Blackadder hits back at Plumtree
6 Mar 2012
Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder has emphatically dismissed Sharks coach John Plumtree’s claim that the South African conference is the toughest.
Last week Plumtree said the Australian and New Zealand conferences weren’t nearly ‘as intense as ours here in South Africa’.
Asked for his thoughts on that issue, Blackadder said: ‘I’d be quite happy to swap with [Plumtree]. There are no easy teams in conference rugby.
‘At this end, the Highlanders and Crusaders and Chiefs-Blues showed how fiercely competitive the conference model is. Wait ’til you get down the track when you have a team ahead and all the other teams with nothing to play for [you'll find] how tough conference rugby is, because it’s basically like an All Black trial.
‘She’s tough, rugged rugby and one thing about it, too, a lot of pressure produces fine players. Everyone can see how you can handle pressure. It’s certainly not easy. It wouldn’t get any tougher than our conference.’
Meanwhile scrumhalf Andy Ellis was more straightforward in his view that there was no harder conference than New Zealand’s.
‘When I was playing the Super 12 and Super 14, those local games, the New Zealand games, were always the toughest by far. That’s just been doubled, really,’ he said, adding that the South African conference had a couple of ‘weaker teams’. ‘Certainly, the New Zealand conference is by far the strongest. We’re playing the toughest rugby week-in, week-out.’
39 Comments
6 Mar 2012, 08:16 am
Point is the Aussie conference is the easiest of the 3.End of.
NZ and SA conferences are both competitive, tough and physical, no point comparing them. If your a Saffa you will believe ours is tougher and if your’e a kiwi the reverse will be true.
6 Mar 2012, 08:17 am
oh puuuuleeeeaze!
where’s your evidence?
6 Mar 2012, 08:39 am
@welcome to my life, hugh…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-2: The Bulls put 50 on the Cheetahs over the weekend, and only had 12 players on the field for the last 10 minutes.
The Cheetahs and Lions are terrible, and have been for a number of years.
6 Mar 2012, 08:39 am
@welcome to my life, hugh…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-2:
Easy – just look up the Super Logs for the past 10 years – work out who has had the most teams at the lower regions of the table for the most time.
I think the answer will stand out like dog’s boll*cks…
6 Mar 2012, 08:47 am
@WOLFMAN21(WOLFMAN21)-3:
yet the cheetahs drukked the crusaders last season didn’t they?
as well as the waratahs in sydney.
6 Mar 2012, 08:53 am
@WOLFMAN21(WOLFMAN21)-3:
@BillTong(BillTong)-4:
really?
now consider that for one or two premier sa team to make the playoffs they have to beat a number of other ‘very weak’ sa teams looking to hurt them at all costs..?..
teams which invariably lift themselves physically and more against the premier sa sides.
it goes without saying that the old comp system and even more so the new one disadvantages the sa teams vying for super rugby titles.
the ausssies and new zealanders have easy bankable points at home and away against the weak sa sides…get it..?..
thats the whole point and some about the sa conference not just being the toughest but also the most difficult to top and still be in a good position against the oztrilasions. we have travel factor plus no east wins going away but the oz/nz’s have the advantage of jet lag plus easy bankable points on their away legs which our waek teams give to them… but of course do not do the same for the top sa teams… in fact they do worse by taxing our top sa teams physically and injury wise thus leaving them weaker when they have to play the oz/nz teams…
think about it some more….
now tell moe your opinions…
see… thats what i said…
6 Mar 2012, 08:58 am
it has always been harder to win this comp as a sa side than it has been as a nz/oz side.
6 Mar 2012, 09:01 am
even if the two or three weak sa teams have ‘hypotheticaly’ been gifting the two strong sa teams five pointers throughout this comp you must remember they have likewise been gifting the nz/oz teams easy five pointers too, throughout this comp.
and these are away, trave factor five pointers to boot.
do the maths, man…
6 Mar 2012, 09:07 am
Simple really…
NZ conference.. overall the the best sides… Lions and Cheetahs make sure of that…
SA conference… think Plumtree may have meant the toughest in terms of physicality and brutality… injury toll probably higher….
Not much difference I feel between the top 3 teams in either conference….
Aussie conference = Reds….
6 Mar 2012, 09:09 am
Plumtree is clearly stupid. I now understand why the Sharks are ****.
6 Mar 2012, 09:09 am
@welcome to my life, hugh…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-6:
Hugh,
It’s traditional that you either speak for the Accused or the Accuser – not both at the same time.
“the ausssies and new zealanders have easy bankable points at home and away against the weak sa sides…get it..?..”
I think that’s the point that Andy Ellis was trying to make. There are some easy games in SA. By “tough games” I’m sure he means “tough to win” – which after all is the point of the whole game. To win the comp. Not to get beaten up.
6 Mar 2012, 09:15 am
@line break(line break)-9:
yeah i agree with you and have said before…
i think the kiwis are confusing competitive teams with tough physical players… two different issues… (but bakkies makes a compelling case for how the traditionally weaker saffa teams do in benefit the nz/aus sides…)
‘toughest’ refers mainly to physicality IMO… saffas just seem to reserve their hardest for the guys ahead of them in the pecking order for top/bok honours…
the fact that when the kiwis counter the point they refer to log placings, proves that they don’t even think in terms of the physicality… which says all it needs to right there…
bl’adder agent…!!
