Leinster v Queensland Reds

[lucky number 7]

Not if the park was wet and heavy underfoot.

Leinster play some of the fastest most exciting and physical rugby in the world...I don't understand where this statement is coming from...the Reds Backline in my opinion is inferior to Leinsters in many aspects...without Quade Cooper I feel their free flowing and play whats in front of you type of game would fall apart.

 

[donmcdazzle]

Leinster play some of the fastest most exciting and physical rugby in the world...I don't understand where this statement is coming from...the Reds Backline in my opinion is inferior to Leinsters in many aspects...without Quade Cooper I feel their free flowing and play whats in front of you type of game would fall apart.

I was meaning that Leinster has a better set piece and pack than the Reds, and have proven they can play in bad conditions. Whereas the Reds are a dry track team. Sure on a hard dry track Leinster can play great rugby, but those conditions also really suit the Reds which would make the game closer.

 

[dangandan]

Tbh this is a pretty pointless thread. No one is ever going to know until they actually play and no one is going to convince each other which team is better or worse.

 

[The_Wol]

I think Phil Mooney had something to do with it. Now he's killing Otago though...

Phil Mooney is the reason we are strong now, he recruited most of our players our of school ranks, he brought Digby back from the Force. Phil Mooney was the best development coach a team could ask for the only problem is he isn't a ***le winner, he is a team builder.

 

[lucky number 7]

Bit of the Arsene Wenger mould of manager back in Wendyball then ?

 

[RJAH777]

Ive seen most of the Reds games this year and saw the semi final of Leinster and Toulose. Agree Leinster have an edge in scrums but thats where it ends. Its the Reds defence that won the game and won the season for them. Defence forced errors mistakes and frustration from the Crusaders and most other teams. Then when the opportunities present themselves, they have the firepower to put teams away. Their scrum has been irrelevant to their performance. On a wet soggy pitch in the rain, sure I'd give it to Leinster. Any other time, Reds all the way. Be good to see this as a regular fixture although when they could schedule it..

 

[RJAH777]

Lets be honest, the biggest factor in the Reds season was the new format. They got to play the bottom teams more than the Crusaders or Blues therefore got home advantage. How would they have fared on a wet cold night in Christchurch or Auckland? Probably not that well. The Reds are a good team no doubt, but lets not get carried away here. If the Super comp was in the old format I think they wouldve been a losing semi finalist.

In the rain I think Leinster win, on a hard dry Suncorp then the Reds probably win.

Also TommyRed you are a complete moron for comparing Morahan to Cullen, ridiculous.

They beat the best of kiwi teams twice, beat all South African teams including the away fixtures. Only a moron would say they didnt fairly deserve the ***le. And won the ***le with a kiwi referee

 

[The_Wol]

i fink dat da redz wud win cuz dey r frm da suthrn hmsfeer nd evry 1 nos dat da all da nrth hmsfeer teemz r bad.

 

[William18]

They beat the best of kiwi teams twice, beat all South African teams including the away fixtures. Only a moron would say they didnt fairly deserve the ***le. And won the ***le with a kiwi referee

They did only beat the top New Zealand teams at home though. The Reds were great to watch and deserving winners but there is no way that you can say the format did not advantage them.

 

[TNT88]

The best NH teams have better lines up's than super15 teams, they always look better on paper. However, the Reds are a bunch of firing 23 year olds in the peak form of their life. Obviously there are hundreds of factors, but on a normal, reasonably dry day, i think the Reds would end up winning by a try or two. Leinster would probably take apart a number of super15 teams though, it is just hard to see them beating the best.

 

[TNT88]

They did only beat the top New Zealand teams at home though. The Reds were great to watch and deserving winners but there is no way that you can say the format did not advantage them.

Whereas people are clutching at straws when they keep bringing this "format advantage" up.

 

[smartcooky]

Whereas people are clutching at straws when they keep bringing this "format advantage" up.

Regardless of what you say, there is no escaping the fact that:

1. The Reds had the advantage of playing easy-beats Melbourne Rebels twice (53-3 and 33-18) and the Lions once (30-25). That was a gimme 14 competition points for them. The Crusaders didn't get to play these teams at all.

