Sharks 14 – 19 Crusaders. Can we agree on that?

Written by Rob Otto (robdylan)

Posted in :Original Content, Sharks, Super Rugby on 27 Mar 2016 at 13:55
Tagged with : , , , , , , ,

I’m convinced, having read the comments here and elsewhere, that two different games took place at Kings Park on Saturday evening. I quite enjoyed the one I watched, but others, who clearly saw a different game, didn’t like it quite as much.

Let’s focus, for now, on what happened. I’m sure there will be plenty of time during the coming week to air our varying interpretations of those facts.

The Crusaders scored a late try, through captain Kieran Read, to wrest the lead away from a Sharks side that despite coming off second best in both possession and territory, had somehow led for most of the second half. In a performance that will certainly leave Todd Blackadder scratching his head a little, it was the visitors who played all the rugby, profiting time and again from poor Sharks execution at both scrum and lineout time. The home side’s inability to effectively exit their own territory further played into the Kiwi outfit’s hands and the Sharks’ defence was once again put to the test as wave after wave of Crusader counter-attack broke upon their shore.

That they conceded only a single try in the first half, to fullback David Havili, spoke volumes of the tenacity of that defence. With flyhalf Richie Mo’unga in charitable mood (missing several kicks from the tee), the Sharks remained close on the scoreboard and actually drew level before half time, with Lwazi Mvovo snatching onto a long looping pass and sprinting 60 metres for a long-range intercept score. Further luck came their way early in the second period, with Mvovo again the beneficiary after Ryan Crotty dropped the ball in his team’s 22. The flying winger scooped it up on the volley and raced through for his second. Bizarrely, having played none of the rugby, the Sharks now lead 14-7.

Man of the match Nemani Nadolo – a constant threat with ball in hand – scored for the visitors not long after, with Mo’unga again missing the conversion to leave the Sharks ahead by two. A fairy-tale finish appeared on the cards, with a Crusader turnover deep in the Sharks half appearing to have resulted in a Willie le Roux try on the other end. It was not to be, though, with referee Jaco Peyper and TMO Johan Greeff deciding between them that le Roux had been offside in the build up, a conclusion to which they appeared to come very quickly without reviewing much footage at all.

Sanity, perhaps, prevailed in the end, with the Sharks’ defence finally giving way to the surging Read after 15 gruelling phases in the closing minutes of the match. It was Nadolo himself who converted, putting his side beyond the Sharks’ reach and sealing a hard 5-point win.

Sharks (14): Tries Lwazi Mvovo (2). Conversions Joe Pietersen (2).
Crusaders (19): Tries David Havili, Nemani Nadolo, Kieran Read. Conversions Richie Mo’unga, Nadolo


  • I’m not too concerned with the end result….a part of me even says we did well under the circumstances. What bothers me is that from the little ball we got it was made bad ball by Cobus’ slow passing game. You can’t even think of an effective attacking game without a quick 9. Gold also needs to evolve his thinking as this kicking game of his isn’t working.

  • Comment 1, posted at 27.03.16 14:28:54 by GreatSharksays Reply
  • Didnt watch the game,but seems to be doubt over the disallowed try.have posted it twice already,but will do so again: need to look at the team in factor in thomas,botha,potgieter,lambie into match 23.this was round 5.the season is not over.sharks need to be smarter with their kicks.on breakdown,the nz rugby program,mention was made about the highlanders kicking stats.had 39 in one obviously kicking per se is not always the problem,rather how the kicking game is executed.

  • Comment 2, posted at 27.03.16 14:29:28 by 50shadesofshark Reply
  • @GreatSharksays (Comment 1) : it is therefore difficult for me to fully judge our game with Cobus bringing our attack to a stand still. The boys need to be congratulated though as the Crusaders always show us stick and to limit them to just 19 points is good. I’m happy with the coaching team….just a few players short of the real deal. Chili will make a difference, we need Lood, still need fully convinced that our centres are worls beaters but they can’t show their skills if 10 is getting bad ball.

  • Comment 3, posted at 27.03.16 14:34:12 by GreatSharksays Reply
  • Nicely put Rob! I’m approximately 1000 times more disappointed by the fans than the result.
    I was on the edge of my seat the whole game and wow that was a titanic battle. I don’t there was a player on that field (Shark or Sader) who didn’t put in everything they had.
    On another day Willie’s try would have been ruled legit and the outcome different against a team that virtually resembles an All black side.

  • Comment 4, posted at 27.03.16 14:36:02 by gregkaos Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • Rob it was a very hard game and yes the Sharks defended very well. However a lack of quality ball from set pieces and kicking away turnover ball probability ensure that the Sharks did not create any scoring opportunities except for Mvovo’s two tries and Willie’s near try.
    For me seeing the Sharks set pieces in total shambles like last night is not enjoyable to watch. Yes they did come close but for me in the end they were a bit lucky to only lose by 5 points.

  • Comment 5, posted at 27.03.16 14:39:01 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • How a game with not a single phase of attacking play can be enjoyed is beyond me.

  • Comment 6, posted at 27.03.16 14:46:40 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @gregkaos (Comment 4) : yes it was an close exciting game. Yes the Sharks players really tried and the Sharks almost sneaked a victory. However except for defence, Mvovo’s two tries and Willie’s close one exactly what did the Sharks do last night?
    Sharks was totally out played by the Saders and personally I think they were a bit lucky to not lose further. You can not kick away balls into the hands of the opposition back 3 and just expect them to make mistakes for you to beat them.

  • Comment 7, posted at 27.03.16 14:47:58 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • The only reason they didn’t wipe the floor with us, was our defence and two pieces of pure luck.

  • Comment 8, posted at 27.03.16 14:49:09 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • Take Lwazi’s 2 opportunistic tries out of the equation and we were nowhere.

    Add in their 10 who left what, 15-20 points on the field due to his abysmal kicking and a rather more acccurate picture starts emerging.

    Journeyman locks, a flyhalf who looks rather headless and a midfield thats offensively nowhere.

    We are regressing at a rate of knots since the start of the campaign.

    And i don’t want to hear anything about “heroic defence”. Good effective tackling is to be expected.

    Did a single ball go out to the back 3 in an organised move?

    We’ve got some serious issues.

  • Comment 9, posted at 27.03.16 14:52:43 by Dryden Reply

  • Rob, the character and commitment on defence was unbelievable. But the attack, or absolute lack thereof, is scary. I asked you a couple of weeks back what you thought of the kicking game – ie, I don’t see it working against a NZ side. Yes, the Highlanders kick a lot, but the difference is, they are attacking kicks into space, not defensive kicks. The reality is, we were soundly beaten yesterday and the scoreline certainly flattered us. It annoys me that a NZ side should come here to SA and beat us. This is not just a Shark problem, it is a SA problem. We need to learn when to kick and how to kick in order to put the opposition under pressure, not just hoof and hope. To end on a positive, I have not seen such an amazing defensive display and heart in a long time, now let’s put some energy into attack

  • Comment 10, posted at 27.03.16 14:52:59 by Vonno13 Reply
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 6) : @Nostraseth (Comment 8) : for sure Sharks defence was awesome but once again Sharks forwards put in a bad performance at set pieces. Sharks will not win this competition if they do not seriously improve their set pieces and get it right in every game the play.

  • Comment 11, posted at 27.03.16 14:56:15 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • Let’s not forget all their missed points, that should have been a thumping, we were plain and simply lucky.

  • Comment 12, posted at 27.03.16 14:56:40 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • Look, the most disappointing thing was that game was a typical SA v NZ encounter. We all know what that is and that over a full 80 minutes it hardly ever works.

    We rode our luck all game. This article doesn’t mention their disallowed try. It doesn’t mention how they completely dominated the 10 minute period between 48 minutes and 58 minutes when they were down to 14 players. It all felt desperate. It felt as though the Crusaders should have been ahead by a much larger margin. The Sharks were clinging on for dear life. It all felt inevitable in the end. Be honest.

    We couldn’t retain possession and we never looked like creating our own scoring opportunities. We had no attacking threat to speak of other than waiting to pounce on intercepts or errors in the process of defending all game.

    The hardest thing to swallow is that I think we did try to “build phase play” in the second half (as Gold said at half time) but we simply could not keep the ball due either to handling errors or coughing up ground turnovers in our predictable bash style. We panicked and reverted to the only thing we know – kick and defend.

    I want my team to be the team that plays the rugby and breaks other teams down.

    Not the team that kicks all its ball away.

    An all round balanced team, not one just hoping to out-defend the other.

    The distinct 2015 trend in the Bulls and Crusaders games is worrying.

  • Comment 13, posted at 27.03.16 14:57:50 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • Peyper was exactly in line with Reinach as the kick was made and never awarded the try. The TMO review was a mere formality to confirm an opinion he already held.

    That’s why it was so quick.

  • Comment 14, posted at 27.03.16 14:57:57 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • Sharks didn’t pass, Sharks didn’t offload, Sharks didn’t break the line, Sharks lineout was wonky, and the scrum was shaky, what little possession the Sharks had was kicked to the Saders back three (they never really bothered to join the Saders defensive line, because they knew our boys would kick everything away)… far as I remember, that try by Read started in the Saders 22 – and they held onto that ball for phase after phase after patiently faught fo phase. Sharks on the other hand kicked everything – had there been a dog on that field, it too would have been kicked by either Joe, Reinach or Willie.

    I’m with James Small on this, it was rubbish rugby by the Sharks – sorry Brendan, both teams played in the same “humid” conditions.

  • Comment 15, posted at 27.03.16 15:00:39 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @Vonno13 (Comment 10) : for sure the Sharks players are committed and defending like they did for how long they did shows that they’re fit and if only they can get the set pieces right they could start using those energy to attack.

  • Comment 16, posted at 27.03.16 15:01:59 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • How many kicks were missed, 4? So take out our two pure luck tries, add their missed kicks, and then we have 0-31 (worse because I’m pretty sure it was more than 4 kicks)

    And sure you can say that’s not what happened, and no it wasn’t, but that was the game we watched.

  • Comment 17, posted at 27.03.16 15:02:41 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • Apparently that’s considered entertaining?

  • Comment 18, posted at 27.03.16 15:03:11 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 15) : I think it was 15 phases for Read’s try. You cannot keep defending for that long. It was all very inevitable.

    What humidity? The Crusaders were the only team who held on to the ball all game and it looked like they were playing with glue on their hands.

  • Comment 19, posted at 27.03.16 15:03:41 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • Also that defending for 80 minutes literally broke our players.

  • Comment 20, posted at 27.03.16 15:05:20 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 15) : yes Read’s try was a buildup of 15 phases. But the humidity must have taken a quick break during that time.

  • Comment 21, posted at 27.03.16 15:06:54 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 19) : maybe the glue thing should be looked into, maybe they cheated and that’s why we lost. Hahahaha if you’re looking for excuses you will find some.

  • Comment 22, posted at 27.03.16 15:10:30 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • Great defence from the sharks and great game. Still think willie was in line with the kicker.

  • Comment 23, posted at 27.03.16 15:12:30 by Dragnipur Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @Dragnipur (Comment 23) : it’s lost on me how that was a great game? Could you perhaps elaborate?

  • Comment 24, posted at 27.03.16 15:15:20 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • How on earth can that toothless kick fest be called great?

  • Comment 25, posted at 27.03.16 15:15:55 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • I think I am learning that Rob’s first sentence can only be right.

    There seem to be two outcomes.

    Some Sharks fans saw the game as terrific largely because we only lost by 5 points and didn’t get 50 put on us like last year.

    Some Sharks fans are disappointed by the loss but more than that are disappointed by the manner of the loss.

    It’s a funny old world, isn’t it? It would be boring if we all agreed.

  • Comment 26, posted at 27.03.16 15:22:09 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @Dragnipur (Comment 23) : time to let it go just like we told the Stormers.

  • Comment 27, posted at 27.03.16 15:28:38 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 26) : @Nostraseth (Comment 25) : for me personally it was a good game because the Sharks had a chance to win right until the end. On the other hand Daren it was not a good game as the Sharks forwards could not get the set pieces sorted and the one or two good balls that they won as well as turnover balls was kicked right into the hands of the Saders back 3.
    If Sharks decides to do this against the Chiefs we will get a 30 odd point beating.

  • Comment 28, posted at 27.03.16 15:34:18 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • The Sharks clearly have developed a survival instinct, which sounds like a positive thing. However, a team does not win this competition without a killer instinct. We honestly played terribly. We should recognise that it wasn’t even slightly good enough if we want to be taken seriously as title contenders. The Crusaders were always the team that would make that clear.

