Leinster v Queensland Reds

[RJAH777]

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.

Actually you are trying to suggest something or you wouldn't have posted this. It's not the Reds fault the Aus conference was the weakest but as I pointed out, the differences weren't as great as the table suggests. Based on their peformance, I dont think the result would have been any different had the Reds been in the NZ or SA conference. They were the best team and there was ample opportunity for other teams to show otherwise. I remember all the naysayers predicting the Crusaders would 'flog those pretender Reds' in the final and the true colours would be shown. AND there was a kiwi ref too

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.

Its a shame..it would be a cracker of a game and have the flavour of one hemisphere vs the other.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

The opportunity for such a match was lost once SANZAR decided to expand/extend Super Rugby.

In previous years, the NH and SH finals (except Top 14) all finished either on the same weekend, or with a weekend of each other. There was an opportunity there for one to travel to the other hemisphere and play a match. That opportunity has been lost, and I cannot see it ever arising again.

Its a pity. I'd pay good money to see some of the possible match-ups.....

Reds v Leinster
Crusaders v Saracens
Bulls v Tigers
Stormers v Wasps
Blues v Munster
Waratahs v Saints

Wouldn't any of these just be mouthwatering encounters?

 

[Wally]

The opportunity for such a match was lost once SANZAR decided to expand/extend Super Rugby.

In previous years, the NH and SH finals (except Top 14) all finished either on the same weekend, or with a weekend of each other. There was an opportunity there for one to travel to the other hemisphere and play a match. That opportunity has been lost, and I cannot see it ever arising again.

Its a pity. I'd pay good money to see some of the possible match-ups.....

Reds v Leinster
Crusaders v Saracens
Bulls v Tigers
Stormers v Wasps
Blues v Munster
Waratahs v Saints

Wouldn't any of these just be mouthwatering encounters?

Waratahs have never won cook.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Actually you are trying to suggest something or you wouldn't have posted this. It's not the Reds fault the Aus conference was the weakest but as I pointed out, the differences weren't as great as the table suggests. Based on their peformance, I dont think the result would have been any different had the Reds been in the NZ or SA conference. They were the best team and there was ample opportunity for other teams to show otherwise. I remember all the naysayers predicting the Crusaders would 'flog those pretender Reds' in the final and the true colours would be shown. AND there was a kiwi ref too

I'm not saying it's the Red's fault, I don't recall saying anything along those lines... I do think the result would have been different had they played with teams of NZ or SA calibre. The Reds only finished top by a a game and a half worth of points, which is a very small amount when you consider how much stronger the NZ and SA pools are - definitely worth a couple of games.

 

[Cramps]

It's not worth a couple of games if you are the best! If you beat the Crusaders in the trials, in the regular season and in the finals you know you are doing ok. The only match they lost to a NZ team was very close and I still think the decision to award the hurricanes a penalty at the death was dubious.. Having lived in Ireland last year I saw a lot of Leinster rugby and I think the Reds would be too good for them but in saying that I have heard that 2012 has brought a lot of improvement to the side, hence why they won the Heineken Cup. It would probably come down to a battle of Sexton and Cooper. Both are capable of turning games with precision kicking or a flick pass and I could imagine it ultimately being the deciding factor.. unless it was wet and cold in Dublin at Aviva.. then Leinster by 12

 

[big ginger 8]

Please can people stop saying Leinster if it's wet and the Reds if it's dry. It's direspectful to both teams.

On any day no matter the weather either team could win.

 

[psychic duck]

Please can people stop saying Leinster if it's wet and the Reds if it's dry. It's direspectful to both teams.

On any day no matter the weather either team could win.

weather does make a difference, for Scotland for example a wet and windy day is worth about 17 points.

 

[big ginger 8]

weather does make a difference, for Scotland for example a wet and windy day is worth about 17 points.

Thats Scotland not Leinster or the Reds. Leinster are at their best playing high tempo rugby and the Reds have a very dogged pack. I'm saying these two teams could win no matter the weather not Scotland.

 

[dangandan]

But why do people think Leinster's style suits the wet??? They play an expansive game lol

 

[big ginger 8]

But why do people think Leinster's style suits the wet??? They play an expansive game lol

Because for some reason even if people watch the matches they stick to stereotypes and supposed reputations.

 

[dangandan]

Because for some reason even if people watch the matches they stick to stereotypes and supposed reputations.

Jee that's silly. There's no point in even suggesting who might win between the two if there's no clue how one plays :huh:

 

[RJAH777]

I'm not saying it's the Red's fault, I don't recall saying anything along those lines... I do think the result would have been different had they played with teams of NZ or SA calibre. The Reds only finished top by a a game and a half worth of points, which is a very small amount when you consider how much stronger the NZ and SA pools are - definitely worth a couple of games.

Let me put it this way. A Porsche will beat a Corolla in a race. A Porsche will also beat a VW Golf GTI in a race. Is the Golf more of a challenge than the Corolla? Yes it is. Might the Porsche lose if it raced the GTI twice instead of once? No.

Get the drift?

 

[donmcdazzle]

You Queenslanders are blinkered. They topped the table giving them home semis and finals, their position on the table was helped by their easier draw. It doesn't get too much simpler than that. They are definitely overrated.

 

[The_Wol]

You Queenslanders are blinkered. They topped the table giving them home semis and finals, their position on the table was helped by their easier draw. It doesn't get too much simpler than that. They are definitely overrated.

We beat the two best NZ teams twice and the best South African ones, how silly for us to think we're any good. It's true we're utter crap and can't beat anyone.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

We beat the two best NZ teams twice and the best South African ones, how silly for us to think we're any good. It's true we're utter crap and can't beat anyone.

Because that's clearly what everyone has been saying here.

I don't think anyone on this forum believes the Reds didn't deserve their place in the play-offs, nor that they were undeserving of the Super Rugby ***le. The Reds did nothing wrong all season, won the games they had to, and ultimately put in a better play in the final to take the competition.

The problem people have, is with the tournament itself, which favours the Australian sides. In a more fair competition perhaps the Crusaders would've had home advantage for the finals. Of course this was not the case, the Reds did all they could, and won the ***le, so congratulations to them. They are deserved champions of the current Super Rugby competition, taking full advantage of the format.

 

[Cramps]

The weather would obviously be an advantage to Leinster because even though they play expansive rugby they are more accustomed to the weather conditions of Ireland (cold and wet). They are more able to play expansive rugby in wet conditions compared to the Reds who do not play in wet conditions as often. I think it is a match turning factor because i believe the teams would be so evenly poised which is more a sign of respect to their competiveness than a disrespectful comment i think

 

[smartcooky]

and I still think the decision to award the hurricanes a penalty at the death was dubious..

About as dubious as the one awarded to the Reds at the death of their round robin match against the Crusaders? And by an Aussie referee too!

Say no more, aye?

 

[King_D'Arcy]

Da Redz iz krap! Leinzter wud cl€arli wyn! Did u n0t c Sean 0'Brien? Yowza!

 

[Cramps]

What I think the penalty was awarded for is true, I think McCaw knows it as well when he explains it to him.. Obviously that is going to come down to opinion. In the Hurricanes game a retreating player was penalised for being offside.. I am not a huge fan of the Reds either because of the gloating QLD'ers do over here.. That is not all reds fans but the large majority i have had encounters with.. even though it has been after years of wooden spoon or there abouts

 

[The_Wol]

I have not seen the Reds vs Hurricanes nore do I want to, we lost the game and that's the end of that penalty or no penalty, we should have been miles ahead if we were going to win it.