2. The Redswere protected from having to play against the Sharks and the Highlanders.

Until the format is such that every team plays every other team at least once, this competition will continue to be skewed......

1. against the team that misses out on playing the weakest opponents

2. in favour of the team that is protected from stronger opposition

That is not going to happen as long as SARU don't relent on their stance of refusing to have the Currie Cup and S15 competitions overlapping.

On top of that, the Australian conference is very much the weakest, there is no doubt about that. Australia doesn't have the depth of professional players players to make five competitive Super Rugby teams. That is why the Rebels were very much an "international" scratch selection.... Delve, Somerville, Cipriani, O'Neill, MacDonald, Du Plessis. A lot of the other Melbourne players are simply not good enough to warrant selection for any other franchise.

 

[RJAH777]

Regardless of what you say, there is no escaping the fact that:

1. The Reds had the advantage of playing easy-beats Melbourne Rebels twice (53-3 and 33-18) and the Lions once (30-25). That was a gimme 14 competition points for them. The Crusaders didn't get to play these teams at all.

2. The Redswere protected from having to play against the Sharks and the Highlanders.

Until the format is such that every team plays every other team at least once, this competition will continue to be skewed......

1. against the team that misses out on playing the weakest opponents

2. in favour of the team that is protected from stronger opposition

That is not going to happen as long as SARU don't relent on their stance of refusing to have the Currie Cup and S15 competitions overlapping.

On top of that, the Australian conference is very much the weakest, there is no doubt about that. Australia doesn't have the depth of professional players players to make five competitive Super Rugby teams. That is why the Rebels were very much an "international" scratch selection.... Delve, Somerville, Cipriani, O'Neill, MacDonald, Du Plessis. A lot of the other Melbourne players are simply not good enough to warrant selection for any other franchise.

I think you will find that this was a shortened Super 15 format due to the World Cup. Next year every team will play each other team at least once.

I do think you are being a tad precious about this. I agree that Aus was weakest conference but not by as much as people assume. Was the Rebels first year - of course they will be a bit crap. They still won 3 games, including a thrashing of the Hurricanes (who beat the Reds by a point). The Force lost 5 games by less than 7 and ran the mighty Crusaders very close until the last few minutes. The Brumbies had a disruptive shocker with internal issues (no excuse I know) but that wont happen next year.

In any case, just because the Aus conference was weakest this year, doesn't mean it will be next year and regardless, the Reds were still the best team of the 15.

The Blues and Crusaders had 2 chances against the Reds. They did their best. They weren't good enough. That's an indisputable fact.

The Lions were a much better team too. Who's to say they wouldn't have beaten the Crusaders? Probably not, but who knows. they lost by less that 7 points 6 times to strong opposition. Ran the Blues and Canes quite close too.

As to point 2, I think it would be more correct to say that the Sharks and Highlanders were protected because they didnt have to play the Reds!

I see your'e a Crusaders fan and probably feel hard done by but you should feel proud of your teams achievements this year.

 

[smartcooky]

I think you will find that this was a shortened Super 15 format due to the World Cup. Next year every team will play each other team at least once.

Incorrect, it was not a shortened format. This is how it is going to be permanently, each year the "missed" teams will rotate; i.e. next year another team will not play the Lions and the Rebels and the Crusaders night miss, say the Cheetahs and the Waratahs. This was a compromise reached after SARU (who hold their Currie Cup as absolutely sacrosanct) refused to move or shorten it, and the other two SANZAR partners refused to move the start back to mid-January, which is what SARU wanted.

http://tvnz.co.nz/rugby-news/sanzar-conflict-threaten-super-15-2528733

I am NOT being "precious", I am merely stating the facts, as they stand, and those facts are undeniable.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Reds thoroughly deserved to win Super 15. They topped the Composite table, and topped their own by a mile (a further indication of how weak the Aussie Conference was), and then went on to outplay the Crusaders in the Final.

All I am saying is that the competition format (the weak Aussie conference and certain teams not playing each other) was stacked in their favour. Next year, it could stacked in another team's favour, even the Crusaders.