  • Comment 29, posted at 27.03.16 15:43:51 by David12246 Reply

  • I think there is a lesson to be learnt here,watching the game live and watching it on T.V are from two totally different perspectives.
    On T.V the camera is focused on a much tighter picture you are often unaware ,say like in this game that the Sharks played 80% of the game in their own half
    There are too many other things you don’t see.
    Like just how dumb our game plan was.
    Sorry this was not a performance that the last undefeated team in the competition should want to treat its home fans to.

  • Comment 30, posted at 27.03.16 16:31:55 by The hound Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    The hound
  • @The hound (Comment 30) : everything you say was all very noticeable on TV.

    I think I have hit the nail on the head. It comes down to expectations. Some are happy that we “only” lost by 5 points. There is no bigger picture.

  • Comment 31, posted at 27.03.16 16:49:47 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @The hound (Comment 30) : I for one am very happy we have lost the “last unbeaten team” curse. Maybe now our nervous head coach will relax a little.

    because *poof in the space of one game we go from the only unbeaten team to

    – the conference leader with the lowest points tally
    – the only conference leader with 3 wins from 5 (the rest have all won 4 from 5)
    – already surpassed in points tally by the highest wild card team from another conference (which means we’re a pretty shit conference “leader”)
    – the Lions, a game in hand, will overtake us to lead our conference if they win next weekend while we’re on a bye.

    Suddenly things don’t look quite as rosy as they did before yesterday’s game. Being the “last unbeaten team” means squat now because we’re waaaaaaaay off that level as of today with a coach and playing unit going along with the dumb play no rugby tactics we’ve seen the past month.

    We will be lucky to scrape in as the best African wild card qualifier if this trend continues.

  • Comment 32, posted at 27.03.16 17:04:27 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @The hound (Comment 30) : I agree and I have been saying it for a long time,also this Saders team is not what it once was they also rebuilding,and only the Sharks feel the humidity eish,the problem here is I don’t mind losing but GG is so out of his depth here he got the gameplan so horribly wrong and then at half time had no plan B or just could not change and why in last 10 min do you take Joe and Cr off when they were so badly exposed and then expect Claasen and April to change the game,how do you do that if you are not clueless?

  • Comment 33, posted at 27.03.16 17:05:42 by benji Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 31) : no what was not was the back 3 of Sadres ambling around and waiting for the kicks

  • Comment 34, posted at 27.03.16 17:08:15 by benji Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @The hound (Comment 30) : I can only remember us in their 22 about 4 times.

  • Comment 35, posted at 27.03.16 17:10:22 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @benji (Comment 34) : Exactly, TV viewers wouldn’t have seen that their back 3 didn’t bother joining the game, they just sat and waited for kicks down their throats.

  • Comment 36, posted at 27.03.16 17:11:51 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @benji (Comment 34) : @Nostraseth (Comment 36) : actually that was obvious because every kick pretty much went straight to a player who had support runners waiting.

    Come on guys, you telling me any team who plays a SA team doesn’t do this? Are you naive? Blackadder said he was expecting “kickfests” in SA.

  • Comment 37, posted at 27.03.16 17:18:02 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 35) : I can only remember 3 times in their 22m. Our two intercept tries and the disallowed try.

  • Comment 38, posted at 27.03.16 17:19:42 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 15) : it sounds like our defensive is solid,but eventually a good attacking who offloads in the tackle will break the line to score.need to become more dominant in the tackle and get a fetcher in the team.somewhere in 15 phases there must be the opportunity for a turnover?

  • Comment 39, posted at 27.03.16 17:25:59 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 38) : And two lineouts from penalties, both of which lead to nothing. I didn’t count the disallowed try because well it was disallowed.

  • Comment 40, posted at 27.03.16 17:26:57 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @The hound (Comment 30) : Please elaborate on the dumb game plan.

  • Comment 41, posted at 27.03.16 17:26:59 by GreatSharksays Reply

  • @GreatSharksays (Comment 41) : Kick the ball away and defend, rinse and repeat for 80 minutes.

  • Comment 42, posted at 27.03.16 17:28:22 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @thehound: your comment about getting juan smith involved as forwards coach is something the sharks should look into.also very competitive.

  • Comment 43, posted at 27.03.16 17:33:29 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @Nostraseth (Comment 42) : and hope and pray you can hold on for 80 minutes. And a little luck to go your way.

  • Comment 44, posted at 27.03.16 17:33:34 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 44) : And hope the attrition rate is not TO high.

  • Comment 45, posted at 27.03.16 17:37:01 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 43) : what experience does Juan Smith have of coaching? Do you know if he is able to effectively communicate his ideas? Or even willing to be a coach? Being a good player doesn’t mean you will automatically be an effective coach.

    The Sharks isn’t a place for coaching development. We need pros. Anyway, we have a forwards coach already on the books. His name is Gary Gold.

  • Comment 46, posted at 27.03.16 17:38:42 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • How many handling errors in these 5 games?difficult to play running rugby if there are many handling errors.perhaps the coaches looked at that stat and decided to not risk the running game,because of the threat of turnovers from handling errors?question is: how much time was spent handling the ball in pre-season?

  • Comment 47, posted at 27.03.16 17:40:01 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 47) : Then you need an alternative don’t you? Clearly we had no idea what to do with the ball other than kick it, 35 times…. In one game!!

  • Comment 48, posted at 27.03.16 17:42:05 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 46) : imo juan smith comes with a wealth of knowledge.for one: excellent line-out jumper at the back for the boks and cheetahs.and quite sure the sharks pack wil be a motivated unit under his coaching.line-outs,kick-off retention,mauls,loose forward play.sharks always wanted to sign him as a player.maybe can get him as a coach?

  • Comment 49, posted at 27.03.16 17:48:03 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @Nostraseth (Comment 48) : my comment is that perhaps kicking and defending was the game plan based on the handling error rate in the previous 4 games?then it comes down to the execution of the game plan.did not watch the game yet,so cannot comment on the amount of pressure the sharks were at scrums,line-outs and the breakdowns.that can influence execution of no9s kicking.what i do know is that thomas,botha,potgieter and lambie must still return to the match 23.also chili.

  • Comment 50, posted at 27.03.16 17:53:37 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @Nostraseth (Comment 48) : number of kicks do not count.on breakdown,the nz rugby program,mention was made about how many times the highlanders kick.kicked 39 times in one is all about the execution of the kicking game.

  • Comment 51, posted at 27.03.16 17:56:37 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @benji (Comment 34) : @Nostraseth (Comment 36) : that would explain why we could not kick into open field with the ball landing on grass (like they did)!

  • Comment 52, posted at 27.03.16 18:01:05 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • Very dissapointed in the result and the manner we played, BUT with all bad there must be good. The defense box has been ticked. Well done to the coaching staff. Keep your finger on it, but we need to move onto the next phase of developing this “young” team… attack. I want to see the mindset and skills of the french games. I want to enjoy watching my beloved Sharks. The last 3 games have been like watching an old movie with a regrettable ending. Enough. If you are scared of losing you will enjoy it.

  • Comment 53, posted at 27.03.16 18:11:07 by catfish Reply
  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 50) : it’s not like you must decide between kicking and running! You must use both to keep your opponents guessing.
    What was said in comments of guys that attended the game the Saders back 3 just played deep and waited for the kick. For me that is a good opportunity to let the backs run as they basically already have an overlap.
    As for players returning from injury the problem is most teams will have players returning from injury (think Chiefs have 12 players out) so yes it’s good for the Sharks but could be neutralize by other teams also getting star players back.

  • Comment 54, posted at 27.03.16 18:13:06 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @benji (Comment 33) : I don’t mind bringing on Claassens but I really could not belief that at such a crucial time he decided to bring on April! He hardly had any game time in the previous games (mostly if not all at 15) and then under such pressure they decide now it’s time to give him time at 10?! I really don’t know what the coach(s) thought he could do?!?!

  • Comment 55, posted at 27.03.16 18:26:50 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @JD (Comment 54) : was there an overlap?just because their back 3 were hanging back,does not mean there were overlaps.the team in possession could use more players than defending team to secure and keep possession at the breakdown.5 vs 3 means the defensive team has a 2 player defensive advantage.

  • Comment 56, posted at 27.03.16 18:34:11 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 56) : Dude just watch the game….

    Their back 3 never had to join the line because we never tried a single attacking move, we literally (used correctly) kicked ever ball we got.

  • Comment 57, posted at 27.03.16 18:41:37 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @The hound (Comment 30) :

    That they were stuck deep in their own half was obvious on television an it was obviously because of their inferior set pieces and kicking game.

    The only other option left to the Sharks would have been to try an run from inside their own 22 and the realistic expectation from that game-plan is that they would have lost by a much larger margin.

    If you want to be upset, be upset about the fact that Nadolo is bigger faster with better skills that Pietersen.

    As it was the Sharks played to the plan that gave them the best chance to win against superior talent and it almost paid off.

  • Comment 58, posted at 27.03.16 18:50:58 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 56) : OK maybe not an overlap but you would for sure have players like Jordaan, Willie, JPP and Mvovo running at forwards and most of the times they should beat them with stepping and pace. Another thing running would do is force the back 3 closer to the game and thus opening space for kickers to kick into open space!

  • Comment 59, posted at 27.03.16 18:56:29 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @fyndraai (Comment 58) : so hold on, are you saying we simply just have no other choice?

  • Comment 60, posted at 27.03.16 19:04:03 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @fyndraai (Comment 58) : nobody said they should run out of their 22. There was chances in mid field from set pieces as well as turn overs but the ball was just kicked away. I can also remember 2 times where the Sharks regained the ball from an up and under only to kick another kick?!?!

  • Comment 61, posted at 27.03.16 19:04:07 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • It’s either kick everything or run everything it seems 🙄 😆

  • Comment 62, posted at 27.03.16 19:04:43 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • The Crusaders don’t run everything. Would it surprise you that they had 29 kicks from hand yesterday?

    Sure, they had much more of the ball so it’s not a straight comparison but they still kick when they need to.

    Find the balance.

  • Comment 63, posted at 27.03.16 19:09:08 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 62) : another thing that is important is to vary your kicks. Can’t remember a short cross kick for the wingers? Why did they not use Andre on some of the clearing kicks (like they did successfully) in previous games?
    Lots of questions remains.

  • Comment 64, posted at 27.03.16 19:11:58 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 62) : Something that NZ learned after 2009….run when it’s on, and as soon as your opponent loads their defensive line, kick into the acres of open field.

    The Lions are the only SA team that should be employing a kicking game, because they know how to attack with ball in hand. Opposition teams are therefore forced to load their defensive line.

    Pretty simple actually.

  • Comment 65, posted at 27.03.16 19:15:17 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • kicking the ball out of hand, in its self is not a bad idea, however, execution of said kicks is important

    my great concern over the past four yearx is that teams kick poorly and with little to no variation.

    Sadera put on a clinic of how, when and where to kick yester

    also it was really interesting to see how Nodolo fielded a kick off and instead of shipping it to the fh he just kicked it miles himself, im not sure why we dont do that with mvovo, esterhuisen and jpp

    yes we defended bravely yester

    but the saders defended much better, the tries they conceded were never through their defensive line, but instead while they were on attach, including the disallowed one

    sa teams sometimes get kicking right for a game or two, like the bulls back in the day and stormers against the brumbies

    its strange that the cheetahs didnt copy the stormera game plan against the brumbies

    theres a lot to work on, I hope the lions get many many injuries this week

  • Comment 66, posted at 27.03.16 19:19:11 by revolverocelot Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 65) : exactly my point I was trying to make!

  • Comment 67, posted at 27.03.16 19:28:35 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 26) :
    I agree. I largely fall into the latter group.

    @fyndraai (Comment 58) :
    You’re dabbling in generalities here. Sure, they dominated set pieces in the first half, but that swung around in the second. In fact we won about 3 scrum penalties in the second half. So that argument doesn’t hold.

    Fact is that this game wasn’t simply lost by the players – we lost because we lacked the attitude and game plan to adapt to the circumstances. We need to own up to being beaten by a team that game to play rugby.

  • Comment 68, posted at 27.03.16 19:30:36 by Big Fish Reply
    Big Fish
  • @revolverocelot (Comment 66) : think we will see how good the Lions are this week when they play the Saders. Could be a good game to watch!

  • Comment 69, posted at 27.03.16 19:32:25 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 60) :

    Sure they had. They chose the game-plan that gave them the best chance to win.

    @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 62) :

    When you’re stuck in your own 22, can’t kick for shit and lose your own set-pieces, the best balance is to kick anyways and look to score from scraps.
    If WLR had started from 1m back or if Peyper had blinked at the moment of the kick the Sharks would have stolen a win.

