Steely Sharks compound Blues’ woes
13 Apr 2012
RYAN VREDE reports on a 29-23 victory for the Sharks over the Blues that plunges the Auckland franchise into crisis.
There was a shared sense before this fixture that technical and tactical superiority would be less important to the Blues than sheer guts and grit. They have endured a battering in the press and public for their mediocrity and their rebuttal had to be good. It wasn’t. Far from it. There was only a small measure of the guts and grit their situation demanded. Their attacking play was sterile and their defence continues to be generous. Coach Pat Lam is surely now on the brink of losing his job.
Coming back from 15-0 down to trail 15-13 at the break suggested that they still had a little character. They were undoubtedly the better team in the first half, the Sharks’ two tries in that period coming thanks to two intercepts. Outside of that the Durban side failed to trouble their hosts. Certainly they were physical and organised on defence, but they profited from the Blues’ wastefulness in excellent positions. The Blues would finish with 17 handling errors and this was ultimately terminal to their cause.
The best of their spurned opportunities fell to Ma’a Nonu, who knocked on 7m short of the tryline. The Blues had reigned themselves in after a tactically cavalier start to the match and by the 30 minute mark were troubling the Sharks with their ability to play through multiple phases as well as their lineout and breakdown contest, the latter being the source of numerous broken field opportunities they failed to exploit.
But they would have been satisfied with the two-point deficit going down the tunnel and then elated at scoring a converted try just after the restart to take the lead for the first time. However, in typical Blues fashion, they fell into a deep defensive slumber and conceded two converted tries in five minutes, the first from Keegan Daniel and the second a controversial Tim Whitehead score. The midfielder clearly knocked the ball forward into a Blues player but recollected en route to the tryline.
The Sharks’ bench gave them fresh attacking and defensive impetus but they couldn’t manage the try that would surely have sealed the result. With 13 minutes to play Gareth Anscombe kicked his side to within a converted try of taking the lead. But the Blues looked every bit a team who lacked the belief to grab a win from that position. They made fundamental errors, while the Sharks were tactically masterful in closing down the game.
They return to Durban with five points from this match and two tour wins from four matches – an acceptable return that aids their push to top the SA conference. The Blues are left to pick up the pieces of a season that one senses is yet to reach its nadir.
630 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 » Show All
13 Apr 2012, 15:19 pm
@willievz(willievz)-399:
ja, only when barry geel is playing!
17 – 0
13 Apr 2012, 15:20 pm
HG The Stormers haven’t peaked yet, they are way off their best. What they have done though without playing at their best is win, and most of all they have won all their home games so far.
13 Apr 2012, 15:24 pm
Did anybody see that U13 kid from Paarl Gym kick over a penalty from his own 10 metre line, and they play barefoot rugby, how was that. It was on Boot & all last night.
13 Apr 2012, 15:26 pm
Who do you think is going to win? Go to http://www.thetimo.com to give your opinion and see who agrees with you!
13 Apr 2012, 15:31 pm
Nah, like Jacobs they are average players. I alwais said one of the Sharks problems was centre position and that includes Jacobs, Terblanche, Joubert etc etc etc
13 Apr 2012, 15:52 pm
@charo(charo)-275: lol
13 Apr 2012, 15:54 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy)-279: Good post.
13 Apr 2012, 16:05 pm
@skyewalker(skyewalker)-357: Agree!!
13 Apr 2012, 16:16 pm
@Heavens Game(Heavens Game)-390:
What a lot of effort in a post just to prove how much you dont like a team or province.
Stormers giving you sleepness nights? hahahahahahahah
13 Apr 2012, 16:22 pm
Awesome, gutsy win by the Sharks. Well done boys! Glad to have had that one wrong.
13 Apr 2012, 16:49 pm
Well done Shaarkies! Now for the Stormers and my Cheetahs to finish off the Kiwis.
13 Apr 2012, 17:00 pm
Die sharks het kak gespeel
13 Apr 2012, 17:11 pm
You would normally need to pull my teeth out with a crocodile to endorse anything Spiro Zavos says, but in this case, I am 100% agreed. I think the Bulls used a terrible underhanded and completely dishonest tactic against the Saders.