This is unsatisfactory and needs to be addressed. The weak conference issue should resolve itself in time as players develop and come through the ranks. However, the issue of "missing teams" cannot be resolved without extending the length of the competition by two weeks. SANZAR need to work to resolve this issue. Its as simple as that!!

 

[TNT88]

Regardless of what you say, there is no escaping the fact that:

1. The Reds had the advantage of playing easy-beats Melbourne Rebels twice (53-3 and 33-18) and the Lions once (30-25). That was a gimme 14 competition points for them. The Crusaders didn't get to play these teams at all.

2. The Redswere protected from having to play against the Sharks and the Highlanders.

I don't think any of this equates to the format favoring the Reds. Yes, they had the weakest conference, OK. But who the crusaders did or didn't draw is completely irrelevant. The draw is random, it doesn't give the Reds an advantage.

Until the format is such that every team plays every other team at least once, this competition will continue to be skewed......

1. against the team that misses out on playing the weakest opponents

2. in favour of the team that is protected from stronger opposition

Yes i agree, but this doesn't equate to the format favoring the Reds just as it doesn't equate to the format favoring the Crusaders, who didn't get to play 2 other teams who may have upset-ed them.

That is not going to happen as long as SARU don't relent on their stance of refusing to have the Currie Cup and S15 competitions overlapping.

Change the format! i agree! But i think you misunderstood my objection. People keep saying the format favored the Reds, when quite clearly it didn't. The 2nd best team in the weakest conference may have it lucky, but that is it. The best team from each conference is going to make the finals regardless, i fail to see why playing the easier teams twice helped them in their cause. Maybe they got a home final because of it? But then again they hardly lost all season so it would be hard to say they wouldn't have been able to achieve this in any other conference.

On top of that, the Australian conference is very much the weakest, there is no doubt about that. Australia doesn't have the depth of professional players players to make five competitive Super Rugby teams. That is why the Rebels were very much an "international" scratch selection.... Delve, Somerville, Cipriani, O'Neill, MacDonald, Du Plessis. A lot of the other Melbourne players are simply not good enough to warrant selection for any other franchise.

Again, i agree with this. I don't see how it objects to anything i've said though. The issues you bring up with the conference system are exactly that, objections to the conference system. It is flawed in many ways. In a conference system you are always going to have a strong and weak conference. I just don't understand why the person above was claiming the format favors the best team in the weakest conference.

There are never going to be 3 even conferences. Teams need to work with that until we change the system.

 

[The_Wol]

Can the Reds just play the Crusaders 16 times next year so we can take the tally of beating them upto 21 times in three years?

 

[RJAH777]

Reality there will always be an argument for someone having a whinge. And people will always have a whinge. What if NZ are the weakest conference next year? Not that that means an NZ team would win it. I think you will find (rebels aside for this year) though that the teams are closer in ability than the scorelines showed. Agree it needs to be a 2 week longer comp and play everyone - had thought it was shortened by the RWC this year.

So you agree Reds were the best team and are deserved and undisputed champions. Good to know. I'm glad it was the Crusaders they beat. Because the Crusaders were the most formidable opposition and have the history behind them. And the Crusaders felt they had a point to prove. Still the Reds were too good and brought out the best when it mattered.

 

[RJAH777]

Can the Reds just play the Crusaders 16 times next year so we can take the tally of beating them upto 21 times in three years?

An excellent idea. We do need to beat them in NZ though

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Worthy of note, the Reds did play both the Blues and Crusaders twice, winning all four games, but none of them were in New Zealand. I'm not suggesting anything here, just stating a fact.

Part of the reason the Reds did get home advantage in the finals was due to their relatively easy conference.

 

[Feicarsinn]

The whole idea of a Leinster vs Reds game is a bit of a non starter from a logistical point of view anyways. The isn't a time during the season when the teams could really go up against eachother and be in pretty much the same kind of condition. When the NH season ends, Super rugby is still in full flow so the Reds couldn't play then and by the time Super rugby ends NH teams will already be in preseason but having not played a game in months.