  • Comment 70, posted at 27.03.16 19:33:35 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @fyndraai (Comment 70) : you said it yourself “the Sharks would have stolen a win”!!! Sharks will not become Super rugby champions by stealing wins! They will need to play and beat teams to become champions!!!

  • Comment 71, posted at 27.03.16 19:36:29 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @fyndraai (Comment 70) : mate if you seriously believe that kicking everything away and defending (and praying) is the best tactic against any NZ team then, I’m sorry to say it, we will never agree. It might win us 1 out 10 games but everything needs to click. You can’t think of any better way??? Reeeeaaaalllly?

    How about we win a game just by beating the other team at rugby and not hoping the ref blinks at the right time? The Crusaders beat us at rugby.

  • Comment 72, posted at 27.03.16 19:41:26 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 24) : Our defence which was nowhere last year fronted up big time. The saders pinned us back and kept the ball extremely well. We did kick a load of ball away which was disappointing, but the two intercept tries came from great defensive pressure, not just pure luck. It wasn’t our day with the bounce of the ball not going for us but the guys stuck with it and almost stole the win. That made it a great game.

  • Comment 73, posted at 27.03.16 19:55:38 by Dragnipur Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @Dragnipur (Comment 73) : good point about Sharks tries coming from defensive pressure. But Sharks must still put attacking pressure as well because that’s also needed to win games.

  • Comment 74, posted at 27.03.16 20:01:44 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @Dragnipur (Comment 73) : again we are talking about “stealing a win”. Can’t you see there is a problem with that picture?!

  • Comment 75, posted at 27.03.16 20:05:39 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @Big Fish (Comment 68) :

    The 2nd half was played mostly inside the Sharks’ territory also. They lost the ball 4 times on their own LO and they lost almost every kicking dual.

    @JD (Comment 71) :
    They will need better players.

    @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 72) :
    It’s the best tactic when faced with superior talent.
    If you seriously believe that SA players are on par with the Kiwis in the face of evidence such as Nodolo vs. Pietersen then you are correct. We will never agree.

    Over the last 20 years, SA-teams had won around 1 out of every 4 to 5 matches against NZ-teams. That stat roughly holds for the Boks, SR, Sevens and Juniors.

    And we’re not closing the gap by playing more and more games against them either.

  • Comment 76, posted at 27.03.16 20:08:45 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • I’ll say this – we played the best game plan suited to our current skill set.

    I’m afraid that the Sharks would probably have been murdered from turnover ball, as our boys still struggle to look after the ball.

    I’ll be happy if this year is used for addressing this issue, and for our attack-minded game to be unleashed during CC and SR 2017.

  • Comment 77, posted at 27.03.16 20:11:57 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @fyndraai (Comment 76) : would it surprise you if I told you that in 20 years of Super Rugby – between 1996 and 2015 – the Sharks have won exactly 48.5% of Super Rugby games against NZ teams?

    So it’s more like 1 out of every 2.

    That doesn’t sound like overwhelming “superior talent” there does it?

    What a useless cry baby excuse!

    Where I can agree with you is that if we play this brainless SA way against the NZ teams which our Fool coach has us playing then we will be more like the 1 from 5 you suggest.

    Don’t confuse the Boks with the Sharks.

  • Comment 78, posted at 27.03.16 20:17:18 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 57) : just watch 30 mins highlights.imo the try of willie was legitimate score.

  • Comment 79, posted at 27.03.16 20:23:50 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @JD (Comment 74) : sharks scored 3 tries from defensive pressure.imo willie scored.

  • Comment 80, posted at 27.03.16 20:26:57 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @JD (Comment 59) : perhaps grubber kicks,chip kicks,stab kicks into space ?dont know how many ,if any the sharks employed.still have not watched the full game,just 30 mins highlights.

  • Comment 81, posted at 27.03.16 20:33:27 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @fyndraai (Comment 76) :
    I think we’re talking past each other. I don’t disagree with you on most of what you are saying: except the issue of talent being the difference.

    In my opinion we lost because we didn’t execute our basics other than defense well (including set pieces and kicking).

    While I do believe we are limited with Joe Pietersen and our current hookers, I think it has more to do with a preoccupation with defence than a shortage of talent. We simply seemed to have no other agenda all game.

  • Comment 82, posted at 27.03.16 20:39:41 by Big Fish Reply
    Big Fish
  • Defend,defend,defend,can win you a game,but difficult to keep it up to win a tournament.

  • Comment 83, posted at 27.03.16 20:40:28 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 78) :

    No it would not, because it bolsters my argument.
    At 48.5%, SA’s best team is worse than the average NZ team.

  • Comment 84, posted at 27.03.16 20:45:18 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @fyndraai (Comment 84) : a team which wins 1 from 2 against all Kiwi teams shouldn’t be in a position where we are hoping to “steal wins”.

    The Highlanders, Chiefs, Blues and Hurricanes all sit between 56 – 58% against SA teams which includes the Cheetahs, Lions and Kings.

    So lets compare apples with apples then.

    The Sharks have won more games against the Highlanders, Hurricanes and Blues and we’re deadlocked against the Chiefs at 10 each.

    So what’s your excuse now?

  • Comment 85, posted at 27.03.16 20:55:15 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • Yes, that’s right folks. The Sharks over 20 years of Super Rugby are ahead in the head to head against 3 of the 5 NZ sides, and tied with the 4th.

    So why are we so accepting of nearly “stealing a win”at home?

    Perhaps some of you need to brush up on your history to know quite where to peg your expectations.

  • Comment 86, posted at 27.03.16 20:57:56 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • We tried to attack in the first 2 min , but in our own half , and we got no where ,so scared of loosing the ball in the wrong area we wanted to kick and play rugby in the right area ( because running from your own half is not smart rugby , the risk of conceding points is higher especially against a top class team ) so the Intelligent thing by kicking .BUT we couldn’t find any distance in our kicks from our half .which led to the saders attacking continuously in our half . Problem is we were out kicked

  • Comment 87, posted at 27.03.16 20:57:59 by shrodingers cat Reply

    schrodingers cat
  • The sharks pack is very the back 5 ,no4 to no8,there is 1 bok cap.maybe this was a game to have uanivi in the match 23 considering how he played againsdt the all blacks ?

  • Comment 88, posted at 27.03.16 20:59:09 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 75) : Some games are unwinnable. We had almost no luck, no 50 50 calls went our way. We still got damn close. That’s the sign of a good team.

  • Comment 89, posted at 27.03.16 21:09:00 by Dragnipur Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 80) : Sharks didn’t score shit, not one of those were created, all blind luck.

  • Comment 90, posted at 27.03.16 21:10:23 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 86) : the sharks played the best style of rugby against the Nz teams , we played a high paced game ( especially under John Plumtree) . A high paced game causes the opposition defense to battle keeping a strait line – which creates space to run at . That is why the stats favor us

  • Comment 91, posted at 27.03.16 21:13:02 by shrodingers cat Reply

    schrodingers cat
  • @Dragnipur (Comment 89) : No luck? Did you watch the same game? The only reason we had points on the board was luck. The only reason the missed 12+ points was luck (well and bad kicking). If it wasn’t for luck that would have been a thumping of note.

  • Comment 92, posted at 27.03.16 21:13:31 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @shrodingers cat (Comment 91) : We played well against NZ teams with a NZ coach…. coincidence?

  • Comment 93, posted at 27.03.16 21:14:37 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 93) : Nick mallet was a very intelligent coach . do u think he would accept a bok / sharks job

  • Comment 94, posted at 27.03.16 21:17:45 by shrodingers cat Reply

    schrodingers cat
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 92) : better sharks teams (looking at players/experience) have lost against the saders at home.dont go all doom-and-gloom.this is still just a rugby will do well to not find your identity in the sports team you support.sharks forever,black and white nothing else matters,is nice slogans and all that,but this is just a game.i have supported the sharks when they were still natal playing in the b-league.before they ever even won a cc final.and no,dont say i grew up with mediocrity as the bench mark for my support.far from it.just grew up knowing thata this is just a game.

  • Comment 95, posted at 27.03.16 21:22:30 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @Nostraseth (Comment 92) : agreed.

  • Comment 96, posted at 27.03.16 21:24:44 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @Big Fish (Comment 82) : agreed.

  • Comment 97, posted at 27.03.16 21:25:11 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @shrodingers cat (Comment 94) : He to intelligent to do that lol.

  • Comment 98, posted at 27.03.16 21:25:25 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @Dragnipur (Comment 89) : 50/50 calls, you mean like when their try got reveresed after it was given…damn I wish that call had gone our way…Oh wait, it did!

    No offence but that was a pretty poorly thought out comment.

  • Comment 99, posted at 27.03.16 21:28:48 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 99) : For some people, actually quite a lot around the world, their sports team of choice is one of the most important things in their life. It represents pride, patriotism, passion, competition…..

    I wouldn’t classify myself as one of those people, but I wouldn’t be ashamed to if I did. I’m just a guy with to much free time on his hand who loves the Sharks.

  • Comment 100, posted at 27.03.16 21:32:10 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 100) : that was not a 50/50 call,it was clearly foot in touch with saders player still in clear possesion of the ball.i understand you are upset.the sharks were one tmo review from a possible victory,definite draw against the saders.that is something that only has happened 5 times previously.did you really think the result would have been so close at start of last year’s pre-season?

  • Comment 101, posted at 27.03.16 21:35:44 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 101) : Yes? At the end of last year pre-season I was still remembering topping our table under a good coach.

  • Comment 102, posted at 27.03.16 21:45:22 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @Big Fish (Comment 82) :

    It’s true that I’m talking in generalities. The general SA fan response to a loss is to blame the coach/game-plan/selections, because it’s too hard to admit that their guys are simply better rugby players than our guys – Or to put it in the more personal way favored by fans: “They are better than us!”
    Why is it that “we” play attack or defense, kick or run, tight or wide and “they” seem to be able to seamlessly switch from one aspect to the other? I offer that it’s because “our” players are generally big or fast, skilled or strong, clever or instinctive and their players are often all of the above. Physically more gifted players will always have more options in how they play and they will pickup new schemes faster and execute them better than less gifted ones.

    Nodolo is anecdotal evidence. Last year he was just big and fast, but yesterday he kicked further and with more accuracy that any of the Sharks – and kicking was supposed to be one of SA’s strong points.

  • Comment 103, posted at 27.03.16 21:54:17 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 103) : come now,this is 2016..last year was 2015..not 2014.(Remember how the saders beat the sharks in the play-off game?that was the last sr game they played in 2014,and the last time the 2 teams met. Prior to the 52-10 catastrophe of 2015…).

  • Comment 104, posted at 27.03.16 21:54:44 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 85) :

    For interest sake. Can you point me to the source of those stats?
    I don’t get the part about the apples.

  • Comment 105, posted at 27.03.16 21:59:02 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @fyndraai (Comment 104) : coaching?the only reason i can think of is coaching.eye for detail.learning the lesson from every defeat.identifying individual and unit flaws and giving appropriate coaching. couple of years ago nadolo was just a really big wing,probably the world’s biggest,plying his trade in japan.any sa team could have picked up on the fact that there is a 120kg -plus wing playing in not sure if any sa team approached him back then.

  • Comment 106, posted at 27.03.16 22:04:43 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 104) : Yea it was a semi final, in Christchurch…. This was a regular season game at home. Come on man at least make your argument logical.
    You asked me a question and I gave you a logical answer. After the 2015 pre-season I had expectations of us performing at a similar level (semi finals) as we did the year before. Unfortunately I underestimated Golds incompetence.

  • Comment 107, posted at 27.03.16 22:08:31 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 108) : no you are being illogical now,and trying to defend it with a brusque very well new i was refering to 2016 your issue the sharks losing,or just losing in general?

  • Comment 108, posted at 27.03.16 22:13:15 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 108) : My issue is both the loss and the quality of the loss. And in a way losing in general.

    I know people love to say we are a young team, but the Saders lost just as many big names as us. We should and have been a top of the table team, Character pointed out in another thread how many semis and finals we have made and it’s a damn lot. But since gold took over we haven’t once looked like a top of the table team, middle at best.

    We should have won that game last night. BUT I would have accepted the loss if we had at least looked like we had a good game plan. I for one see the luck for what it was, and see what could have happened if we hadn’t gotten lucky. The game was disgraceful, the game plan was non existant and it all just screamed of a coach shit scared of losing.

  • Comment 109, posted at 27.03.16 22:20:15 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 108) : Add to that, the reason behind my dumb name and picture, is I literally said we can’t do what we did (kick on their backs) or we will lose in a thread during the week. Low and behold we did, and we lost.

