It is an unforgiving fact of sport that those who play it and coach it are constantly fighting for legitimacy.
Even champions, if they are lucky, are given a few short weeks to enjoy their hard-earned success before attention is turned to the following season.
The advent of social media has further shortened the period between observation and judgment. You could be regarded as a Wallabies contender after the first half but derided as fundamentally soft, clueless and weak-minded following the second 40.
But it is hard to remember any Super Rugby champions that have had to fight so hard for their legitimacy as the Queensland Reds.
Already unloved by the bookmakers (they began the season as outsiders against the Waratahs and were still in that position when they travelled to meet the Sharks with three wins out of three) and the targets of a whispering campaign that their title last year owed something to a kind draw and a weak conference, their detractors are having a field day.
Performances such as the capitulation against the Force are not helping their supporters to frame a coherent response. Fifth choice five-eighth or not, there was a surprisingly passive attitude to defence in Perth against Richard Graham’s well-drilled unit.
Most had expected a reaction following the hammering at the hands of the Bulls, but the Force pack buried those assumptions and probably altered some Wallabies’ selections for the Scotland Test while they were at it.
The Reds had the look of a team that has lost confidence in its back-line to get the job done. The hard work of cleaning out bodies and making tough inches up front becomes immediately less appealing if you do not think the men out the back have the capacity to turn it into something tangible.
How very different it was last year, when they had a magician who transformed forward sweat into field position or points at almost every time of asking.
The malaise had begun in Pretoria, and that 61-8 humiliation goes to the very core of why there are doubts about the enduring qualities of this Queensland team. The defeat was actually the first time Ewen McKenzie has taken a Reds to Loftus Versfeld. In 2010 and 2011, the Super draws steered Queensland away from the most intimidating destination in the competition. Similarly, you also have to go back to the pre-McKenzie era, to 2009, to find the last time the Reds had to play the Crusaders in New Zealand, a 32-12 defeat in Christchurch.
Rest assured the Cantabrians – some of whom deemed the Reds’ celebrations a little too exuberant last year – are looking forward to Sunday, May 12 when McKenzie’s men return to Christchurch. Quite a few will be hoping that Richie McCaw and Quade Cooper have recovered sufficiently from their long-term ailments to resume their relationship.
Doubtless the mention of Cooper will allow some to raise the issue of injuries. It is a dangerous path to go down and ends up nowhere. The moment Stephen Donald dropped his tinned brew and fishing rod, raced back to Auckland, squeezed into a too-tight top and won a World Cup, all future injury excuses became irrelevant.
Besides, the Reds have failed to come up with an alternative game plan to wean themselves off an over-reliance on Cooper’s unique but erratic talents.
Funnily enough, the same failing at national level had quite a few calling for Robbie Deans to be sacked and replaced by McKenzie. It turns they have more in common than you thought; both are hampered by a lack of depth.
Indeed, given what has been served up by the Australian provinces so far, a devil’s advocate might suggest that the man who won a Tri-Nations and finished third in a World Cup with that lot must be one hell of a coach and secure in his employment.
That discussion, though, is for another time. McKenzie has got enough on his plate with the arrival of the hungry Brumbies this week. He began the season denouncing – correctly – those prosecuting the “lucky” Reds argument, and assuring fans that complacency and Cooper’s injury would not be an issue.
But it’s April now, and those voices are getting louder.
MR
Guest
:) and fact that Reds are getting trashed this year when playing away games .... reds won title last year will loose title this year ... lets all move on and enjoy the rugby
Nick
Guest
You've provided no evidence to disuade anyone from an alternate opinion redkev. You're full of bluster and self importance but that's no cover for essentially being a vacuous blowhard! I pointed out what favoured the reds over and above other sides. Those things obviously contributed to their success, hence the reason there's so much discussion about the win last year. Under the new system there will often be a questioning that didn't go on under the old system for obvious and well documented reasons. That's nobodies fault but sanzar. You're on the wrong side of this one, time to pick another battle.
Nick
Guest
No. I wasn't comparing rwc to super rugby. I was pointing out the fallacy that it's easier to win a rwc at home than away. It isnt
Nick
Guest
Sprigs, he is an appalling defender, one tackle doesn't change that. The reds bid him in defence last year and the international season showed him up, in particular when mccaw ran over him repeatedly and Carter past him. It's a major weakness. On attack he is obviously quality, unless required to play tactically. Then he is average as his decision making can be very, very suspect under pressure. Come one, none of this is news to you guys!
Nick
Guest
Yeah you be right there sage. Wanting to see a fair contest would be a reasonable definition of the kiwi mentality. That used to be an Australian mentality too
Nick
Guest
That's not actually a serious comment is it Harry. Probably best to just leave that alone I guess, not really worth the time and energy?
Justin
Guest
Thats this year Rusty we are talking about 2011. Why people need to judge teams, as they are with the Reds, over more than one year is beyond me. In 2000 the Saders won the comp then came 10th the following year. Do we rate the Saders 2000 effort less? No, so why do people do it with the Reds?
Hoy
Roar Guru
Noone is yielding on this argument that is for sure. Might be a bit of first world war trench warfare going on here. Well Photon, is there an argument to say then that even though the Kiwi teams and Saffas had hard local derbies, if the Australian conference is so weak, they should all have benefited from beating the Australian teams when they played? They would have gotten the Reds so called "break" and rested players against the useless Australian teams? I mean whether you honestly think the Reds deserved the win or not, people can use arguments for an against, and I just find the argument that they didn't deserve to win a silly one. They finished on top of the table didn't they? They won the home finals afforded them by finishing top of the table. Someone else is going to benefit this year. Will every team be branded imposters unfairly each year? Historically, and I could be wrong here, but my tipping is a fair indicator over the years, the Hurricanes, Highlanders and Chiefs were always impossible to tip because they could win or lose on any given day. So doesn't that mean they are not the great powerhouse teams, and teams like Canterbury, traditionally should beat them? Likewise, traditionally, the Saffa teams to tip are the Bulls Sharks and Stormers normally. That means that in every conference there are teams that are not as good as others. Simple fact. As for the Reds not even getting to the Semis the year before, they missed by one point or something didn't they? And if you couldn't see the Reds building over the past three years, then you have your head buried in the sand.