SOME strange Super Rugby action, some of it good and some of it not so good, has been coming out of South Africa. The good could result in a South African team winning the tournament. The not so good requires urgent intervention from SANZAR, which seems reluctant to do the right thing.
We are in the 74th minute of the enthralling Bulls-Crusaders match being played at Pretoria. The Bulls are leading 32-23 and the visitors are mounting a storming finish. Dan Carter makes a break and pops a pass to Tom Taylor, who surges through to score a try. The referee, Jaco Peyper, confers with the assistant referee Pro Legoete, who says authoritatively, ”definitely obstruction”. The try is overruled. Kieran Read, the Crusaders captain, calls out in an agitated manner that Carter wasn’t obstructing because he was running behind the ball carrier, as he is entitled to do. Peyper ignores Read and orders a penalty. Legoete was only metres away from the play. Why didn’t Peyper ask Legoete if Carter was in front of or behind the ball carrier? If Legoete confirmed (as he surely would have) that Carter was behind the ball runner, Peyper had to overrule his assistant.
Just before and just after half-time in the same match, Bulls forwards Chiliboy Ralepelle and Flip van der Merwe complained to Peyper that they had been poked in the eyes by the Crusaders. No Crusader was identified as the villain. Peyper put both incidents on a white card. The citing commissioner dismissed the eye-gouging claims. He noted that it was ”interesting” that the Bulls did not follow through with their complaint within the four-hour window after the match.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Were the Bulls indulging in gamesmanship to influence decisions from the referee? Richard Knowler, the rugby writer for the Press in Christchurch, reported from Pretoria that Peyper ”left Read in a frustrated state for several mystifying penalties in the middle of the second half”. These decisions came after the eye-gouging complaints. This frustration was further deepened with Peyper’s refusal to query the assistant referee’s obstruction call, he suggested. In his column on rugbyheaven.com.au, Paul Cully referred to these incidents and made the point that the perception of fairness in the local referee system (Peyper and Legoete are South Africans) is compromised by incidents such as this. This is a point I have been arguing for several years. The sooner SANZAR abolishes the local referees system, the better. But if the system is maintained, SANZAR needs to be ruthless in ensuring the perception of fairness. There is no excuse for Legoete’s egregious mistake. He should be stood down.
Gregor Paul, a columnist on The New Zealand Herald, is adamant the eye-gouging complaints were vexatious. He has a point. Neither player, he notes, ”has been photographed with a damaged eye”. He asserts that the Bulls ”cynically and disturbingly” have found a loophole in the white-card system by making ”clearly malicious and entirely false allegations”, which were intended to ”unsettle” the Crusaders. This is a serious accusation.
SANZAR must interview the two Bulls with a view to finding out the truth. If gamesmanship emerges as a finding, the players concerned should be suspended.
Now for the good stuff. The exuberant and skillful play of the South African teams, with the exception of the Lions, has been a highlight. The Cheetahs are the most entertaining side. They play the Chiefs, the leading New Zealand side, at Bloemfontein tonight, and will be hard to defeat. The Bulls’ Morne Steyn leads in successful conversions (16). The Stormers are the only unbeaten side. They play with an unrelenting defence and searing attack. Their contest with the Crusaders tonight could be defining in the outcome of the tournament.
? The laws of rugby. Obstruction 10.1 (b) Running in front of a ball carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a teammate carrying the ball, thereby preventing opponents from tackling the ball carrier …
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/bulls-allegations-raise-question-of-fairness-20120413-1wyqa.html#ixzz1rvtFMMMN
13 Apr 2012, 17:16 pm
Whoever is using Chris Hani’s name on Keo… words cannot adequately describe the just how contemptible you are… just how low-class and disgusting you are and how feeble and low is you ‘intelligence’.
Please Roy, Keo or whoever… ban this person ASAP!!
It is not funny and is an affront and insult to the dignity of the man and to the vast majority of South Africans.
13 Apr 2012, 17:28 pm
@Vetkoek(Vetkoek)-413:
The Kiwi’s bitching about poor or bias reffing?
Spare me.
No seriously, they can kiss my ***.
The day Spiros writes about the reffing in the RWC (including the final reffed by a saffa) I will take his bitching seriously.
