The clash between the Reds and Brumbies tonight is for more than just top honours in the Australian conference this year, it is for a Super Rugby home final. We’ll have live scores and commentary from 7.40pm AEST.
It is about McKenzie versus White, it is about Genia versus White, Cooper versus Toomua, Lealiifano versus Tapuai and ultimately it is about Gill versus Smith.
When you run down the names on the Reds’ teamsheet, you would think man-on-man the advantage will lie with them, also consider it is a home fixture for the Reds where they have been very successful of late.
But let’s get back to the coaches for a moment.
Ewen McKenzie will be seen as the ‘heir to the throne’, Jake White will be seen as the invader from Africa, arriving on the shores with his South African ways to oust the heir to the throne.
Both have very good records in Super Rugby – McKenzie a 40 -15 record, White a 17-6-1 record.
White has made waves since his arrival in Canberra, getting involved in a number of activities outside Brumbie s rugby, including having a session with rugby league to see what he can pick up there.
Now that in itself is rather uncharacteristic of South African coaches, learning from someone else.
It shows the intent with which White has taken over the reins at Canberra.
McKenzie has in turn declared that he is done with Super Rugby at the end of this season and indicated he wants an international coaching position.
And then finally, coming back to the players, Deans will be watching this game with much interest.
You see, unless you have been living under a rock this past decade you would know the British and Irish Lions are in town about two months from now.
Although inexplicably the Waratahs have been making up a large proportion of the Wallabies over the past few years, it will be these two teams that will provide the magic for Deans.
Cooper and Genia is a long-standing combination, but they will be up against White and Toomua.
Gill and Smith is a classic example of the young bull versus the old bull. We all know the story of the two standing on the hillside admiring the ladies down in the paddock – the question is who will be schooling who?
The Brumbies play more structured rugby in my view, they play a little more direct and their tactical kicking is one of their strengths.
Jake White doesn’t like to play risky rugby and the Brumbies do like to get ahead early.
The Reds are a tad more creative, how else can you not be with Cooper and Genia the pivotal cog in the Reds attacking wheel?
If the Brumbies want to win this match, they will have to stop Genia, he is the crux, Cooper is half the man when Genia is under pressure, it doesn’t allow him to play his natural game and it doesn’t provide him the time and space he needs to weave magic.
The forward packs will be evenly matched if both teams bring the physicality and numbers to the breakdown.
Confidence is riding high in both camps. It will be a battle for the ages, I give the Reds the slight advantage.
If you are going to lay the proessional foul at the door of SA, then I am sorry to inform you that you need to watch more rugby. The One thing SA does less and less effective than any other narions is the proffessional foul of slwing down ball. We .hardly ever play fetchers and don't commit numbers to the ball. We are incompetent in playing to the referee as our bumbers ofenapties we cop in Redzonez clearly prove. If you want to look for negativities, I suggest you look elswhere, to perhaps NZ and OZ, McCaw, Pocock etc. To think every piece of negative rugby comes from South Africa is utter BS Follow the crumbs mate, leave us out of this.
Blue Visa
Guest
The once proud brumbies have reached a new low.. The creative attacking team that was the Brumbies has been bought down to the most penalised defensive team in the Super 15.. Jake White has bought the very worst of SA rugby ( the professional foul) to new level with his successful ???? Brumbies.. The last 15 minutes were a blight on the game of rugby ... has there been a rules change???... The rule of "tackler rolling away" doesn't apply within 10 metres of the line. On Saturday night the refereeS (plural) had a shocker..I'm sure it's just coincidence that the BIG professional punters took the start on the Brumbies and cleaned out the corporates..
Cattledog
Roar Guru
Oh and Rob, I think you missed my point regarding 'penalise a team for going for a try'. My intent was that the Brumbies were allowed to infringe time and time again without any action to bin an offender. Sure, penalties were awarded but by not binning an offending player subsequently, that's penalising the attacking team :)
Cattledog
Roar Guru
Rob, I get the feeling your still trying to justify the negative and illegal play by the Brumbies on the line. If I read you correctly, a team is only allowed one person in the bin at any one time. Therefore, as soon as you lose a player, it's a 'free for all' for that team. No, it's not. I had an interesting talk with an ex-director of referees this morning who was absolutely disgusted in the refereeing standard overall. The money these guys are being paid for what they are producing is scandalous. Additionally, he's very concerned that the referees are actually refereeing to the 3 assessors in the stands rather than the players. Kerry Fitzgerald may not have been the most technical of referees but nobody had a better affinity with the game and the players and his 'feel' for the game is lost on the new breed. Yep, 3 points for a conversion! Brings all kicks onto the same score (simple) but rewards a team who scores a try with the same points a penalty would receive. Get on board the train and let's push for this. It'll make rugby more enjoyable for all, including the spectator, which is very important, guaranteed.
Rob na Champassak
Roar Guru
@Cattledog: couple of points. You say that penalty after penalty on the line resulted in no send-offs... What happened to Sio, then? Did he just decide to go for a walk along the river? And not once did I see the attacking team penalised in those twelve minutes, so not sure where you are getting that from. I totally agree about a need to change the scoring system, though. Making a conversion with more is one way of doing that, and I quite like the idea.
Rob na Champassak
Roar Guru
17 penalties, and not one kick at goal. So I am supposed to sympathise with a team that was too dumb to know when to take what's given to them? I have since rewatched the second half, and I now concede that there was a case for a penalty try and an ensuing yellow card. But I still think the Reds could have won had they taken their shots at goal. They seemed to think that they were entitled to tries, though, so instead of doing what was needed to win the game, they left themselves to the mercy of a ref who didn't want to send off another player. Sorry, bro, but that's either stupid or arrogant.