    Meaning some dumb forum warrior literally has more vision the our head bloody coach.

  • Comment 110, posted at 27.03.16 22:23:12 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 108) : i appreciate the effort you put in with the stats after every weekend’s game.i appreciate that you are passionate about the sharks.i too dont like it when they lose.but imo we were unfortunate to lose against the saders-admittedly,i only saw 30 mins of 80 mins.willie scored a legitimate try.the saders lost the ball,threw intercept pass.the saders missed their kicks.and the sharks were unlucky to be denied a win.are there things to work on?not even having watched the game,the answer is yes.there is always room for improvement.

  • Comment 111, posted at 27.03.16 22:25:00 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @Nostraseth (Comment 111) : no i would not call you a dumb forum are clearly passionate about the sharks.and if i was head coach,i would be reading here to gauge the feelings of the fans who actually make the effort to comment and discuss their team.their team because as supporters they are our team.

  • Comment 112, posted at 27.03.16 22:28:27 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @fyndraai (Comment 105) : Google “Lassen pick and go” and click on Super Rugby for stat heaven (although annoyingly Mr Lassen doesn’t include the 96 and 97 results in the SA team’s head to head results so you have to add them in to).

    The point about the apples is that we’re talking about the Sharks. I actually don’t give a shit what any NZ team’s record is against all SA teams, only the Sharks. The Lions, Cheetahs and Bulls of the first 10 years of Super rugby really skew the results.

    And when you delve into it, the Sharks actually have a pretty good record against all the NZ sides (except the Crusaders of course). I think our expectations should be higher than any SA Super rugby team’s against the NZ sides precisely because our record against them is so much better than every other SA team.

  • Comment 113, posted at 27.03.16 22:29:05 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 111) : Mate you have to watch the whole game, I was there, I saw it live (and re watched the recording) the rest of the 50 minutes you didn’t watch was us kicking the ball onto their backs and defending.

    Call those interceptions luck, or call them Saders mistakes, either way they weren’t created by us, no attacking play was, not once.

  • Comment 114, posted at 27.03.16 22:31:14 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • I think the starting point is people must watch the full 80 minutes for a true reflection of the game. Highlights are misleading.

  • Comment 115, posted at 27.03.16 22:34:54 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 111) : with the amount of possession the sharks had,the execution of kicks needed to be spot on.either into touch,contestable in the air,or in space behind to gather.

  • Comment 116, posted at 27.03.16 22:35:35 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @Nostraseth (Comment 116) : @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 117) : yes,totally agree that only after watching the full 80 mins is one in a position to weigh-in with an opinion.please note: an opinion 😀

  • Comment 117, posted at 27.03.16 22:37:51 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 113) : Seeing someone back their argument with presentable fact really does bring a tear to the eye.

    I tip my hat to you sir.

    And I completely agree, we should be allowed to have high expectations based on history.

  • Comment 118, posted at 27.03.16 22:40:01 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 116) : Then is it not the coaches job to make sure a team can excecute a game plan before sending them out to play it? Hence my accusations of Gold failing in his job.

  • Comment 119, posted at 27.03.16 22:43:06 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • I present to you the argument that willie scored and the tmo made the wrong decision.based on what i saw of the game.that would have been either 19 or 21 points then.we cannot present historical facts without mentioning refereeing decisions,one of which cost the sharks a sr title.

  • Comment 120, posted at 27.03.16 22:43:56 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 120) : I don’t disagree, but that doesn’t change our lack of game plan, it would have just been a 3rd luck/Saders mistake try.

    Plus did the highlights you watched show how many points the Saders missed out on with missed kicks?

  • Comment 121, posted at 27.03.16 22:47:20 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • This article sums in up PERFECTLY, with facts and figures to back it up. With that good night.

  • Comment 122, posted at 27.03.16 22:52:52 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 123) : yes,and it happens.that with the intercept pass ,and losing ball twice (yes,still counting the disallowed try),for sharks tries .with all that possession and territory the saders had,sharks defensive effort should have been enough for the penalties: the 1st one for scrum infringemnt,both sharks prop were shaking their heads.but yes,all props do that.maybe a different ref,a different decision?

  • Comment 123, posted at 27.03.16 22:55:28 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @Nostraseth (Comment 124) : interesting match stats .

  • Comment 124, posted at 27.03.16 23:04:54 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @Nostraseth (Comment 124) : thanks for the link.

  • Comment 125, posted at 27.03.16 23:06:30 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 125) : Tank needs to brush up on his biology though, hyenas are actually amazing hunters and not the scavengers they are stereotyped to be, lol.

  • Comment 126, posted at 27.03.16 23:12:27 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 126) : Vultures? Jackals? Rats?

  • Comment 127, posted at 27.03.16 23:21:59 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 113) :

    And to really get to the core of the apple, we’re talking about the Sharks against the Crusaders and the fact that of the last 21 games they’ve won 4 and lost 17. That’s less than 1 game out of every 5 played, with an average margin of -11

    And it would all be different if only they did not kick so much……right?

    It appears to me that your expectations do not match reality and your explanations (of why) don’t hold much water.

  • Comment 128, posted at 27.03.16 23:34:41 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 80) : are we going to do like the Stormers and cry all week long about the poor TMO?!?! Time to let it go as nothing we say or do will change the result.

  • Comment 129, posted at 28.03.16 00:03:31 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @fyndraai (Comment 128) : except for one important fact my dear fyndraai.

    The Crusaders last won the tournament in 2008.

    There are better NZ teams at present and since 2008.

    And you could say our recent record against them with back to back wins in 2013 and 2014 went some way to reflecting that.

    This Crusaders team has no right to swagger in to Durban and beat us.

    Anything else you wish me to clarify for you?

  • Comment 130, posted at 28.03.16 00:09:40 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 122) : great stats but sad reading if you’re a Sharks supporter!!!

  • Comment 131, posted at 28.03.16 00:15:00 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • But then there are some curious anomalies in any teams’ stats – the so called hoodoo teams.

    Our record against the Crusaders is so far from (1) our record against all the other NZ teams and (2) the Bulls’ record of won 10 lost 14 against the Crusaders that you could reasonably surmise that this is one of those hoodoo fixtures.

    The same way the Sharks have won the last 10 games in a row against the Blues. How do you explain that?

    So you can take that factor into the equation if you wish…. I do but still feel we should beat this Crusaders team at home… we can admit that the Crusaders are not the force they once were and that we shouldn’t be in awe of them… and we can aim to set the record straight against them just as 2013 and 2014 was a start…

    Let go of the fear fyndraai 😆

  • Comment 132, posted at 28.03.16 00:20:36 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @fyndraai (Comment 128) : if we all thought like you then we would still be in fear and awe of the Blues who smoked us many times (in finals and semis too) in the early years of the Super 12, no? The Crusaders are there for the taking and have been for some years now.

  • Comment 133, posted at 28.03.16 00:27:19 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @JD (Comment 131) : im not crying over the tmo decision.just making mention of it,because imo it is relevant to the debate.the stats make for very interesting reading.even more so considering that imo the sharks had won the game,except for the tmo decision that imo wrongfully went against them.

  • Comment 134, posted at 28.03.16 01:14:13 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 130) :

    Rather not. You seem to be a little fogged up yourself.

    3 losses in a row now, 2 of those at home, 2 out of 7 wins since 2008 and exactly zero super championships since any year of your choice.

    But I’m going to raise the white flag here.
    This conversation is getting too irrational. Your usage of the terms “us” and “we” as if you are one of the players should have tip me off.

  • Comment 135, posted at 28.03.16 01:15:12 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • game is being broadcast again at 2:30 this morning.

  • Comment 136, posted at 28.03.16 01:23:46 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • sergeal petersen only turns 22 in august.

  • Comment 137, posted at 28.03.16 01:29:55 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @fyndraai (Comment 135) : you seem like an emotional sort. Suit yourself then.

    This was hilarious from you: “…and exactly zero super championships since any year of your choice.”

    Are you suggesting this means we shouldn’t believe it possible?

    2015 – Highlanders
    2014 – Waratahs
    2012 – Chiefs
    2011 – Reds

    All first time winners this decade. Who are you to say WE can’t do it?

  • Comment 138, posted at 28.03.16 01:37:07 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • Pretty much a new, first time winner every year since the start of this decade. In fact as I’ve pointed out before eight of the original twelve teams have now won it!

    And yet this guy with an inferiority complex reckons WE have no chance 🙄

  • Comment 139, posted at 28.03.16 01:41:36 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • So from the scrum that led to the penalty that led to the saders 1st is clear the saders no3 scrummed up and not straight.sdhould have been a sharks penalty.please view again.repeat:sharks penalty for saders no3 scrumming up and not straight.from the kick-off ,in the very first minute,sharks should have been awarded a penalty for saders no14 attempting to tackle marcell whilst he waas lying on the ground.need to be on your feet to play.

  • Comment 140, posted at 28.03.16 03:06:10 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • 30mins into the game and does not seem as if reinah was slow to clear at the rucks.

  • Comment 141, posted at 28.03.16 03:08:52 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Wow!!in the 32nd min quixk tap from reinach from scrum free-kick.if the pass did not go forward to jpp,the sharks winger might have been deep into saders territory.intent to attack was there.

  • Comment 142, posted at 28.03.16 03:10:50 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Sharks dismantle a saders attempt at driving maul.

  • Comment 143, posted at 28.03.16 03:13:42 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Bit unsure about the scrum penalties.first one thesharks props looked amazed.prior to the penalty being awarded,thought the sharks couldve have been awarded a penalty.ref gave a reset scrum and then penalised the sharks.

  • Comment 144, posted at 28.03.16 03:15:58 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • The line-out was struggling.feel like the ball should have been thrown in variation as in the stormers game.

  • Comment 145, posted at 28.03.16 03:17:32 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Nadolo kicked the ball 3 ? times in the 1st half.if the sharks had a 120kg winger kicking possession,tgere would have been an outcry on here.

  • Comment 146, posted at 28.03.16 03:21:16 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Saders did attempt to play at quicker pace with their quick throw-ins from sharks clearance naas would say: kick the ball into the stands.

  • Comment 147, posted at 28.03.16 03:23:05 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Bit of a messfrom the kick-off .charged down clearance kick.

  • Comment 148, posted at 28.03.16 03:27:29 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • So with man on man defence a saders forward puts a kick ahead .with nadolo one on one with jpp and less than 10 m to the innovation .sa teams would never have thought of that.kick goes into touch.

  • Comment 149, posted at 28.03.16 03:29:50 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • So sader player strikes esterhuien and is not shown a red card??is this for real??

  • Comment 150, posted at 28.03.16 03:30:55 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • 15 gets a yellow card,but sader who struck esterhuizen stays on??

  • Comment 151, posted at 28.03.16 03:31:56 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Kick-off directly into touch and saders play quuck.almost score a try and vd walt’s cover tackle denies the saders.replay on big screen clearly shaws foot on touchline whilst still in possession of the ball.vd walt had a really good game.

  • Comment 152, posted at 28.03.16 03:40:31 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Need to remember that many of sadders 1st choice players were rested against the kings.a lot of the sharks players have played almost every minute of sr.that is why it is important to keep in mind that there a few more players to be added to the sharks first choice match 23.

  • Comment 153, posted at 28.03.16 03:46:10 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Losing vd walt was massive.wonder if he would have been subbed?left thhe field with 24 mins to play.

  • Comment 154, posted at 28.03.16 03:48:19 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Brilliant piece of work from reinach from a scrum on halfway line to go around blindside and kick grubber out on saders 22.tmo gets involved and says lewies played saders player in the air at the line-out.penalty to saders.

  • Comment 155, posted at 28.03.16 03:53:57 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Oosthuizen also had a good game.

  • Comment 156, posted at 28.03.16 03:55:29 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • So in the 65min the sharks should have brrn given a penalty for saders player playing a shark around the neck at ruck.

  • Comment 157, posted at 28.03.16 03:59:27 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Willie scored a legitimate problem there except the tmo for some reason going against the sharks.sharks 19 and possibly 21 with the 67 mins, the sharks did well.cant get the doom and gloom from some re: the sharks performance in this game.

  • Comment 158, posted at 28.03.16 04:03:19 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • So the ball the saders player dropped,hit the ground and then moved forward.that is a knock-on.sharks scrum on halfway line and not a converted try to th saders.

  • Comment 159, posted at 28.03.16 04:07:52 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Excellent turnover penalty won by esterhuizen.

  • Comment 160, posted at 28.03.16 04:11:39 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Superb pressure by odwa in the air contesting the kick with nadolo.