13 Apr 2012, 17:32 pm
@Vetkoek(Vetkoek)-413:
Carter was obstructing the Bulls cover defense.
Legoete got that one right.
13 Apr 2012, 17:33 pm
@ufo(ufo)-414:
Thanks ufo, hopefully Roy/Keo will respond asap.
13 Apr 2012, 17:34 pm
@Jeraldjay(Jeraldjay)-417:
have tweeted them…
13 Apr 2012, 17:36 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-415:
It’s only my opinion and I’m not going on about Legoete’s call at all, but I cannot shake this feeling that the eye-gouging claims were fabricated.
Something is rotten in the state of Loftus
13 Apr 2012, 17:36 pm
@ufo(ufo)-414:
Theres no law against using whatever name you like, is there?
13 Apr 2012, 17:38 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-415:
To clarify, I;m not commenting or agreeing with Spiro at all on the reffing. I am however highly suspicious of the way this whole eye-gouging accusation played itself out.
13 Apr 2012, 17:38 pm
@Chris Hani(Chris Hani)-412: seriously?
13 Apr 2012, 17:39 pm
@Stawm(Stawm)-420:
you obviously belong to ‘that’ minority…
13 Apr 2012, 17:43 pm
steely sharks?well,what more can you say,playing against the kukkest kiwi franchise .
13 Apr 2012, 17:44 pm
@ufo(ufo)-423:
Listen tiger, I’m not sure when and where you think you were made “Prefect” of this forum, but maybe time to stop being such a D!@s.
In fact, would you like to meet up with me. We can discuss “which class I belong to”
13 Apr 2012, 17:46 pm
@Stawm(Stawm)-420: It’s something called RESPECT.
13 Apr 2012, 17:46 pm
@Vetkoek(Vetkoek)-419:
Bud I am also not attacking you. My problem is with Spiro.
I have to disagree with you however on the Bulls trying to pull a quick one. They are a hard, uncompromising side who might take things a tad to far in the off the ball stuff wrt aggression from their side.
But I do not think for one second they will make false claims like this.
That said I am also not saying that it was intentional, **** happens in rucks, fingers near eyes is not uncommon but I cannot believe it to be intentional.
For the record, SANZAR ref’s believed Pro got the obstruction call wrong. I reckoned it was a 50/50 call which went to the home side. **** happens.
13 Apr 2012, 17:47 pm
Well done Sharks.
HG needs his second round of valium
13 Apr 2012, 17:48 pm
@Stawm(Stawm)-425:
With that post you definitely belong to “that” minority.
13 Apr 2012, 17:48 pm
@Stawm(Stawm)-425:
now that YOU bring it up… you reveal your class with each post…
13 Apr 2012, 17:52 pm
@ufo(ufo)-430:
Dont think you understood my question. Is there a law against it? Simple really.
Can you answer this?
@Michael(mikeybrass)-426:
Another wannabe forum prefect.
By your logic, can no-one else use this name then?
13 Apr 2012, 17:54 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-427:
Ja look, Like I say- just a suspicion.
It just seems highly unusual that 2 separate incidents are reported, without anything being picked up by camera or teammate.
And then it just goes away? No report filed, no comment from the Bulls management or alleged victims?
It’s a MASSIVE claim to make of the opposition. Especially opposition who have such a wonderful record of fair play. It’s not like claiming a punch or similar. This is 2 separate allegations of eye-gouging in one game?
A pretty hectic coincedence.
13 Apr 2012, 17:54 pm
@Stawm(Stawm)-431:
*shakes head is disbelief*
13 Apr 2012, 17:56 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-427:
And for the record I did mention that I think Spiro is a clown. If I’m honest, he just happened to bring up a “conspiracy theory” that fitted nicely with something that I have been suspicious of, which suited my ägenda”
13 Apr 2012, 17:57 pm
A bit anxious about the Stormers game tomorrow.
They have set the bar so high and can afford to lose one game but momentum going into the business end of the competition is crucial.
Carter is starting to hit his straps and will try and dictate the game but our defence is yet to be unlocked succesfully.
13 Apr 2012, 17:58 pm
@Vetkoek(Vetkoek)-432:
I will concede, it was a scenario or situation I would not normally associate with the Bulls.
