Welcome, Guest.
Please register or login below:
 
 
Crusaders tested and rejected the Reds
Crusaders tested and rejected the Reds
(in 30 #?$%ing 4 degrees temperatures)
19 Mar 2002
To whom it may concern,

The Crusaders have undertaken a thorough quality testing of your rugby product in trying circumstances (30 #?$%ing 4 degrees temperatures) and the following faults have been found in your product.

The major fault is in the forwards. They were approaching a joke in the scrums and we are wondering why they even bothered setting them as we and the ref had to re-set the scrum on no less than 10 occasions. Please get hold of the players and scrum technician and give them a good swift kick up the arse.

Also the breakdowns were of great concern. Too many seagulls are appearing in your side and you are not utilising your backs effectively. Please ask the players too look after the ball and provide quick clean ball to the backs and not to their fellow forwards. Please consult the video to see how well the Crusaders were able to hang on to the ball and then provide quick and clean ball to our backs with great results.

However, there are two exceptions to the breakdowns. The first is Croft who played very well and McCaw (our best at the breakdown) found that he didnít have total dominance. The second is T. Kefu, he like his brother Steve appeared to be your major offensive weapon in getting over the gain line. We realise that this places you in a dilemma over wanting to secure the ball or provide quality attacking moves and/or free tries (yes we are slightly pissed off that we gave him that try).

As the forwards are not securing the breakdown we found that they were unable to mount any sustained pressure. Please consult the video highlights of the ACT in any other game this season apart from the Bulls game as why sustained pressure is good.

Defence seems generally sound and we found that our tries came from long-range efforts. Also the cleaning up by Latham was thorough but he was totally buggered by Ĺ time. We do not offer much in the way of advice there.

This inability to secure quality ball really affected the efficiency of the backs as they mainly received the ball when they were standing flat. We consider this a problem due to the forwards and not the backs. However, there are still some issues that the backs must consider.

Firstly kicking. Kicking for points is not considered a problem and we found Flatley on par with Mehrtens. However, it is the lack of tactical kicking that killed you. Kicking the ball down the opposition's throat helps the opposition. Also aimlessly kicking the ball away is not too smart either. Please consult directly with Mehrtens about how to control a game with tactical kicking.

Greater variety in attack might be considered and please tell the league reject that if he was playing for either ACT or the 'Tahs he would have broken his try scoring cherry by now.

The efforts by Steve Kefu have been mentioned and we found him rather bothersome in defence as he made a couple of us look rather ordinary.

General comments. The game was played nicely and we found that their was no unnecessary agro between players rather it was a friendly game. However, we do advise you to drop this pretence when playing the 'Tahs and kick the living #?$% out of them.

You might consider taking on these points about your game, before you venture out on to the rugby field again.

Now, please provide us with the 5 points we deserved and we are giving you one point for the hospitality that you showed us (i.e. the free air-conditioned change rooms) as we were delighted that, unlike the ACT, you don't charge for power.

Regards

The Crusaders

by Geeves

Let us know what you think!

Queensland management should note that the invoice was not included with this report, the Crusaders are one of the top Rugby Team testing companies in the world and don't come cheap. Therefore I would recommend they hold off on spending all their $$ buying any more league rejects or 'cleaning' up Ballymore for the upcoming RWC just yet.
Supposedly this article has been viewed 1122 times since we bothered to start counting*.
(Although it could have just been Geeves on the Reload button doing some serious ego padding!)