6 Mar 2012, 09:28 am
UFO @ 12
Probably why Kiwi teams win more?
6 Mar 2012, 09:32 am
Kiwis play more rugby, not moer rugby
6 Mar 2012, 09:36 am
@BillTong(BillTong)-13:
probably…
i’m not saying it’s a good thing that saffas get so stuck into each other… in fact i never understand it… just saying that it is true that’s how we do it…
and sure… if we focused more on log position maybe things would be a little different…
(maybe we could also ‘gently massage’ a few more favourable results…
)
6 Mar 2012, 09:36 am
@BillTong(BillTong)-14:
clever…!
6 Mar 2012, 09:42 am
Plumtree is not talking about which conference is toughest to win from a skills level point of view.
He’s talking about the physicality of the derbies.
South African derbies are marked by guys trying to run through one another.
6 Mar 2012, 09:55 am
I just wish the Lions and Cheetahs had the same intensity against the Oz & Kiwi sides as they do against thier local rivals.
SA= 2 weak sides ( Lions & Cheetahs)
Oz= 3 weak sides ( Brumbies, Rebels, Force)
Nz= ?
6 Mar 2012, 10:13 am
@BillTong(BillTong)-11:
no bill, you’re missing the point on this. its harder for the sa teams to win this thing both physically and just from a difficulty point of view because while the oz/nz sides have tough games they for the most part follow a pretty regular pattern of one or two teams topping their conference with points against the others, they then get to travel away and bank easy five pointers on their sa legs which they have been guaranteed for as long as the comps existed.
whereas for the one or two sa teams who are table toppers they have to travel against time (jet lag wise) and are guaranteed any easy five pointers in oz/nz.
added to this they also have to endure higher than usual physical games against the weak sa teams.
there are easy games in sa for the oz/nz’s but no easy game in sa for the top sa teams.
6 Mar 2012, 10:19 am
@welcome to my life, hugh…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-19:
and are guaranteed any easy five pointers in oz/nz = and are not guaranteed any easy five pointers
6 Mar 2012, 10:26 am
Quite simple really as alluded to earlier and I’m sure most would agree. It is claimed that South African players have a more direct approach to the game whereby they try and run through the player rather than take the gap. South African rugby has also long been accused of being more ‘physical’ (whatever that means) by opposition teams who always talk about fronting physically against the Boks in order to win the game (their words not mine). Naturally this takes more of a toll on the body than the other two conferences whose players take less tackles per game than SAFFA players.
However, if you look at the conference with the best quality teams it is clearly New Zealand since they have less weaker teams in their conference than the SA/AUS conference. Therefore they have to play top quality opposition on a weekly basis in their own conference. They can’t be faulted for SA and AUS having weaker teams. If anything, the fault lies with SA/AUS for ‘gifting’ New Zealand teams easy five-pointers instead of strengthening their own conferences.
6 Mar 2012, 10:45 am
I think, based on last year’s tournament there is not much to chose between SA and NZ, but Aus teams dont compare.
I put this comment on last week:
This site has been going on about which conference is the worst to be in and I said from the start the SA and NZ conference is the most difficult, while the Aussie conference is some way behind. Well here is some facts. (TP – Total Points, WC – Within Conference, OC – Outside Conference).
TP WC OC % OC/Tot
SA 197 91 106 53.81%
NZ 207 95 112 54.11%
Aus 177 96 81 45.76%
Some usefull observations. The Aussie teams picked up 177 points in total of which 81 was outside the conference. 33 of these were obtained by the Reds. The bottom 4 teams therefore picked up 48 points, therefore 12 on average.
In the SA conference the Sharks picked up 30 points outside the conference as they did not perform too well within their conference, while the Stormers (24), Cheetahs (22) and Bulls (20) all got more points from outside the conference than the bottom 4 Aussie teams.
The same applies for the NZ conference where all their teams, Crus (29), Blues (24), Hurricanes (20), Highlanders (20) and Chiefs (19) all got more points than the bottom 4 Aussie teams.
Another interesting observation is that the SA conference produced the least number of points within the conference, although teams such as the Sharks, Cheetahs and Lions were some of the most attacking teams. The conclusion must be that when the SA teams face each other the scores are lower and less bonus points are scored. This can be summarised by only looking at the Sharks results, where they only scored one 4 try bonus against the Lions in a 30-30 draw. They however scored 4 try bonuses against the Force, Rebels, Brumbies, Hurricanes and Crusaders. Again the Aussie teams feature in a negative way!
6 Mar 2012, 11:17 am
@Cordo(Cordo)-1: You forgot “Dragons” china. Dont be breaking traditions now
6 Mar 2012, 11:25 am
@bokfan1(bokfan1)-23:
Apologies homie!
My mistake
6 Mar 2012, 11:29 am
I would say the ‘Canes are not a strong team (granted the Lions allowed them to look good last Friday, but generally speaking not really).
