaking attack.
Just as ferocious at the breakdown and in the tackle, and using Carter’s ability to release his potent backline, the Crusaders gave the Stormers no chance either.
The two best teams are in the final. Both are potentially great teams. It is the perfect recipe for a great game.
Both teams are capable of playing overwhelming, exciting rugby in attack and defence. That is how they’ve got to the final.
There is very little between these two teams. They are both well coached and well led. Both have very good goal kickers.
Both teams can play multiple tactical games and can attack from most parts of the field. Often they will make progress up field. On occasions, it won’t come off and the opposition will find themselves with the ball and in great field position.
There will not be many opportunities in the game.
There are many points of comparison and analysis that could be used to argue the outcome of the upcoming epic encounter.
Who will win the breakdown? Whose backs will triumph? Whose defence will nullify the other’s attack? Whose set piece will triumph?
I expect that each team will have passages of dominance in each of these areas only for the other team to then dominate. The critical question is: Which team will be able to play their A game for the greatest duration?
The team that does will win, because both are playing with such confidence that they will convert their opportunities into points.
In addition to their opponent, each team has must also clear the hurdle of playing their best rugby for the greatest amount of game time.
The young, inexperienced Reds team could seize up on the big occasion. The Crusaders could run out of legs as their onerous travel schedule takes effect.
There is no evidence that the Reds will seize up. They have won two games in South Africa and beaten the best of the New Zealand teams this season.
Saturday night’s performance against the Blues was exhilarating for all concerned, even the staunchest Waratahs fans.
They beat the Blues at their own game. Their direct running was in stark contrast to the crossfield attack of the Blues. The Reds outran the Blues.
The Crusaders had won their semi-final against the Stormers by the 60th minute, if not before. Did they slow down the ferocious pace in the final 20 minutes or did they run out of puff?
They are carrying the load of a second 12 hour flight and eight time zones each way in seven days, along with the inevitable, mind-altering jet lag.
This is why the Reds have a reason not to ever give up in this week’s game, no matter how far behind they are on the scoreboard.
I believe the two will go toe to toe, until the travel slowly but surely catches up with the brave and highly motivated Crusaders around the 60th minute.
The winners will enhance their country’s quest to win the 2011 Rugby World Cup.
Drew Musch
Roar Pro
Hah, I know mate, but it turns out you're totally correct too. Carter probably would have helped New Zealand close the match. He's phenomenal. Can make mistakes too of course, but generally excellent. I feel pretty bad for Donald tbh, it was a bit of a wobbly spell but boy has he been hammered for it.
Jerry
Guest
I was stirring a little bit - in all honesty, they could well have lost with Carter there. He does miss penalties and does miss touch - which is really all people hold against Donald in that match.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
Of course he's for real. Samo is the equal of the reigning New Zealand player of the year.
Drew Musch
Roar Pro
You really need to work on your analogies.
Drew Musch
Roar Pro
Graciousness in defeat! Well done - I told you you could do it!
Drew Musch
Roar Pro
jokerman, is zero World Cup victories (in the professional era) out of 4 a good result for the worlds strongest team? (Earlier, I wrote how stupid it is when people use this line against New Zealanders. I'm using it here intentionally to highlight how equally stupid your train of thought it. I feel I need to spell that out for you).
Drew Musch
Roar Pro
Jerry, you're absolutely right. Of course he wouldn't have. With Carter on, New Zealand probably would have closed out the match.
jokerman
Guest
lets redefine that Drew (You look like a banker) Someone gives you a ten dollar note, and then someone wants to swap it, with you for a one dollar coin. The one dollar coin is made in 2011, where the 10 dollar note is made in 2007. what do you do Drew??? Swap it???
p.Tah
Guest
Yes, we'd happily forfeit the other 10, that one victory was awesome.
jokerman
Guest
perhaps ask yourself Drew is one win out of 10 good?
Jerry
Guest
Heh heh.
Jerry
Guest
I do see your point Drew, and I was not happy at the time. I don't think they tried any less hard to win, but the selection and substitutions may have panned out different if the trophy had been on the line. Ask yourself this - if the Bledisloe was on the line, would Henry have subbed off Dan Carter?
Drew Musch
Roar Pro
"Oh, and a correction. The All Blacks haven’t won 9 of the last 10 against the Wallabies, they’ve won 10 of the last 11." *sigh* My apologies.
Drew Musch
Roar Pro
I was perhaps a bit over the top in my wording of that statement, so I'm prepared to retract it. I do think more onus should be put on recent results though. Some Australians enjoy trotting out the old 'we've won two World Cups, how many have you won?' line, which I find stupid in the extreme. In regards to your second comment: in another thread I posed the question "Did New Zealand try any less hard to win, considering the series was wrapped up and they were playing in Hong Kong?' The resounding answer is no. C'mon, it's against the fibre of the All Blacks very being to not give 100%. It was a fair win.
Jerry
Guest
Oh, and a correction. The All Blacks haven't won 9 of the last 10 against the Wallabies, they've won 10 of the last 11.
Jerry
Guest
I take your point, Drew but I disagree with your statement "the only result that matters is the most recent". I'd also say that it's hardly being gracious trying to claim bragging rights from a dead rubber at the end of a record losing streak.....
jokerman
Guest
A good come back Drew, considering you were up against the ropes, with your old maths teacher in the corner screaming "9 is greater than 1 Drew!" All good
Drew Musch
Roar Pro
Absolutely. New Zealand won that fair and square, and totally deserve it. They're an incredible rugby team. To go back to my initial point though, Australia won the most recent match, yet many NZ supporters insist on pushing the 'we've won the past 9 out of 10' line. It's a tiresome, negative line. I'd just like a bit of graciousness in defeat.
Jerry
Guest
The thing is Drew, there's this little thing called the Bledisloe Cup. It's played for over a series, and if you win 3 matches out of 4, you get to keep it. And whoever has the cup has the bragging rights.
Drew Musch
Roar Pro
Ok mate. Disregard Australia's win over New Zealand in their most recent match. It doesn't count. New Zealand, due to their great past record, are still the victors. The sheer weight of past glories carry them over the line. They bombed out in that most recent match sure, but that doesn't matter. For we can draw a ridiculous cricket analogy to cover that, whereby an individuals personal performance can be used to gloss over the recent results of the team. A negative attitude in the extreme. But, you know jokerman, there's always room for growth. You have the power to change this, and direct your energies to more healthy, positive endeavors. I have supreme faith in you - go son.