  • Comment 161, posted at 28.03.16 04:13:53 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Hyron playing no7 ?

  • Comment 162, posted at 28.03.16 04:15:26 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Was that obstruction?would like to see a replay.

  • Comment 163, posted at 28.03.16 04:17:34 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @Nostraseth (Comment 99) : You mean their try got reversed after the dude stepped on the line? That’s not luck, that’s the rules mate.

  • Comment 164, posted at 28.03.16 05:14:27 by Dragnipur Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
  • @fyndraai (Comment 135) : ‘Us’ and ‘we’ refers to the collective he is associating himself with, in this case a sports team, it’s correct use of English diction?
    Also if you going to accept losing to a team you have a history of losing to, then you’re never going to improve, are you?

    And reading up the only person getting emotional is you, Character backed his argument up with facts and figures when requested.

    And yea your stats you brought up are correct and do count. But prospective is needed. We beat them in ’13 and ’14, so since Gold has taken over we have not beaten them. This fits in with what many of us accuse him of, a fear of losing, and a tendency to panic when it comes to tough games.

    @Dragnipur (Comment 164) : I’m pretty sure you and everyone else here would cry foul if a try of ours was over turned after it was given and the kicker was already setting up the kick. The only reason he even checked is because the crowed moaned at the big screen.

    Mate spec savers are open today, if you couldn’t see us getting lucky in that game you are blind.

  • Comment 165, posted at 28.03.16 06:27:52 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • The score from read should also not count,as earlier in the build-up to play a knock-on was missed.happened near halfway line.saders player cound not hond on to a high ass.the ball went through his hands,hit the round and went forward,”moved towards the opposiotion’s dead ball line”.

  • Comment 166, posted at 28.03.16 08:05:41 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 168) : would like clarification on that incident.was it a knock-on or not?(Also,could admin please correct that comment.that is what happens when one types before morning brew.)

  • Comment 167, posted at 28.03.16 08:14:47 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • I thought we were pretty gard done by from a refereeing point of view at the set piece.
    The tighthead was scrumming way to low and yet we were repeatedly pinged for hinging with the tightheads knees on the ground. In the lineouts they were repeatedly jumping accross the line. They were penalised 3 or 4 times and i counted 8 times when they ended up on our side. They also got a penalty for pulling a player in the air when he was clearly already theough our line.

    Thought willies disallowed try was a worse desision than that wp try last week. Not enògh of a review or a good enough camera angle to see anything and yet it was disallowed. Im still confused.

  • Comment 168, posted at 28.03.16 08:30:46 by byron Reply

  • As for our attack im a firm believer in earning the right to attack and we had not won the forward battle so i can understand the lack of an attacking display.

    The crusaders attacked alot but did a lot behind the gainline and lateral. The two tries were a direct result of pressure and frustraition

  • Comment 169, posted at 28.03.16 08:35:29 by byron Reply

  • @byron (Comment 170) : yes,it also seemed to me that the saders were lucky not to be the ones penalised.willie scored a try.

  • Comment 170, posted at 28.03.16 08:56:23 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Now I really want James Small to reunite with Rob Du Preez.

    Him and Venter having a nice debate about the kicking and tactics on Twitter…..

  • Comment 171, posted at 28.03.16 09:00:11 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 173) : any comments re: sharks disallowed try?

  • Comment 172, posted at 28.03.16 09:14:26 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 172) : Mate get over it, it wasn’t given, it wasn’t created, it wasn’t well worked, would have just been another score off blind luck.
    In the words of Herman Mostert “it would have been a travesty of justice for rugby had the Sharks beaten the Crusaders in Durban at the weekend” I completely agree.

  • Comment 173, posted at 28.03.16 09:19:57 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 175) : no cannot agree with that headline or you telling how to react.saders were not “so much better than the sharks”.the scrum penalties for one did not always seem clear-cut to of those had a massive impact on the result,since the saders score 7 points.the sharks did not just get points through sheer blind luck either.they were patient on defence and exploited the saders is an interesting choice of headline,considering the disallowed try which was a legit [email protected] wrote how many comments to show bias for certain teams from reporters.imo the only travesty of justice that occured on saturday at kp was disallowing a legit try.all other comments re: one team wanted to play rugby,etc is all subjective imo.refereeing should be the sole judge of outcome,since that is what they are tasked with doing: to administer the laws of the game correctly without any does not get points for style in rugby.

  • Comment 174, posted at 28.03.16 09:40:37 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • The problem is obvious:

    Metres made: Sharks 205-554 Crusaders

    Carries: Sharks 49-107 Crusaders

    Defenders beaten: Sharks 6-14 Crusaders

    Clean breaks: Sharks 3-15 Crusaders

    Passes: Sharks 52-215 Crusaders

    Tackles made: Sharks 107-53 Crusaders

    Offloads: Sharks 2-21 Crusaders

    Tackles missed: Sharks 14-6 Crusaders

    Penalties conceded: Sharks 10-9 Crusaders

    Possession: Sharks 44%-56% Crusaders

    Territory: Sharks 33%-67% Crusaders

  • Comment 175, posted at 28.03.16 09:57:31 by Spirit of Rugby Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of Rugby
  • @Spirit of Rugby (Comment 175) : We were completely outplayed…. Best thing for us all would be to admit, this team still have a lot to work on.

  • Comment 176, posted at 28.03.16 10:09:58 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 176) : That sounds sensible…

  • Comment 177, posted at 28.03.16 10:14:32 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • Big game today:
    Wits vs Uwc

    Wits need to beat UWC by 40 points, and a bonus point in order for them to go top of the log, and thereby unseat the Impi.

    Should they beat them by 39, with a bonus point, then they will be level with Impi, but I imagine that Impi’s better win tally should see the Impi stay on top….maybe somebody could clarify.

    Varsity Cup site has that game starting at 13:00 – will keep my eye on that.

  • Comment 178, posted at 28.03.16 10:16:02 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @Spirit of Rugby (Comment 177) : some more interesting stats: 2 scrum penalties against the sharks that imo were saders of which led to a saders 7 point score.saders player strikes esterhuizen.that is a red card offence.the no15 gets yellow carded for charging in on esterhuizen with his shoulder, i think.fact is there should have been 2 cards.both of those acts not in the spirit of rugby.and then the disallowed try of willie.

  • Comment 179, posted at 28.03.16 10:18:30 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 179) : I agree with everything, except that Willie was a meter in front when Cobus kicked through, so I don’t view that as a harsh call against us.

  • Comment 180, posted at 28.03.16 10:24:58 by Spirit of Rugby Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of Rugby
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 176) : Yip!

  • Comment 181, posted at 28.03.16 10:25:32 by Spirit of Rugby Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of Rugby
  • Yes,the team needs improvements,all teams do.once a team thinks they are the finished product,they in serious trouble.imo as much as there is still room for improvement,this team was good enough to beat the saders but for crucial decisions.and if we are going to argue against refereeing decisions not playing an important part in a game’s outcome,then we are being dishonest,because it does and therefore needs to be addressed and factored in to how the team and coaching staff did.fellow bloggers make mention of how limited the sharks game plan was and therefore did not deserve to win.i argue that no matter how you view the game plan,the sharks were good enough to beat the saders -and should have done so ,or had a draw,but for a critical tmo decision that was only reviewed once.

  • Comment 182, posted at 28.03.16 10:30:10 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 172) : Wish we had more than one measly camera angle to view it from…..which part of the body is not allowed to be in front of the kicker? To me his feet were behind Cobus, but arms and head in front – we’re talking mm here….I’d think feet should be the determining factor.

  • Comment 183, posted at 28.03.16 10:31:31 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 185) : feet.saw a team warned about hands in front ,as there were defenders in the sprinter’s “on your marks position”,with hands clearly in front of the last feet of the ruck.

  • Comment 184, posted at 28.03.16 10:44:23 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 183) : Image link

  • Comment 185, posted at 28.03.16 11:04:53 by Baylion Reply

  • @Baylion (Comment 185) : That angle just raises doubt for me, but nothing conclusive – a 2nd angle was needed, not sure why they never asked for one.

  • Comment 186, posted at 28.03.16 11:23:56 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @Spirit of Rugby (Comment 175) : @FireTheLooser (Comment 176) : @pastorshark (Comment 177) : yes now the honeymoon is over and it’s time to work!
    One good thing that we must admit and mention is the Sharks defence! It has been a thing of beauty this season! Now if Sharks can get the rest of their game to that level they would be real contenders to win Super rugby!

  • Comment 187, posted at 28.03.16 11:31:45 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 178) : any idea if the game will be on TV?

  • Comment 188, posted at 28.03.16 11:33:12 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • No try. If you still have doubts I am happy to measure the angles for you.

  • Comment 189, posted at 28.03.16 11:35:13 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 183) : I have a feeling they look at the players body (chest).

  • Comment 190, posted at 28.03.16 11:36:16 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 189) : it’s actually very easy.
    No try as the ref decided he was in front. All the angles and debates in the world will not change it.
    For me it time to let it go just like we told the Stormers fans to let it go!!!

  • Comment 191, posted at 28.03.16 11:41:53 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 189) : Unless you’re able to accurately map the field in 3d from that angle, you’ll not be able to tell whether he was in front.

  • Comment 192, posted at 28.03.16 11:44:04 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 178) : apparently it goes to cards before wins… in which case Impi are screwed because of that red card to Marius Louw.

    HOWEVER…. he was exonerated at the hearing and the card was expunged from his record, so not sure if it would count.

  • Comment 193, posted at 28.03.16 11:45:29 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @robdylan (Comment 193) : Damn, they really enjoy making something very simple overly complicated.

  • Comment 194, posted at 28.03.16 11:47:20 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @robdylan (Comment 193) : then it should not count.

  • Comment 195, posted at 28.03.16 11:49:02 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • last time the teams played, Wits beat UWC by exactly 40 points. I’m only stressing a bit.

  • Comment 196, posted at 28.03.16 11:50:21 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 192) : What? You can calculate an angle on a 2D plane…You can even factor in the angle the image was taken from to be more accurate. Sure it wouldn’t be 100% can it would be more than conclusive.

    Also the image only covers a maximum 5 meter length of field, the angle the image was taken would not have a big enough effect to distort a simple 2D angle measurement.
    As JD said it doesn’t matter either way because it wasn’t a try, but factually it wasn’t a try.

  • Comment 197, posted at 28.03.16 11:50:45 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @robdylan (Comment 196) : do think UWC maybe improved a bit since then so hopefully they will do better this time.

  • Comment 198, posted at 28.03.16 11:51:43 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @robdylan (Comment 193) : What a crazy rule, how often are cards a result of bad ref interpretation.
    If he was exonerated there is no way they can take that into account?

  • Comment 199, posted at 28.03.16 11:52:44 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 197) : Judging by the image you showed, it’s really not that easy…..those angles are way to accute…you need a second parallel reference line to determine whether he was in front….this call comes down to mm.

    The technology is definitely out there, I wish they’d use it.

  • Comment 200, posted at 28.03.16 11:56:16 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 200) : I am fairly confident it would work out as no try. I am to lazy to actually do it but you can use the sign board and the dotted 5m as parallels.

    I don’t disagree, problem is it takes time and your average sports fan is not very patient. I had an old man behind me who spent the whole game complaining how much the TMO was used, even when their try was disallowed.

  • Comment 201, posted at 28.03.16 12:02:26 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @JD (Comment 198) : I’m hoping the short turnaround time will impact Wits…..Uwc also have a spot in the final to play for, so this game isnt a dead rubber for them either.

    Wish is was a rainy and water logged field, that would have taken care of the margin for us….

  • Comment 202, posted at 28.03.16 12:02:58 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @Nostraseth (Comment 201) : With all the technology out there, there really is no reason for tmo calls to take that long, nor for it to be that subjective.

    A virtual model of the field will solve a lot of problems….sensors in the field and ball will illuminate whatever other questions there might be….maybe Japan 2019 will make full use of the technology out there.

  • Comment 203, posted at 28.03.16 12:09:47 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 203) : All the players have GPS in the jerseys

  • Comment 204, posted at 28.03.16 12:12:37 by Baylion Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 203) : Again I don’t disagree, but this issue is not reserved to rugby, people just don’t like change.

    @Baylion (Comment 204) : They aren’t accurate to the mm, hawk eye cameras would be more effective.

  • Comment 205, posted at 28.03.16 12:16:49 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 189) : Do the black lines illustrate a straight line parallel to the 22? My ruler says that is the case and le Roux was therefore onside. So I don’t see how this pic backs your point? Or am I missing something?

