The Crusaders dynasty looks dead - so how will it impact the All Blacks?

Call me hasty but it’s 0-3 now

Totally agree re: Penney - not sure he is the FIT for the Saders, who knows, I guess it's a wait-and-see. And its not how you start but how you finish.

I'll never write off the 'Saders but looking at Penney's track record in super rugby and the mass exodus of top tier players, I wouldn't blame fans for being a little sceptical. Personally, I think David Havili is a little overrated as a 12 and I'm surprised he hasn't taken over as the 10 in the absence of Reihana. Unbelievably skilful player, great boot and awesome rugby brain I just think he needs a dynamic running threat inside him (aka - Mo'ounga/Barrett/MacKenzie) to be effective as he doesn't have the physical tools to overcome a defence, as a result he offers very little as a ball carrying threat either as a power carrier or a pacey, dynamic carrier. In the same way Lolesio benefitted early on from having Simone (Brumbies) and Kerevi (Wallabies) outside him as a bail out option I think Kemara would benefit from Aumua at 12 while he develops.

You have known from very early on that I thought (past tense) you were talking about Popeye and I told you I don't know how many times that you're allowed to disagree with him. But by all means believe what you like.

You spin so much nonsense JD, I am surprised you don’t do yourself a mischief. You blather on for the first paragraph about how you think I was referring to Popeye, but after having it explained to you that you misread what I wrote as some basic reading of what you wrote and what I responded with could have clarified that. Or even asking for clarification, you come in with your dismissive comment backed up by a couple of emojis. But after pointing it out you then double down with I have no cause to question anyones article by suggest it is poorly thought out. Now you spin back with a whole lot of blather about how you were defending Popeye. What is it JD? Is this some attempt to paint yourself as some kind of patron saint. You seem to be quite keen on building strawmen and then when they topple you spin around and create another. I have also explained at some length why I didn’t rate Popeye’s article in light of the examples provided and what I thought was missing. Finally the fact you made the snide and dismissive comment that I hadn’t written an article was you dismissing my opinion on that fact alone. When pointing out your hypocrisy when it comes to passing derogatory or belittling comments of your own you then attempt to excuse yourself by saying you had deleted some post and apologised. Let it go mate, this has morphed into meaningless nonsense. And if you want to know what got under my skin with your comments. Firstly the your dismissal of my comment, not by questioning it, but by questioning my right by asking how many articles I have written adding hahaha emojis on the back of it. Then you follow up suggesting what I think and pointed out was inaccurate and yet provided zero evidence and then questioning my tone, when many is the occasion yours has been no better. I but you seem to think you are above criticism and rather than acknowledge you misinterpreted a thing, you twist and double down concluding we are going around in circles, when in fact I felt I have kept up and stayed on point. I am also glad this nonsense wasn’t on Popeye’s thread because it deserved better. I have also agreed with Popeye and his points in other places, so this carry on in defence of an article that I barely spoke of is of your making. Perhaps you could look at your contribution to this and own that. With that I am leaving this conversation as it is going nowhere and it serves neither of us for me to continue.

Thanks.

Seems like you are unclear on a few things so I should clarify them. First, I did not make that one line comment because of anything I considered you said about Bidwell. I made it because of what I thought you said about the work of a new author. You should know that very well - you've mentioned any number of times how I did not interpret your initial post as you intended. I thought that saying a new author's work lacked intelligence was downright nasty and possibly dispiriting to them. That was my opinion. I know how much effort goes into these things. You keep on accusing me of hypocrisy but I've never said anything like that. I gave what I thought was a mild reply in the circumstances, nowhere near the harshness of what you said however you might like to equate the two statements. For someone who claims not to take issue with derogatory comments you haven't half made a meal of it. Other than that, in my opinion your initial statement was ambiguous. Just because you know your own thought patterns doesn't mean they translate clearly to the written word for someone else. That's not "spin" or not reading what was written - it's my opinion. For you to then say that I didn't "comprehend what is being written and read especially after explaining it at some length" is particularly misleading considering that I obviously understood that you were at first referring to Bidwell's article once you made it clear. Regarding your final line - I've already said more than once that I've never thought you don't have a right to your opinion, yet you keep going on about that too. What you seem to be missing is that I'm entitled to disagree with it. It's not a matter of "trying to win a battle of words" or failing to understand an alternative point of view it's a matter of reading your point of view and saying why I disagree with it.

True Bro, from Rakaia!! Lol :crying: :crying:

Yeah! He's toast, WD! :laughing:

Yeah in Christchurch they like to hurt their players as often as they can. It gives better control. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Yeah true Piru, but it’s always good fun reading the outraged commentary you have to admit

I am not the one taking issue with derogatory comments. That is your beef. II just pointed out your hypocrisy. And when you misread what I write and try to spin it differently then yes I am going to question that persons ability to comprehend what is being written and read especially after explaining it at some length. And we are not going around in circles, you are. I stated that I thought the article was a miss due to its lack of completeness meaning he is comparing apples with pears in my view and hence not something which interests me. I have gone to some length to explain why and you seem insistent on arguing quite what I don’t know… that I am being derogatory, that I am inaccurate. It’s my opinion and as far as I can tell I am entitled to one regardless of whether it meets with your approval or not.

If the dynasty ending means slight hope for the other teams to win especially the AU teams, then so be it.