Let’s put that in the memory bank.
Spiro is still an ***!
13 Apr 2012, 17:59 pm
@ufo(ufo)-433:
You still dont answer my question.
You need to get out more. Make some friends maybe. A while ago you had a go at someone who made a joke at Dawns expense. YOU decided to take the moral high ground and slate the person. In the mean time Dawn came back with even cruder jokes.
Seriously, what makes you think this is your high school debate class?
As far as respect goes, what did the blogger do to show disrespect. What law is he breaking?
Are all the thousands of “Jesuss’ ” in South America also showing disrespect?
13 Apr 2012, 18:01 pm
@Jeraldjay(Jeraldjay)-435:
Agreed. I reckon tomorrows game is a massive one. Not only will a win for the Stormers instill massive belief, but it will send out a wonderful warning signal to all-comers.
A loss now though could also signal the start of a serious downward spiral. It just highlights how tough this competition is. Aside from maybe 1 or 2 teams, it is becoming increasingly difficult to call a winner/loser this year.
13 Apr 2012, 18:01 pm
@ufo(ufo)-433:
*shakes head is disbelief*
Hell man, how old are you?
Anyway, if you want to continue this with it will have to wait for Monday. I am having my weekend now.
Otherwise I will gladly debate it with you next time at Firemans.
13 Apr 2012, 18:02 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-436:
Amen to that
Out of interest, who have you called for the Stormers and Cheetahs games tomorrow?
13 Apr 2012, 18:04 pm
@Stawm(Stawm)-437:
you are being disingenuous…
it is indeed about respect…
but to respect other people you need first to respect yourself…
so we know why you don’t get it…
13 Apr 2012, 18:04 pm
@willievz(willievz)-416:
How can a support runner be pinged for obstructing the cover defence unless he purposely changes direction to impede him? They’re obviously coming from behind the ball carrier if that’s the case. Besides, how often do we see a player sheparding a team mate going for the corner flag? I would have thought that if he’s in a position to legally receive an offload he can’t be accused of obstruction, even if he is in the way of a potential tackler.
13 Apr 2012, 18:11 pm
@Vetkoek(Vetkoek)-438:
Playing the overseas leg is obviously different to playing at home. Its like living in a bubble. So the win last week against a very highly rated Highlanders will instill confidence into the team and especially the younger players who are out of their “comfort zone”.
13 Apr 2012, 18:15 pm
@Jeraldjay(Jeraldjay)-435:
yeah… also anxious about tomorrow’s game…
i know we CAN win it… but we are gonna have to play outta our socks…
if they are as focused, disciplined and determined as they were last saturday… i think we will win…
all just depends if they can do it again… and then some…
13 Apr 2012, 18:18 pm
@Stawm(Stawm)-431: It’s human respect.
Pot, kettle, black on the judgemental part btw.
13 Apr 2012, 18:20 pm
@Vetkoek(Vetkoek)-413:
I watched the replay, there was no obstruction that I could detect, as Phil Kearn said:” he got to be somewhere on the field”, the player has to move across in front of the ball carrier intentionally
The Saders knew Legota will be there but didn’t raise a hell, so they deserved him because a one call to Lyndon Brey would have sorted it out, the Warathas for instance will not let Legota reffing in their matches no matter what.
Peiper lost a lot of well earned ground with his performance at Loftus
@willievz(willievz)-416:
Cover defence by Ndungane and Basson?
oh dear
13 Apr 2012, 18:20 pm
@Stawm(Stawm)-437: Seriously? Seriously? You are seriously trying to link a person using their parental given name to a NICKNAME on a bloody BLOG? HELLO, earth calling.
13 Apr 2012, 18:22 pm
@ufo(ufo)-441: Why don’t we equate Chris Hani to God and be done with it
13 Apr 2012, 18:23 pm
@ufo(ufo)-444:
If they win tomorrow it will break the record for most wins in a row.
Can be done and last week I saw a glimpse of the backline showing some creativity. Maybe Fleckie is starting to add value.
13 Apr 2012, 18:25 pm
@Michael(mikeybrass)-448:
yeah…
and then he’ll cry freedom of religion and can cal himself God on a blog if he wants to cause there’s no law against it…
un-be-liev-able…
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.