  • Comment 206, posted at 28.03.16 12:21:55 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @pastorshark (Comment 206) : In theory (and visibly so) the angle of the willie line is greater than the angle of the 22 (there for their not parallel) putting willie off side.
    You need a protractor (or software) not a ruler.

  • Comment 207, posted at 28.03.16 12:39:25 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @pastorshark (Comment 206) : A 2nd parallel line – such as the 10m line – is needed to accurately recreate the 3d plane from the 2d evidence.

    With the evidence available, I would only be able to accurately determine/recreate the imaginary offside line using a 3d model of the field – I do not have the energy nor the time to do this….unless I got paid, of course 🙂

  • Comment 208, posted at 28.03.16 12:42:20 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 208) : Would you agree or disagree that visibly, and with mental geometry, it is more than likely offside?

  • Comment 209, posted at 28.03.16 12:45:01 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 207) : They’re

  • Comment 210, posted at 28.03.16 12:45:25 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 209) : Vissibly I think it comes down to mm, and one camera is never enough to make that call….maybe it wasn’t mm, but that singular camera angle is all we’ve been afforded.

  • Comment 211, posted at 28.03.16 12:50:51 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • Last night I dreamt the Sharks scored a late try to beat the Crusaders 77 – 75. What a game 😆 :mrgreen:

  • Comment 212, posted at 28.03.16 13:15:43 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • Still no news on the uwc vs Wits game via @varsitycup….so that either means there’s no score after 18mins. Or whoever’s doing the updates fell asleep.

  • Comment 213, posted at 28.03.16 13:18:09 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • Finally an update:
    0 – 0 after 10mins. 🙂

  • Comment 214, posted at 28.03.16 13:19:57 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • Cup new, UCT is getting humiliated:

    CUP: TRY! FNB Tuks force the ball over the line for a 5-point try, and Stander converts yet again. FNB Tuks 47-7 FNB UCT after 27 mins.

  • Comment 215, posted at 28.03.16 13:24:13 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • SHIELD: DROP GOAL! FNB Wits captain, flyhalf Warren Gilbert slots a drop goal, 16th minute. FNB Wits up by 2-0.

    Via @varsitycup

  • Comment 216, posted at 28.03.16 13:25:27 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • SHIELD: TRY! First try of the match as Siselo Champion scores near the posts. FNB Wits lead 10-0 at the first strategy break.

  • Comment 217, posted at 28.03.16 13:27:36 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • More bad new I’m afraid:

    SHIELD: TRY! At the restart, Joshua Jarvis scores FNB Wits’ 3rd try, converted by Gilbert. FNB Wits 18-0 ahead, 21st minute.

  • Comment 218, posted at 28.03.16 13:30:11 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 218) : Oh no

  • Comment 219, posted at 28.03.16 13:33:11 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 218) : thanx for updates but is bad news for Impi. Looks like Wits are going for it!

  • Comment 220, posted at 28.03.16 13:34:53 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 219) : Good news is, if Impi end up having to play promo/relegation, they probably face UCT….

    Tuks currently lead UCT 63 – 7 at half time 😯

  • Comment 221, posted at 28.03.16 13:38:06 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • More bad news:

    SHIELD: TRY! Jarvis scores his second of the match, in the corner. Try not converted. FNB Wits lead 23-0 after 26 mins.

  • Comment 222, posted at 28.03.16 13:39:18 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 222) : thanx

  • Comment 223, posted at 28.03.16 13:40:12 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @JD (Comment 223) : Not looking good, is it….hopefully Wits run out of puff, and uwc quit being cowards.

  • Comment 224, posted at 28.03.16 13:42:39 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 224) : ja one can only hope.

  • Comment 225, posted at 28.03.16 13:46:58 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • SHIELD: TRY! Prop Wayron Losper scores FNB UWC’s first try, unconverted. FNB Wits 23-5.

  • Comment 226, posted at 28.03.16 13:53:18 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • Willie’ backfoot is grounded behind kicker at moment of impact of ball on reinach ‘s boot.imo willie timed his run to perfection because his leading leg is still in the air.willie has his eye on reinach’s kick.

  • Comment 227, posted at 28.03.16 13:58:35 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • SHIELD: HALF TIME! FNB Wits score again. Try to Wade Worthington in the 39th min & FNB Wits lead 31-5 at the break.

  • Comment 228, posted at 28.03.16 14:01:49 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 231) : not good news.

  • Comment 229, posted at 28.03.16 14:07:36 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • From bad to worse:

    SHIELD: TRY! Centre Wade Worthington goes over in the corner, unconverted try. After 49 minutes FNB Wits lead 36-5.

  • Comment 230, posted at 28.03.16 14:09:43 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • If you want ammo to use against gold as coach then you will argue against the try.if you want to be objective,you will agree it was a try 😀

  • Comment 231, posted at 28.03.16 14:10:50 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 202) : look at where willie’s backfoot is planted.then look at where reinach’s backfoot is.then remember that the point of impact of the kick is infront of the planted back foot.

  • Comment 232, posted at 28.03.16 14:16:09 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • SHIELD: TRY! FNB Wits hooker CJ Conradie goes over in the corner. Gilbert’s conversion is good, 59th minute and FNB Wits lead 44-5.

  • Comment 233, posted at 28.03.16 14:20:25 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • We really need uwc to score

  • Comment 234, posted at 28.03.16 14:23:05 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 237) : what is the margin of victory wits need?

  • Comment 235, posted at 28.03.16 14:29:35 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 235) : 40 (maybe 39, depends on how yellow and red cards are calculated)

  • Comment 236, posted at 28.03.16 14:30:49 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • Tuks just massacred UCT 100 – 25

  • Comment 237, posted at 28.03.16 14:33:05 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 239) : thank you.not looking good at the moment.

  • Comment 238, posted at 28.03.16 14:33:14 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 240) : ouch!!!

  • Comment 239, posted at 28.03.16 14:34:26 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Tuks game will be on SS1 at 16:40…

    Can the SA vs SL score beat that?

  • Comment 240, posted at 28.03.16 14:35:23 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • SHIELD: TRY! FNB UWC not giving up just yet, lock Jose Julies scores the try, converted by Aidynn Cupido. FNB Wits leas 44-13 after 71 mins.

  • Comment 241, posted at 28.03.16 14:36:17 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • SHIELD: TRY! Kwanele Ngema runs in for a 50m try, Gilbert converts, 52-13 lead to FNB Wits, 3 minutes to play.

  • Comment 242, posted at 28.03.16 14:39:12 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • Coming down to the wire

  • Comment 243, posted at 28.03.16 14:41:19 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @Nostraseth (Comment 165) :

    There was no judgement on the correct usage of English. I hold the opinion that sports fans who use “us” or “we” where the literal meaning indicate they themselves were on the field are being irrational. I know it’s a minority opinion, but I hold it none the less.

    Of course you may expect your team to beat any other team in the future, but it’s irrational to base such expectations on statistics. Statistics by definition is information about the past and the maxim, “past performance has no influence on future results” apply.

    Lastly, to say someone is being irrational is not the same as saying he is emotional. The words have completely different meanings.

  • Comment 244, posted at 28.03.16 14:41:22 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 245) : uwc need a score.

  • Comment 245, posted at 28.03.16 14:41:31 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • Reading the article it became evident to me that I don’t feel happy that we managed to lose with a low margin. The evidence suggests if we could get past our recurring niggles in the first half inability to string together a good attack and finish said attack, we could have won this. They we’re not light years ahead of us in play but the frustrating recurrence of our weak points sank us. This in my view is what leaves me and some others disappointed and not appeased with this latest performance. Bar some luck we would probably have come off worse and the grinder for me is that we are better than that. Much better but the mediocrity stuck in the players minds may be preventing them from seeing this. Yes we are a much better team than last year against these guys and full strength arguments are invalid because full strength does not make a better team. This unit was capable of more. So I am unhappy.

  • Comment 246, posted at 28.03.16 14:41:57 by coolfusion Reply

  • Sad news folks:

    SHIELD: FULL TIME! Captain Warren Gilbert ends this match on a high, scoring the final try and conversion. Final score 60-13 to FNB Wits.

  • Comment 247, posted at 28.03.16 14:43:08 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 247) : sad news indeed! Impi came close!

  • Comment 248, posted at 28.03.16 14:44:53 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • So I guess it’s promotion/relegation…..not sure who we’ll be playing.

  • Comment 249, posted at 28.03.16 14:44:55 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 250) : that’s that then for ukzn?

  • Comment 250, posted at 28.03.16 14:46:38 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 249) : let’s hope they’re ready for it because it’s going hard.

  • Comment 251, posted at 28.03.16 14:46:59 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 247) : Damn, damn, damn…

  • Comment 252, posted at 28.03.16 14:48:15 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @pastorshark (Comment 252) : Well, it’s just been that sort of sporting weekend!

  • Comment 253, posted at 28.03.16 14:48:54 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • This should have been a home game for uwc….just like the Impi game vs Uwc should have been a home game for Impi.

  • Comment 254, posted at 28.03.16 14:48:55 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @pastorshark (Comment 252) : Impi relegated into second in the dying seconds… 🙁

  • Comment 255, posted at 28.03.16 14:49:53 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @pastorshark (Comment 252) : I bet young Teddar wishes for just any of his two missed conversions against Fort Hare again…so close, so cruel…

  • Comment 256, posted at 28.03.16 14:51:08 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • Well, Impi…all the best for that promotion/relegation game…I reckon it’s a huge one for Sharks Rugby…

  • Comment 257, posted at 28.03.16 14:52:20 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @pastorshark (Comment 256) : it happens anyway if they scored one more bonus point in the season it would not have mattered.

  • Comment 258, posted at 28.03.16 14:56:05 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @Baylion (Comment 185) :

    If the camera is far enough away the angle between the side-line and the 22 may be accurate enough.

    As in this

    but I’m not going to express an opinion one way or the other.

    My understanding of GPS is that it may be okay to measure the distance traveled by a player during a match, but not nearly accurate enough to indicate his position at any specific time.

  • Comment 259, posted at 28.03.16 15:03:00 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
  • With Cut 2nd last, and UCT last, I’d imagine UCT will be playing Varsity Shield next year….

    …and promotion relegation against Cut – the same team that beat us to o promotion in 2014.

  • Comment 260, posted at 28.03.16 15:04:53 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 260) : *Impi promo/relegation vs Cut…..I think.

  • Comment 261, posted at 28.03.16 15:06:21 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • ….and we of course have the meaningless final…not sure what there is to gain, the real prize is promotion.

  • Comment 262, posted at 28.03.16 15:08:51 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • Seems Wits will be added to next year’s Varsity Cup without replacing anyone, as 3 more teams will be added to Varsity rugby next year.

    Then I’d imagine any promo/relegation game to be vs UCT.

  • Comment 263, posted at 28.03.16 15:17:16 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 183) : technically does the player not merely need to be behind the ball.

  • Comment 264, posted at 28.03.16 15:22:53 by byron Reply

  • @fyndraai (Comment 244) : perhaps you’re being too literal? At least you accept you are in a (tiny) minority. Is there a rational basis for you to hold such a (tiny) minority view?

    You keep contradicting yourself. Yesterday you said the stats show that Sharks fans should not expect to beat the Crusaders yet now you say it’s irrational to base expectations upon statistics. Which is it, please?

  • Comment 265, posted at 28.03.16 15:32:13 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @fyndraai (Comment 244) : p.s I thought you had “raised the white flag” already? 😆 😆

  • Comment 266, posted at 28.03.16 15:37:40 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • Gary Gold elaborates on ‘character’ in this piece from my favourite Sharks writer, Mike Greenaway:

    “I said at the beginning of the season that we wanted to change our mindset and show character after last year’s poor performances. And even the most disappointed Sharks fan after this defeat can’t question the character.

    “We want the players to know that the coaching staff backs them and that they must bring the character. If we carry on with this attitude, we will build confidence. I am very proud of how we have responded after last year.”


  • Comment 267, posted at 28.03.16 15:44:03 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • If they are adding 3 teams next year doesn’t it make sense to promote the top 3 in the shield? Or is that 2 simple?

  • Comment 268, posted at 28.03.16 16:06:52 by Poisy Reply
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 268) : right or wrong is not decided by how many hold a certain view.we have all heard of nicodemus,haven’t view.dont use that argument against @fyndraai.

  • Comment 269, posted at 28.03.16 16:15:32 by 50shadesofshark Reply

  • @Poisy (Comment 268) : Seems they want to expand Varsity Shield with two teams, and Varsity Cup with just the one team.

    I believe Impi would have been en the one team to prove they deserve a cup spot…Smit and Sharks seem to be heavily invested in giving KZN a Varsity Cup team.

