Super-Final

I'm sure it won't be, but it would be nice if this final was the thing that took the boring old farts and said, yes, the Super-ELVs were a good set.

It might seem odd for a 20-12 victory, but in a way that the Heineken Cup final never was, this game was pulsating, fast, furious and wonderful. Some of that might be because the score, somewhat at least, flatters the losers: 27-12 or more would probably have happened but for a punch.

In the first half, in fact in the first 25 minutes, the Crusaders had almost all the ball and almost all the territory and yet were 12-3 down. The one real attack that the 'Tahs managed produced a try from a good cross-kick and a matter of millimetres in the difference in the jumps. The second came from an interception and a moment of blistering pace, and from about 80m away. For the next 15 minutes, the 'Saders increased that dominance and managed to get it back to 12-11 and could have been in front if Dan Carter had landed the conversion, albeit an attempt from right on the touchline.

In the second half, the 'Saders were the only side to score, and the only side to look like scoring really, despite having Brad Thorn in the sin bin for 10 minutes for the punch that cost Wyatt Crockett an unlikely long-range try. Despite being down to 14 men, the 'Saders defence was so good that it didn't really look like being punished.

Granted, there were moves in the second half where the 'Tahs got close: there was a memorable tackle on Tiquiri by former team-mate Thorn within a couple of metres of the line for example, but without exception these raids that nearly got home led to turn overs of one variety or another: because the players in blue were isolated, and gave the ball up correctly, or held it and gave up the free kick, or because on a couple of occasions the 'Saders just got more bodies there at the right time and counter-rucked strongly enough to win the ball.

And because of this the game was immensely gripping: good attacks were blunted by amazing, last-gasp defence. Poor but penetrating attacks were blunted, turned over and frequently led to strong attacks in the opposite direction. As you might expect in such a game, the back rows were everywhere. It's probably fair to say that the Number-8's more or less cancelled each other out. That's a testament to their respective skill levels: it wasn't that they were anonymous, they both had their moments, but with the exception of Tuial'i's try, there moments balanced and cancelled, and it was often thanks to their opposite number they were bought down. Given Palu is almost certainly going to be Aussie No 8 that's a fair old compliment to Tuial'i, and might have him in the starting 15 for the All Blacks in the June tests: I don't remember Soaialo doing the same when the 'Tahs and the 'Canes played, and head-to-head last week Soaialo was far from dominant too.

Waugh and Elsom were good, and got around the park and did their stuff. But, you would have to be very one-eyed not to say that they were both outplayed by their opposite numbers. Those critical moments, the essential turn-overs, the critical times for slowing things down, and the critical carries in the right direction all went to Reid and McCaw. Henry may feel Reid is too young and inexperienced for the international stage, although he's not normally shy about putting young players in. On the evidence of the last few weeks, Reid deserves to be in the squad I'd say (but then I don't do the picking and I don't see all the games from over here).

In fact, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that all 15 of the 'Saders could be making up the All Black machine rather than the Red and Black machine in two weeks time. There are Chiefs, Blues, Hurricanes and even the odd Highlander, and certainly fans of those sides that would disagree with me. I don't actually believe it will happen either: Hamilton showed some frailty that Sivivatu doesn't any more, and Sivivatu has blistering pace too. Bateman might miss out at Number-12, and Laulala has struggled on the big stage in years gone by so might have used up all his chances with Henry (although I think he's playing better this year than last and probably does deserve a good look if not a starting spot). If Flynn had played, he'd have more chance than his understudy of starting, Mealamu is far more likely. Who will prop along the line from Sommerville is a fair question, and you'd have to say Crockett is probably going to get tapped, but might not quite make it.

Ellis for the last two weeks has demonstrated a great all-round grasp. I think he'll get the nod for number 9. His only mistake today was a kick that drifted out on the full, and that only just. He chivvied his pack, he passed neatly, he defended like a hero when needed. He made the correct decisions each time, and just slipped that once. He also, playing a side that will almost certainly form the bulk of the Australia side, played a full 80 minutes. I think he did last week against the 'Canes too. That's rare in a scrum-half, and a nice thing to have.

Thorne swapped for Thorn for the last couple of minutes. Deans and Thorne are both leaving, although in different directions. They're both departing as seven times winners in a contest that's only been running for 13 years. I don't think, after last week, anyone really doubted the 'Saders would give them that send off, except for the 'Tahs camp you'd hope, and the 'Saders didn't disappoint. How Deans will do in Australia is something that I rather suspect has a number of Kiwi minds wondering and hearts trembling: He's worked miracles in and around the Christchurch region after all. How the Crusaders will do next year without them both, but particularly Deans, is something we'll have to wait and see: and I'm sure some Red and Black fans are nervous about that too - who do you choose to replace such a successful coach? But for the moment, congratulations to them both, and the rest of the Crusaders. They were certainly the better team on the day. They were the best team of the tournament too, only slipping up twice, and playing poorly a couple of other times, albeit well enough. New Zealand rugby is certainly missing bodies to playing in Europe, but it's got new people emerging to fill the gaps judging from the last two weeks.

Bad refereeing and comparing

What I had planned to write today was my impressions of the Super-14 semi-finals (both exciting matches, even if the decision in both wasn't really in doubt for that long) and the Heineken Cup and European Challenge Cup finals. We'd be comparing, more or less, like with like after all.