The Chiefs have been a bit of a joke for a while (altho it can be argued that they finished higher than both Cheetahs and Lions last year).
The Blues are inconsistent and can be good, but then can be easy.
Highlanders started off well last season, but kinda faded away. They have been impressive to beat Saders and Chiefs so far
The point is, Mr Blackadder and Mr Ellis, is that the SA teams will pound each other senseless and a 15-12 game between Sharks and Stormers is way harder than a 29-14 game between Chiefs v Blues.
Even the 51-19 Blues v Cheetahs game was more physical than the Landers v Saders game (IMO).
The history of the Currie Cup provides this motivation. You only have to read every Bok’s biography to see it – and especially most recently Big Vic’s book. The Bulls have a massive incentive to beat the Cheetahs and vice versa, one which I doubt the NZ teams have the historical legacy of
6 Mar 2012, 11:30 am
@Cordo(Cordo)-24: hahaha no worries bro
We veteran bloggers have to keep the “newbies” in line
6 Mar 2012, 11:54 am
@bokfan1(bokfan1)-25: And yet the Cheetahs and Lions have never beaten the Bulls in the history of the Super 14/15.
6 Mar 2012, 11:55 am
when plumtree referred to the sa conference as the “hardest”, he was not only talking about the physicality, but also the monotony of playing the same teams twice in the s15 as well as again the currie cup.
oz don’t have a local competition and the nz npc is made up of different teams to the s15 franchises.
6 Mar 2012, 12:05 pm
@WOLFMAN21(WOLFMAN21)-27: True! But it doesnt stop them trying to smash the living **** out of each other
6 Mar 2012, 12:15 pm
“Last week Plumtree said the Australian and New Zealand conferences weren’t nearly ‘as intense as ours here in South Africa’.
Bolloks, Plum, and you know it.
6 Mar 2012, 12:17 pm
@Golden Boy(Golden Boy)-21:
“Naturally this takes more of a toll on the body than the other two conferences whose players take less tackles per game than SAFFA players.”
Do you have some basis for saying this or is it just what you would like to believe?
I have just done a count of the total tackles in the last round of the two kiwi local derbies vs the two Saffa local derbies and there were 100 tackles more in the kiwi games.
The leading tackle counts so far this year are 8 kiwis, 1 Aussie and 3 saffas (Minnie, Strauss and Chilliers from the Lions who clocked up heaps of tackles against the Canes)
If the Saffa players are more interested in injuring each other than in winning the game they are just plain stupid and the judiciary needs to put a stop to it.
6 Mar 2012, 13:04 pm
@Horings(Horings)-22: Dis nou blerrie interesante syfers Horings – dankie.
As ek lees dat die SA Spanne MEER punte buite hulle konferensies gekry het, en bo-op NZ spanne het MINDER punte as die SA spanne beruik – dan kan dit bewyse wees dat daar minder punte beskikbaar is in die SA konferensie juis is dit moeiliker?
6 Mar 2012, 13:09 pm
Boring bashathon boneheadball by Boks
Plumtree is just telling the Yappies what he knows they want to hear
knowing all along it’s all bullshtt
6 Mar 2012, 13:29 pm
so everyones playing tough rugby……good to know.
6 Mar 2012, 14:50 pm
The kiwi players are contracted by the national body and they spread the talent about. There is no way NZ would have a situation like we have in SA where Bismsrk sat on the bench to Smit or the Stormers had JdV, Fourie, de Jong and Sadie while other unions struggle in these areas.
6 Mar 2012, 14:51 pm
@PrickBoks going South(PrickBoks going South)-33: Ooooooh is this the new farkin idiot troll sent to trawl and wind up the Saffas on this site?
I was just starting to enjoy Keo again, after Slack Panty, Waka and the other foot soldiers of the Kiwi-mafia had left or gone quiet.
Your nick must the the stupidest one devised yet. Interesting use of alliteration though in your post – so hints of a poetic soul maybe?
Welcome to the South African site about the Springboks and gauged towards South African rugby fans. I will make sure your time here is as uncomfortable as possible
6 Mar 2012, 15:44 pm
This is a silly debate.
What isn’t up for debate is that the Aussies have the vastly weaker conference.
Of course the keevies will say theirs is tougher. They see the Lions and Cheetahs as incredibly weak.
Of course the Saffas will say ours is tougher. We know the Lions and Cheetahs roar only against fellow Saffa teams but go all Lamb-e-e-e-e-rt against the keevies and ozzies.
7 Mar 2012, 07:24 am
@bokfan1(bokfan1)-36:
you must be todays sacrifice as chosen by all the other whinging Yappies
7 Mar 2012, 10:38 am
@ricane(ricane)-31:
Hi Cane…if you do a more in-depth analysis of the type of tackles, you will see that the SA players put in bigger hits. Its not really the tackle, but the type of tackle that makes it more of a ‘game of attrition’ (sorry for using those words..I faarking hate it when I hear it on tv.) It seems to be a South African thing whereby big boys try and show each other up by seeing who can put in the biggest tackle…I have seen a few in NZ as well, especially when Jerry Collins was around…Now THAT was a legend!!!!
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.