  • Comment 270, posted at 28.03.16 16:29:08 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • I guess Jo’burg also deserve a Varsity Cup team…..but we really needed this to be our year.

    I’m also not sure whether there will be a promo/relegation game….hopefully Rob can shed some clarity.

  • Comment 271, posted at 28.03.16 16:32:03 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • Testing 1 2 3

  • Comment 272, posted at 28.03.16 16:34:47 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • Have the Proteas uncovered a team worse than them…..surely not. 🙂

  • Comment 273, posted at 28.03.16 16:48:21 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 273) : surest bet in the world is to bet on South Africa at a cricket world cup after they have already been eliminated.

  • Comment 274, posted at 28.03.16 16:54:15 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 274) : 100% correct.

  • Comment 275, posted at 28.03.16 17:00:18 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 271) : Don’t they already have one with UJ?

  • Comment 276, posted at 28.03.16 17:56:38 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 271) : There will be a promo/relegation game. Varisty Cup is increasing in size by 1 team…therefore the automatic promotion spot for number 1 on the log. No. 2 on the log plays promo/relegation game against the bottom of the log from the Varsity Cup…

  • Comment 277, posted at 28.03.16 17:58:29 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 274) : This is true…sigh…

  • Comment 278, posted at 28.03.16 17:59:08 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @pastorshark (Comment 276) : Forgot about them….so we’re the only big union not to have a varsity cup team…seems fair – especially since we were robbed of our home game against the only team that managed to beat us.

  • Comment 279, posted at 28.03.16 18:33:24 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • The Sharks have the second lowest tries scored out of the top 8 teams (12). The next highest is also a South African team, the Lions (15) and they have played a game less. The only team with fewer tries scored in the top 8 is the only other South African team, the Stormers (10).

    Top try scorers in the top 8:

    28 – Chiefs
    19 – Brumbies
    16 – Highlanders, Hurricanes, Crusaders (a game in hand)
    15 – Lions (a game in hand)
    12 – Sharks
    10 – Stormers

  • Comment 280, posted at 28.03.16 18:49:04 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 280) :
    Tries vs Kings and/or Force

    Chiefs 16 (Kings and Force)
    Brumbies 4 (Force and 7 against the Hurricanes)
    Sharks 6 (Kings)
    Hurricanes 11 (Kings and Force)
    Crusaders 8 (Kings)

    Highlanders, Lions (Kings only) and Stormers haven’t played them yet

  • Comment 281, posted at 28.03.16 19:45:56 by Baylion Reply

  • @Baylion (Comment 281) : it all has a habit of working out over a season.

    My point is only amplified by your comment however. My point was we all would have hoped the Sharks had scored more than 12 tries after 5 games (2.4 tries per game).

    Now that you have reminded us we are one of the teams to already have played the Kings, that seems so much worse.

    We’ve (fyndraai hates it when I say “we” 😆 ) scored 6 tries in 4 games (1.5 per match) since the Kings.

  • Comment 282, posted at 28.03.16 20:08:39 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 282) : True, the season has a long way to go still and there are still tough games ahead, especially in our conference playing the Kiwis and the Jaguares, who must start to gel at some point. At the moment they are their own worst enemies

  • Comment 283, posted at 28.03.16 20:14:12 by Baylion Reply

  • Interesting clip and commentary on the run-up to Kieran Read’s try. I don’t know this Steve Rigby, the clip was shared to me

  • Comment 284, posted at 28.03.16 21:36:23 by Baylion Reply

  • That’s one pissed off fan.

    And rightly so. I agree wholeheartedly.

  • Comment 285, posted at 28.03.16 22:15:39 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @pastorshark (Comment 277) : OK so Impi still have a chance for promotion! Great news.

  • Comment 286, posted at 28.03.16 22:45:44 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @JD (Comment 286) : Yup…it will just be a tough game for us instead of going straight up…but there is still a chance…

  • Comment 287, posted at 28.03.16 22:46:37 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @Baylion (Comment 284) : @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 285) : he’s 100% correct!!! Great comments made by him! Think he’s available to help coach the Sharks?!

  • Comment 288, posted at 28.03.16 22:58:37 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @pastorshark (Comment 287) : just glad they still get a chance. Really hope they use it!

  • Comment 289, posted at 28.03.16 23:00:46 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • It took the Boston Red Sox 86 years to win baseball’s World Series… hopefully Sharks fans won’t have t wait as long.

  • Comment 290, posted at 29.03.16 02:42:23 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • Something worth considering – in a normal promo/relegation year, the bottom team from Varsity cup WILL be relegated….surely this year should be no different?

    Surely UCT should be relegated for finishing last, and not be afforded the opportunity to stay in the Varsity cup?

    CUT should then actually be playing promo relegation vs UWC, as the Shield’s no.1 team is actually by default part of the newly extended Varsity cup next year.

    UCT will probably not see it this way, even through they their last game had a higher cumulative score than what SL was able to post vs the Proteas…..

  • Comment 291, posted at 29.03.16 06:07:35 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 291) : *correction, not CUT but Nmmu

  • Comment 292, posted at 29.03.16 06:22:28 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 291) : Seems there will be no promotion/relegation games this year, only in 2018 again

    “The three new teams will join the Varsity Shield, while one Varsity Shield team will be promoted to the Varsity Cup, joining the eight existing teams”
    “Promotion and relegation matches will be played again in 2018 for the 2019 season”

  • Comment 293, posted at 29.03.16 07:10:28 by Baylion Reply

  • Well whatever happens Gold must pick a tune and stick to it. He can’t be all hard nose about drawing with bulls on loftus then take the happy to be losing by a lower margin stance with the crusaders. Both games were within reach. If we take the happy to have low margin approach will we be happy to lose against every other team that beat us last year just as long as the margin isn’t as embarrassing? Winning rugby starts with a winning attitude. If he and we want the sharks to show the hunger we should not accept this kind of loss.

  • Comment 294, posted at 29.03.16 07:15:44 by coolfusion Reply

  • @Baylion (Comment 293) : So UCT not only get to be the worst team in the history of Varsity cup, but they get a stay of execution as reward….

  • Comment 295, posted at 29.03.16 07:16:10 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @Baylion (Comment 284) : Thank you for sharing that,its one of the most insightful summations of a lot of things I have been trying to verbalise for a long time.
    Time to ditch Reinarch and time for MNet to bench Cowley.

  • Comment 296, posted at 29.03.16 07:17:26 by The hound Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    The hound
  • In essence then, this year is in fact not a promotion year…as Wits will merely be added to Varsity cup, with no team being promoted (and no team being relegated – no wonder Hanyani Shimange couldn’t give a damn about actually showing up for practice sessions with his team)

  • Comment 297, posted at 29.03.16 07:25:41 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 297) : @Baylion (Comment 293) : That is just plain unfair! 🙁 😯

  • Comment 298, posted at 29.03.16 07:35:10 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 290) : we already waited 100 years for the first Currie cup! 😈

  • Comment 299, posted at 29.03.16 07:56:26 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @Baylion (Comment 293) : @FireTheLooser (Comment 295) : @pastorshark (Comment 298) : that’s sad news indeed!

  • Comment 300, posted at 29.03.16 07:58:16 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @The hound (Comment 296) : don’t think either will happen as I think CR was under instruction to kick everything and MNet will never bench a legend! 😈

  • Comment 301, posted at 29.03.16 08:01:41 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • I could not care less what Gavin Cowley had to say about Reinach’s stupid decision. What gets me all worked up is this mentality being taught to the Sharks players to kick every bloody ball away.

    A chip over the top is not a bad idea (recall McLeod killing the Stormers with little chips over the defensive line), but you don’t chip to an area with 5 red shirts and not a single black shirt to chase. You draw in the defenders first, and then you can chip over the top into space.

    Another old excuse this video has just put to bed is the humidity factor – did not bother the Crusaders one bit in putting one 15 phases from just in front of their 22 right up to under our goal posts.

    The Sharks are currently playing Jakeball, and without the players to do it. You need a Frans Steyn for that – not a Joe P. All that is happening is that we are getting pinned in our half, and made to defend, defend, defend. I know the Sharks handling as a team is poor. Just look at the stats for completed passes and offloads – Sharks in position 17 last time I checked.

    But you are not going to improve unless you change your mentality and go out there and try something. The thing is we did try plays in the Kings and Jaguares games, but then it seemed Gold lost his nerve after the Jags scored two tries from our mistakes and started talking only about “test rugby”. Fortune favours the brave.

  • Comment 302, posted at 29.03.16 08:03:22 by Bokhoring Reply
  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 63) : But they knew would we just kick it back and that neither Willie and especially not Joe is a Frans Steyn. They pinned us down in our half with some excellent kicks, and then capitalized when we either kicked it straight back to them, or got very little distance on our line kicks.

  • Comment 303, posted at 29.03.16 08:20:56 by Bokhoring Reply
  • Just my views having watched the game live. It was a closely fought game. The Crusaders are a good side and they played well. They retained the ball well and put the Sharks under pressure in our own half. The possession the Sharks did have was mainly in their own half and under pressure hence the numerous kicks, which we actually chased and competed very well and actually won a couple back. The set piece wasnt dominant but it wasnt very bad…we were up against a good set piece side. The Crusaders managed to take their chances as did the Sharks scoring off the turnovers we forced. Sometimes you do just play against a better side on the day and that was the case on Saturday. For all those thinking we are now terrible and want Gold and everyone out the door immediately…how quickly the tune changes after 1 loss…fair weather fans much? As I said…sometimes you just lose to a better side.

  • Comment 304, posted at 29.03.16 09:17:21 by SheldonK Reply

  • @Bokhoring (Comment 303) : that’s why I wondered why they did not let Andre kick some of those clearance kicks?!?!?!

  • Comment 305, posted at 29.03.16 09:28:20 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @SheldonK (Comment 304) : problem was they way they played (or rather the lack of play). Don’t think Gold is a bad coach because of the loss but I do think they (Gold and/or whom ever was responsible) got the game plan wrong. Nothing fair weather about disagreeing on that and if anyone think I’m a fair weather fan because of that then so be it!

  • Comment 306, posted at 29.03.16 09:45:43 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @SheldonK (Comment 304) : I am not asking for any coaches to be fired. Gold has mentioned the need to hold onto the ball for longer periods since after the Stormers game, but somehow that does not translate to what is happening on the field. He seems to be telling the public one thing, but the players get a different set of instructions. If you want to play Jakeball successfully, you need a very good defence (which we have this year), an excellent set piece (which we don’t consistently) and some kickers who can punt the ball for miles (which we don’t).

    The Sharks also urgently need to look at the 22 exit plan, and the penalty line kicks. Joe P just does not get enough distance on his kicks – I would also suggest pulling in Andre for some of those.

    The best bit of attacking play from the Sharks came from a good drive from first Coenie and then Ettas. We should have perhaps tried a bit more of that.

  • Comment 307, posted at 29.03.16 09:46:14 by Bokhoring Reply
  • @JD (Comment 306) : How would you have liked them to play? The Crusaders played well and kept the ball and put us under pressure. The Sharks therefore defended very well and applied pressure through their defensive work. What would you have liked the Sharks to do differently?

  • Comment 308, posted at 29.03.16 10:07:56 by SheldonK Reply

  • @Bokhoring (Comment 307) : Bearing in mind that the majority of possession that the Sharks did have was in their own half and under pressure. So keeping ball in hand then would be pretty foolish..this isnt Varsity Cup. So the Sharks kicked and i thought we chased and contested the kicks very well. So yes the management want to keep the ball in hand but they need possession in the opposition half to do that. We played a good team that played well on Saturday…sometimes you just have to accept that before laying blame. (Not saying you specifically laying blame just talking in general.) So if anything we could have tried a few more chip kicks and grubbers but doing that under pressure is very risky. In terms of distance off clearing kicks, they really arent that bad. And Andre miss kicks just as many as he gets properly so id rather trust Pieterson

  • Comment 309, posted at 29.03.16 10:13:04 by SheldonK Reply

  • @SheldonK (Comment 308) : So you’re telling me that the Saders were so good, that there was absolutely nothing the Sharks could have done to beat them?

    I guess we’ll have to wait and see what the Lions do differently, and whether that will be good enough to beat this inexperienced Saders side.

    @SheldonK (Comment 309) : You sound like HM….

    …..there are honestly more ways to get out of your 22 than merely kicking possession straight down the opposition’s throat.