Sprigs
Guest
In the mighty victory over the Boks in the RWC, who saved what seemed would be an inevitable and match-winning try? Yes, QC, Quite the Champion, the one with the "appalling" defence.
Rusty
Roar Guru
Again a reference to 16 years of history when the discussion revolves around a single year in a new conference format. Simple snapshot of combined log with the Cheetah/Lions easybeats sandwhiching those other "better" teams 11 Cheetahs 18 5 0 11 2 435 437 −2 5 7 40 12 Force 18 5 2 9 2 333 416 −83 0 5 37 13 Brumbies 18 4 1 11 2 314 437 −123 3 4 33 14 Lions 18 3 1 12 2 351 477 −126 2 5 29 15 Rebels 18 3 0 13 2 281 570 −289 2 2 24 Lions were still pretty average but I personally dont class the Cheetahs in that level any more. Even last year they beat the Tahs in Sydney and beat the Saders at home, two finalists. They were unlucky with the Brumbies this year and finished within 7 against the Saders in NZ. Probably playing the most fluid and exciting brand of rugby across all conferences
Photon
Guest
You mean the Cheetahs team that just beat Hurricanes and Rebels in Australasia and would have probably beaten the Brumbies too were it not for some shall we say interesting refereeing, the same side that beat the Tahs aways and I speak under correction the Crusaders on the previous two occasions they met excluding this year. Free State have never been a great side in Super rugby, but I don't think many super rugby coaches regards fixtures against them as a gimme. Nonetheless, I've made my point regarding this topic, some people get it some people don't, that's life.
jeznez
Guest
As a neutral observer I am hoping that Palmer absolutely destroys Daley at scrum time on the weekend. Maybe then Link will see what we can see. Then again he is a major reason that Dunning and Baxter have as many Super Rugby caps as they do so maybe not............
Harry
Guest
Afraid you may be right. Moore always plays well against the Reds in particular, I'm sure driven by the belief that he is better than whoever's playing for the Reds (which he is by way).
Harry
Guest
And the Cheetahs and Lions aren't easybeats and5 point bankers for most teams, even when they are at home? Those 2 teams Super Rugby records are terrible.The Highlanders were also awful last year (who the Reds didn't play by the way).
sittingbison
Guest
hehe some would say those adjectives described Reds performance against the Force...others that they describe the 'Tahrds each year..there's just no pleasing some people %)
jeznez
Guest
Lippy, I am not here to fight you. It was intended as friendly advice because I've seen you jump to the defence of others at least three times this week. I've been under the impression you have been quite heated up over it - you use words like gutless, pathetic, abhorent and cowardly, which for mine are pretty strong. Anyway, I am now guilty of doing to you exactly what I have been cautioning you against. Enjoy yourself mate.
Harry
Guest
Good luck Aiden Toua and Sam Lane for their Reds debuts! Toua has had big wraps for a long time, seemingly perenially injured, and Sam Lane is the son of a great Wests, Qld and Wallabies player
Photon
Guest
Look PeterK, I can also take one line out of a paragraph and utilise it out of context The point in all this is that through a combination of factors a competent Aussie team is in a postion to be far more successful than a competent team from any other conference because of the comparative strength of the other teams. It is without doubt questionable whether the Reds would have finished so far ahead of everyone else if they were playing out of New Zealand or South Africa, they would have likely taken more injuries, and their players would have been more fatigued, this assertion is supported by the fact that the year before they couldn't even get into the semi's. Playing a weaker team every 2nd week allows you to rest players and take it easy and build towards bigger games, yes the Brumbies beat the Reds, but their schedule allowed them to build a 10 point buffer by the time that game came around so they had nothing to lose. The break the Reds were afforded was not and is not afforded the leading teams in the other conferences in the present system. That is what it comes down to, that is why I think that as things stand you need a better team to win the Super 15 if you are playing out of New Zealand or South Africa than if you are playing out of Australia. That is the primary reason that people say the Reds received a major leg up in winning last year. It's not about luck or the bounce of the balll or swings and rounds abouts, it's simply about a fundemental advantage that Australian sides have. As for the gentleman who mentioned some supposed advantage gained through local referees, last I checked the referees were merit based, it is not South Africa's fault that they have the best referees in the Southern Hemisphere andthe best referee in Australia isn't even Australian
Jutsie
Guest
I just dont understand the logic of benching holmes and starting daley. The brumbies front row is arguably the best scrummaging front row in aus atm, they will eat the reds up.
Harry
Guest
Riccardo - help me out, pinpoint where Red Kev is denigrating New Zealand rugby? He's pointing some facts is reply to a subjective opinion. But just to again refer to some facts about an accomplishment you belittle by describing as tenuous: - The Reds won 15 out of their 18 games. The runnerup won 13 out of 18. - Things were tough for the Saders in 2011* and everybody admires them as a champion team with an indisputably record as the best provincial team in the world for the last decade or so. They lost 3 times to the Reds in 2011. The score in the final was Reds 18 Saders 13. * What is a myth is that the Saders had to play all their games away from home. They played 6 games in Timaru and Nelson, both Crusader rugby strongholds - thats not awy games, as they aren't away games when the Reds play in Townsville or the Blues play in North Auckland or the Saders. They had to play the major semi and the final away because they won less games than the Reds and the Stormers.