The trouble is, we're not comparing like with like. The Super-14 semis were both great games. There were errors, attacks, entertainment, tries, penalties and the works. The H-cup final was tense, a try each way (the Toulouse try was probably the best of the weekend) but not hugely exciting for the neutral observer, well not this one anyway.

Close games can be good - Gloucester v Bath (8-6 final score) was a good game because the teams tried, there were sweeping attacks and stout defence throughout. The 16-13 win by Munster didn't have that - it was error-ridden and unattractive. There was also a shocking decision to yellow card Pelous, and although I'm not 100% sure there was bias by the refereeing team in general (I have a lot of time for Nigel Owens normally) I would say that Munster got enough of the rub of the green on other occasions too that I can understand Guy Noves thinking there might have been bias.

The Challenge Cup final was worse. It started looking like there was going to be an attacking, fun game. In moments there were. But oh boy, Christophe Berdos had a shocker. Grewcock should have been sin-binned twice (which would have left Bath down to 14 players for 25 minutes or so). Mears should have been sin-binned. Another Bath player should have been sin-binned. Klaarsens kicked the ball from a mark into his own player in front. Offside? No - take the kick again. WHY? Whether or not it was deliberate, the referee failed to stamp his authority and the game was full of niggle and unpleasantness, and it's hard to think that Worcester wouldn't have managed to do something more if they'd played against 14 men for more than half the match, in fact 13-men for a few minutes.

The IRB and the various competitions need to do something. If the referee has such a shocker, there needs to be some come-back. Saying, as they did, Barnes, Spreadbury and Kaplan can't referee further in the RWC didn't help New Zealand who had been knocked out several shocking decisions. It won't help Worcester if Berdos has his wrist slapped for a bad game. Referees need to be respected and left to run the game. But when a referee has a bad game, there has to be something else done - perhaps particularly when it's so clearly a big game, like a knock-out match or a cup final.

ELVs, bizarre choices and stupid commentators

So, about 10 days ago the powers that be decided, in their infinite wisdom, what the future of the game will look like. The accepted about half of the ELVs that had been proposed. Of course, they couldn't decide to adopt the ones that have been in the Super-14s this year... that would be too easy.

Some of the Super-14 rules have got through, but they've ditched the "most offenses are free kicks" rule. Shame really, there are so many situations where the difference between being excellent play and a penalty is a matter of less than 1 second. Having a free kick in there, and then a penalty for the more blatant or repeated abuses, and a yellow card for the really blatant, bad position or long term repeated offenses makes sense to me.

The one I can't believe they've accepted (that Super-14 wisely IMO ignored) was "it's legal to collapse a maul." Now, I happen to think that rolling mauls are too powerful. There is no defence against them in essence (not even having a big, strong pack) but they are a thing of skill and power - two of the things that make rugby attractive - even if it's only the real purists that would regard them as a thing of beauty in their own right. Having the ability to just collapse the maul - well any idiot can do that, so you're removing an option of skill straight away. Replacing it with things like "as long as you join from onside you can work around the sides of the maul staying bound to attack the ball carrier" would, to my mind, make a lot more sense. Teams can still attack using the rolling maul, but there is a defence that doesn't deny the attacker the skill and power and requires skill and power rather than just the ability to lie down in the way. Obviously that's too easy...

The other reason I can't believe it happened this way: collapsing mauls was ruled out originally not to allow Leicester to score tries that way, but to prevent injury to players as it goes down. Players now have unbreakable necks presumably? Bizarre.

The commentators that I saw were all "OMG it's terrible" and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." They then chose, rather stupidly, to demonstrate it ain't broke by saying the two Heineken Cup semi-finals produced good matches. They did, it's a fair comment. But are semi-finals between four of the best teams in Europe on a good weather day a representative sample? No one has denied that the existing rules CAN produce great games of rugby. But, about 2 weeks before this game an (equally unrepresentative sample of 1 game) produced a stolid 16-9 game with 1 try, lots of slugging it out in the middle of the field. It was a rugby match, but not one that would make me go back to watch another match if I was a newcomer.

The Super-14s, even in some pretty horrendous conditions (driving rain, howling winds, etc.) has usually produced interesting games. The Guinness Premiership and the Heineken Cup produces them as the weather gets better, but produces 9-6 dull, slow, boring games too in conditions not that dissimilar to the weather we've seen in some of the Super-14 games this year, where they're producing 3 and 4 try matches. Comparing overall... well I don't have the stats and some of it is about personal opinion, but Super rugby produces far fewer dull matches in my opinion than either of the big Northern Hemisphere contests that I can see here.

That brings us on to the final thing... who is Rubgy for? The commentators would have you believe it's for them. What crap. Rugby is for the fans at this sort of level. Sure, at the local club level it might be for the pleasure of the players, but they're the sort of people that still pay subs to play for fun. Professional players and clubs almost certainly contain a majority of people that enjoy what they do - but they don't play for that. They play for the wage. The wage comes from bums on seats and sponsorship. But sponsorship comes from TV revenue and bums on seats potential. TV revenue comes from bums on comfier seats. Rugby at the top level is predicated on pleasing the crowd so they keep paying to watch the games. I don't know what the viewing and attendance figures are like, but adjusting the game so it keeps the things that make it good and attractive but so that it showcases them more, making the game MORE attractive is surely a good thing?