  • Comment 310, posted at 29.03.16 10:20:04 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 310) : The Crusaders real strength is their pack – the back line (apart from Ellis, Crotty and Nadolo) is fairly inexperienced at this level. If the Lions can find ways to negate their pack and a better answer to their kicking game, I think they will take the Crusaders this weekend.

  • Comment 311, posted at 29.03.16 10:25:16 by Bokhoring Reply
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 310) : Did you watch the game on Saturday or just read the result? The Crusaders did well to keep the ball and put pressure on the Sharks. You know teams can actually play well against the Sharks…especially good teams. So what did the Sharks do to try and win…they tried to put as much defensive pressure on the Crusaders as possible…this led to 2 tries and almost 3 if Willie wasnt in front of the kicker. So thats what the Sharks did to try win. Yeh sure dont kick the ball when you are under pressure…rather try run it and if you more than likely turn it over and they score simply you will probably ask why they didnt kick it. You mention the Lions…how well did they do against the Highlanders? Sometimes you play a better side…but guess its easier to try lay blame or insult

  • Comment 312, posted at 29.03.16 10:26:58 by SheldonK Reply

  • @Bokhoring (Comment 311) : Lions sure offer a ton more on attack than the Sharks….and they know how to look after the ball – they will force the Saders into loading their defensive line, once that happens, the Lions will be able to employ a kicking game (then only do you kick the way the Sharks kicked – sadly the Sharks played like the Boks in 2009, with the 2016 rule book…failure all day long).

  • Comment 313, posted at 29.03.16 10:30:10 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @SheldonK (Comment 312) : I just read the result 🙄

    Stupid question will receive stupid answers. 😉

  • Comment 314, posted at 29.03.16 10:33:59 by FireTheLooser Reply

  • @SheldonK (Comment 309) : Kicking yourself out of trouble from inside the 22 – no problems, although IMO we do not get enough distance on those kicks to really relieve the pressure. Aimlessly kicking the ball away when you have possession on the opposition’s 10m line makes no sense whatsoever.

  • Comment 315, posted at 29.03.16 10:40:31 by Bokhoring Reply
  • @JD (Comment 301) : Define legend… :mrgreen:

  • Comment 316, posted at 29.03.16 10:45:42 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 314) : Judging by your earlier comment im not sure you did watch the game. Did you notice the Crusaders very impressive pack keep the ball through phases and put us under pressure? Did you notice their very quick rush defense when we did finally get the ball back? Did you see their set piece work very well. If you saw all that im sure you also saw the Sharks work damn hard on defense to put them under pressure and we actually scored off that pressure…twice. So maybe you did see all that….or maybe you did just read the result

  • Comment 317, posted at 29.03.16 10:47:19 by SheldonK Reply

  • @SheldonK (Comment 308) : for one why not give Andre a chance to kick from the 22 as in previous games? They hardly used the backs to run at the Saders and there was chances in mid field that they could have run the ball but almost every ball was kicked. Another thing all the kicks was aimed deep, why not short chip kicks, grubbers, cross kicks for the wings? I would like to see game plan that uses short kicks, long kicks, running, etc to keep your opponents guessing as to what you will do next.

  • Comment 318, posted at 29.03.16 10:52:23 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @Bokhoring (Comment 315) : To be honest id prefer if our clearing kicks we high and contested by our chacers…if not then they must definitely just go out- and perhaps thats where we could have done better- kick those clearing kicks out. I do agree that you shouldnt be kicking on the oppositions 10m…unless its tactical grubber through for the wing to score. What the Sharks need to take from this game is that we cant use our entire forward pack to secure the ball each ruck…and our guys need to get off their feet quicker if we want to take the ball through the phases like the Crusaders did so well. That was probably the Crusaders best performance this year…very few errors.

  • Comment 319, posted at 29.03.16 10:53:44 by SheldonK Reply

  • @Bokhoring (Comment 302) : The more I read all your comments, the more I am convinced that there was sense and planning behind this game plan for this team against this opposition. If we are in position 17 for successfully completed offloads and the Crusaders are one of the teams most likely to kill us on the counter, then it makes sense to minimise our game play in order to minimise their chances of catching us on the counter. At least with kicks we get to organise our defence, put pressure on them and capitalise on their mistakes. And it ALMOST worked too. I’m not saying I agree that it is the way to go, I’m not saying that it is not intensely frustrating seeing Cobus throw away one of the few good opportunities we set up because he is blindly following a pre-set plan (and then doing it poorly by clearly not even looking where he was kicking)…I am not saying all that. But I am saying that I can understand the logic behind the game plan, I am saying the coaching team had some logic behind their planned approach and I am saying it almost worked. It will be interesting to see how the Lions go…I think it is pretty likely that they will not follow the Sharks route…let’s see how their strategy goes…

  • Comment 320, posted at 29.03.16 10:54:29 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @SheldonK (Comment 304) : I get kind of the same impression…

  • Comment 321, posted at 29.03.16 10:56:38 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @JD (Comment 318) : Was Andre always available to kick? Im not saying he wasnt but he may have been caught in rucks. They probably also trust Pieterson to do the kicking and he really isnt bad. I must say we did contest a lot of our high kicks well and i think we actually got possession back from a few and created pressure for the 1 Mvovo try. But yes we can use chip kicks and grubbers a bit more…especially when faced with a rush defense like Saturday. Our guys are physically struggling to maintain the ball in contact and rucks and i have a good feeling thats why we kick even when we could chance it and run it…we should always run from halfway onwards.

  • Comment 322, posted at 29.03.16 11:02:52 by SheldonK Reply

  • I don’t know whether I should say this, but I think I will: Guys, is it not possible to read each other’s differing opinions and respond without quite so much hostility? It should make for a far more constructive interaction…

  • Comment 323, posted at 29.03.16 11:05:18 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @SheldonK (Comment 322) : I can’t remember Andre kicking once?! The main thing is you must try to keep your opponents guessing as to what you’re going to do and from what I’ve heard it seemed as if their back three was just playing deep and waiting for the kick to come.

  • Comment 324, posted at 29.03.16 11:14:22 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @pastorshark (Comment 321) : Yeh sorry reading back i seem to be ranting today haha. Just annoys me when people think we can never play against a better side on the day. It was a bladdy good game to watch…one side doing well to hold onto possession in the face of serious defensive pressure. A couple lapses in defense allowed them to score and a few moments of sustained pressure gave the Sharks points. So will the Lions play the same way…probably no…but did their run everything approach work against the Highlanders…well no.

  • Comment 325, posted at 29.03.16 11:16:27 by SheldonK Reply

  • @pastorshark (Comment 323) : a very valid point.

    Guys, please. Let’s keep this place pleasant and civil.

  • Comment 326, posted at 29.03.16 11:17:21 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • @pastorshark (Comment 320) : I may be wrong overall, but I have the impression that we have lost the territory (and possession for that matter) battle in each of the last three games. So in my mind our kicking game is not really working that well in any case.

    I believe the team that Jake had in his season was built for a kicking game, but it still got us only so far in the end. The current Sharks team just does not have that personnel available. I appreciate the Sharks have a problem protecting possession (it has been a Sharks problem for years now), but it is time this team starts developing other facets to become a more complete team.

    I am not asking for running every ball from your goal line, but just a more balanced approach. And I believe you need to start by changing the players’ mentality. The Sharks problems with holding onto the ball is not going to improve, unless we actually start trying to do so.

  • Comment 327, posted at 29.03.16 11:19:11 by Bokhoring Reply
  • @SheldonK (Comment 325) : I’m looking forward to seeing how the Lions go…in fact, I’m in Joburg this weekend so I might just pop over to watch the game. I suspect the success of the Lions plans will not be decided by kicking vs running but by whether they can lay a better foundation at set piece time than the Sharks managed. If they are put under pressure and try to run it I think they will be beaten handily…if they can exert pressure of their own they have a good chance…

  • Comment 328, posted at 29.03.16 11:23:15 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @JD (Comment 324) : I think i can recall one kick…but think that was just a quick pressure release, like it wasnt set up or anything. Their back 3 did play a bit deeper but because they only committed 1 or 2 forwards to competing our ruck ball they were able to cover a lot of the field without their back 3. We did try one chip kick but their 9 was covering well like he should.

  • Comment 329, posted at 29.03.16 11:27:02 by SheldonK Reply

  • @SheldonK (Comment 312) : Keep the ball? HAHAHAHAHA we gave them the ball, on a silver platter, with 35 kicks….26 of which went to hand!!!!.

    They didn’t keep shit, we gave it to them.
    And there you are accusing other people of not watching the game.

  • Comment 330, posted at 29.03.16 11:28:48 by Nostraseth Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Author
  • @Bokhoring (Comment 327) : You have a valid point…I sort of get the impression that really important games like the one against the Jaguars at home and last weekend’s game against the Bulls and this one against the Crusaders sort of force the Sharks back into their shells. We were far more expansive against the Kings (which is easier, I know) and played the right game against the Stormers). I hope this weekend’s bye just gives us a chance to re-evaluate and that the tour (which is arguably less pressure-filled because nobody expects much) will see us open up far more. The Lions game after the bye is huge and I would be surprised if we open up too much there. But let’s see…

  • Comment 331, posted at 29.03.16 11:29:15 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @pastorshark (Comment 328) : The Sharks werent bad at set piece. They won majority of their own ball but then so did the Crusaders. Where the Lions will need to work hard is disrupting the Crusaders possession after the scrum or lineout etc as thats where they applied massive pressure on the Sharks. The Lions will have to do that without committing too many numbers to each breakdown as if they do their smaller wingers could be exposed by the likes of Nandolo etc.

  • Comment 332, posted at 29.03.16 11:35:26 by SheldonK Reply

  • @JD (Comment 324) : I’m also really upset Andre didn’t even kick once , I mean no disrespect to Joe or willie but it makes more sence logically if someone kicks further that he should be the number 1 kicker in terms of kicking out of hand . . They should also make him kick penaltys in to touch.

  • Comment 333, posted at 29.03.16 11:35:37 by ettas Reply

  • @SheldonK (Comment 332) : I didn’t watch the game…busy Easter weekend for me…I base my comments re: set piece on what I read here. Either way…the point remains: If the Lions are put under pressure and try to respond by running it, I think they will take strain…

  • Comment 334, posted at 29.03.16 11:42:49 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @ettas (Comment 333) : yes especially penalty kick in our half can be taken by Andre.

  • Comment 335, posted at 29.03.16 11:45:02 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
  • @pastorshark (Comment 334) : funny how people who watch the same game give different views 😉

    I disagree with the comment “The Sharks werent bad at set piece”. At this level you aim to win more than just the ‘majority’ of your set pieces.

    When I see the scrum in turbo reverse, being penalised, or the ball going in to the lineout with the Crusaders players flapping their arms yelling ‘aw ref’ and no Sharks bothering to jump, I know it’s not good.

  • Comment 336, posted at 29.03.16 11:52:55 by Character_Schmarachter Reply

    Gold's Member
  • @Nostraseth (Comment 330) : Did you happen to also look at the stats of how many tackles we made? Or just the one that suits your comment? If they didnt keep the ball why did we tackle so much? Or did we just tackle each other? We kicked to get out of our 22 mainly to relieve pressure. But yeh guess they didnt keep the ball…and we didnt have the ball…maybe the ref had it

  • Comment 337, posted at 29.03.16 12:00:25 by SheldonK Reply

  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 336) : Remember we were up against a good set piece side with good forwards. We also disrupted their ball but like us they did win a majority of their first phase ball. Yes there was the odd bad scrum and lineout…it happens. Doesnt mean they were bad overall.

  • Comment 338, posted at 29.03.16 12:03:39 by SheldonK Reply

  • Kicking has been a struggle for the past 3 games not just this one. Especially the first half then Willie finds form after a few terrible kicks and slowly Joe does too. Surely this should have signaled in three games that they must very early in the game decide on a different strategy since it gives away posession and territory the whole time putting undue pressure on the team. Surely 3 games must have taught the coach and these 2 players that ? Kicking is not the only option.

  • Comment 339, posted at 29.03.16 12:08:43 by coolfusion Reply

  • @Character_Schmarachter (Comment 336) : Yeah, look, though I didn’t see the game, what I have read all over generally does seem to indicate that we had our struggles at set piece time…

  • Comment 340, posted at 29.03.16 12:24:21 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
  • @pastorshark (Comment 340) : I think the few issues we did have was a result of not doing too well in other areas the pressure was building. But overall I don’t think the major focus areas should be set piece we have been coming around quite well on that front. Loose play, attack and maybe exit strategy. But set piece was symptomatic of other problems and should correct easily if we can get some other areas sorted.

  • Comment 341, posted at 29.03.16 14:13:38 by coolfusion Reply


Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.