Cattledog
Roar Guru
Rob, all your posts on this thread are attempting to defend the un-defendable. Mowen did a great job intimidating the ref. Outstanding defence on Faainga and Davies. Some excellent play by Mogg. However, they played a negative brand of rugby and they should have been yellow carded for the repeated infringements. No question. You see yellow cards for considerably less by the more experienced whistle blowers. Well done to Mowen for casting the doubt in the refs mind. However, please don't say that a team wanting to play attacking rugby and go for tries rather than goals have only themselves to blame. It's only you and a couple of other Brumby supporters purporting the ridiculous theory of bad options by the Reds. Clearly, every other poster regardless of persuasion sees it differently to you. Be very grateful for the two points and consider yourselves extremely lucky. I'm sure Jake White does!
PeterK
Guest
Rob - In rugby there is a specific sanction for repeated team infringements not the same player. If a team repeatedly infringes say at the breakdown the ref warns them that the next will go , and that is exactly what happened to Sio. It was his first penalty and he was carded due to team infringements.
Cattledog
Roar Guru
Correct Stin. See above.
Cattledog
Roar Guru
Absolutely right on all counts stillatragic. Inexperienced referee who was too intimidated by the Brumbies to yellow card. Half the pack should have been in the bin. Why penalise a team who decides to go for a try rather than a goal. We've been craving attacking rugby for years now and all of a sudden the team that plays the attacking rugby isn't supported when the other team uses every means to shut them down. Good play by Mowen to be in the referees ear casting some doubt. Great defence by the Brumbies to deny Davies and Faainga. However, referee inexperience showed when penalty after penalty on the line resulted in no send offs. About time we re-visited the change in scoring to make ALL kicks worth 3 points making a converted try worth 8 points! THEN we would see even more attacking rugby despite the inexperience of some of these referees.
Dan H
Guest
The brumbies were blatantly cheating. Why should the reds have had to settle for the 3 points on offer when they clearly deserved the 7 only to find themselves trapped back in their own half. Disgusting tactics you can see that obviously im not the only one who thinks this.
Mental
Guest
There is room for them on the bench.
stillatragic
Guest
Sorry Rob. Only one team came to play and you know it. But if that is how you like your rugby.... But I also blame the ref. Why was an inexperienced referee this match? He had Mowen in his ear all night and he was clearly out of his depth. But I also blame a cynical game plan where only one team came to play, the other to spoil at every opportunity. The penalty count was 17-7.The Reds penalties included the ridiculous gift 3 points from a Brumbies kick-off. The breakdown was always going to be contentious, the Brumbies already the most penalised side in the competition. Red card should have been given or a penalty try. Note reason for awarding a penalty try: Foul play preventing the probable scoring of a try. Probable scoring. 6 penalties in one passage of play (not including multiple penalties on advantage) surely constitutes foul play. The Brumbies under Jake White have learned how to win, but on last night's effort, not how to play rugby. 3 tries to the Reds vs 1 to the Brumbies. One other should have been allowed and at least 2 near misses. What have the Brumbies to show. 2 yellow cards, 17 penalties and the opprobrium of those of us who know what is right and fair. The Reds backed themselves to win and with another ref, even against this game plan, it would have happened.
kingplaymaker
Roar Guru
Well my opinion won't find many takers here, but I thought Hooper was the best 7 this weekend and finally added some turnovers to his game.
Justin2
Guest
Digby didn't have a choice, they kept kicking it to him. I still get surprised his one move isn't predicted - left foot step. He really needs to develop an offload, then it would be much more dangerous. Tomane barely got the ball as the Brumbies just kicked out of their own half all night. How was moggs run, eat that Israel :)
Justin2
Guest
Gill for me, not by much
Rob na Champassak
Roar Guru
No, that's garbage. The Reds refused every shot at goal offered to them throughout the entire match. You can't complain about a team infringing against you if you refuse to punish them yourself when you're offered the opportunity to do so. What I'm hearing from you (and many other pundits) is that the ref was at fault for not giving the Reds exactly what they wanted. I'm sorry, but that is a pathetic attitude to have. You can't just rely on the ref to gift you the results you're after. To be honest, you can't expect anything whatsoever of the ref. If you choose to rely on him, you deserve to lose. The Reds had a choice to take the points and try to come back for more, or to bash themselves continuously against the most notoriously cynical and strangulating defence in Super rugby. Face it, they made the wrong choice.
redsback
Guest
That's garbage and you know it. The fact that the referee didn't give out more yellow cards doesn't mean that the decision was wrong. Attacking play should be rewarded and, simply put, the referee didn't have the balls to back up his words. When George Smith illegally came around the side of the mall and then "accidentally" kept kicking the ball away he should have been off. Who is to say if they had taken a penalty that the ref would not have penalised them again on the kick reception for a non-obstructing obstruction.
Rob na Champassak
Roar Guru
The ref did enforce the rules. He repeatedly penalised the Brumbies at the breakdown for infringements. A yellow card was an option at his discretion, and - as was his discretion - he decided not to give (another) one. If anyone is to blame for the Reds not winning, blame James Horwill. Twelve penalties inside the attacking quarter over the space of twelve minutes, and no shots at goal? What's the story there - were they all too difficult to be kicked? Stupid, stupid, stupid. Should have taken the points and backed his boys to come back and put the Brumbies under pressure again. Instead he left his side to the mercy of the ref.
Rob na Champassak
Roar Guru
Wow, bad grace there or what... Mate, if the Reds wanted to win, perhaps they should not have spurned 12 shots at goal inside the attacking 22. If your gameplan is so dependent on the referee sending off players from the other team to make your life easier, then you do not deserve to win. The Reds spent twelve minutes camped inside the attacking quarter and turned down a shot a minute. That is not smart rugby football, they have only themselves to blame.