Far from saying that my one line comment was fine I've apologised and withdrawn it. You should read some of your own language and insinuatuations scattered throughout your replies. "Where I come from that is called writing and reading comprehension." "how well you read and c,omprehend" "Maybe another reading issue on your part." "Your desire to be offended on someone else’s behalf." My mistake - Peter is his Dad, also a sports journalist. Showing my age there. Of course that was an error but at least it was obvious who I was talking about - unlike your opening comment which was very ambiguous however much you might want to question my reading and comprehension skills. As for your "lastly" point, we really are going around in circles here. Popeye's article was not trying to explain "why Australian teams are not at the same level as the a brumbies have been." His scope was nowhere near that wide.

Firstly it is mildly interesting how you see your own derogatory comments here to Hamish are fine…. I don’t even know who Peter is. Maybe another reading issue on your part. Also making a derogatory personal comment against me is fine because you consider I made one towards this article by Hamish and reading your posts over the years, you are hardly one who shies away from making derogatory comments… that in itself is fine but your hypocrisy is a little questionable. Also try reading your own comment, it says the shame of it is that people won’t read Popeye’s comment. I stated I disagree… I.e. replying to the actual words written… again words matter. Where I come from that is called writing and reading comprehension. Lastly my point regarding the Force and the Brumbies stands, no matter how you want to spin it. You state that it was never stated that Popeye never said the Force didn’t blood players but the Brumbies did. Let’s be clear here. The article was concentrated on following the Brumbies as the model and used the Force as an example to counter that citing examples of blooding by the Brumbies as opposed to not by the Force… and you don’t read that as suggesting the policies of the Force with respect to blooding and development and Brumbies are different and is why Australian teams are not at the same level as the brumbies have been. Well we clearly read and interpret things differently. So if you want to paint a picture, then use all the paints, otherwise it is incomplete and open to criticism which clearly offends your sensibilities. And that is my opinion which is what I think I have clearly spelt out for you. Your desire to be offended on someone else’s behalf and attempt to try and win some battle of words as opposed to actually understand and comprehending an alternate point of view suggests conversing with you is an absolute waste of both our times. And that is it for me.

A derogatory comment is a derogatory comment whether it's aimed at Peter's article or Popeye's. It did not occur to me that someone aggressively criticising the intelligence of someone else's work would consider my much milder reply a personal attack. Especially after I made it clear that it was the derogatory comment I was annoyed by and that I wasn't saying that you aren't qualified to comment. Nevertheless, since that first line of my reply had that affect on you I apologise for it and take it back. There's a big difference between comprehension and mind-reading. When I write a post praising an article and your reply starts "I disagree. This article..." it should come as no surprise that I read that as a criticism of the article I praised. With regards to the "wild swing" assertion, you seem to be expecting him to have a very different subject to the article than the one he wanted to write. As I said in the second paragraph of my point 2, it's normal to stick to one point - or angle if you prefer - and do that properly. All the things you say he omitted could be valid in a much broader article but were beyond the scope of what he wanted to write. I don't think it's fair to criticise an article for being about A just because you'd have preferred an article on A, B, C and D. Finally, I didn't say that he didn't compare the Force and Brumbies. I said that he didn't say that the Force didn't blood players but the Brumbies did. This is a direct response to your accusation about the article "suggesting that blooding players is something done by the Brumbies and no-one else in Australia."

RMo was a bit hesitant in his early starts with Crusaders. I don't think it will be long before the new Richie's are up to speed. The chant of "Crusaders are dead" is a bit early imo.

The dynasty isn't over....it's just taking a rest and resetting. It'll be back shortly.

Is there any word in the background around injuries and why Saders seem to be getting more than most for the second year running. Saders had alot last season and they have continued along the same lines this season. Last thing they want to be know for is injuries as players will think twice about going.

Your third point demonstrates how well you read and c,omprehend, I was speaking to this article. You said the sad thing is that people won’t read popeye’s comment and I said articles like this will drive people to look for better content, meaning they are likely to look at popeye’s. Your comment however about me needing to write an article was straight out a personal attack against me. That is derogatory and rather hypocritical and ironic of you. Something you no doubt miss. Your second point is also a wild swing and miss. My point about other factors is what I think was missing in Popeye’s article, I.e.e not written about, which is a lot more relevant than blooding players and comparing examples like the Force needing to recruit developed players at this early stage of their development, remembering they are rebuilding from 2017. Your other point about not comparing the Force and the Brumbies by way of example is just plain bs. The examples provided talked directly to players the Force had to buy in like Fines and White to be competitive versus player developed by the Brumbies like Cale and Reimer which were the examples cited… and the example was talking about developing players as opposed to buying them ready made. Now you are saying this wasn’t written about and is inaccurate. Good onya. And to suggest he didn’t say that other sides like the Force didn’t blood players and wasn’t making a direct comparison… well then you clearly read something different. Comparing sides in development versus established sides does need to consider all aspects of development and is what is missing from the article which for me would have made it more interesting and relevant. You disagree with my view, that is perfectly but to attack me personally with snide comments about writing article or being inaccurate and derogatory towards Popeye’s article… then yes again in my view you are making stuff up. Anyway, I don’t feel like arguing the toss with you about it, so will leave it there and you can have at it.