Ex Superpsort
The Cell C Sharks are rightly being regarded as underdogs for Saturday’s Vodacom Super Rugby semifinal in Christchurch, but one thing they do have on their side is the knowledge of what it takes to get under the Crusaders’ skin and test what may be a suspect temperament.
Few teams have choked as badly as the Crusaders did in the league match played in May, when the Sharks emerged with an historic and drought breaking victory in the south island city while reduced to 14 and even 13 men at one stage of the game.(THIS IS WHY OAKS A KIWI REF WAS NOMINATED TO OFFICIATE. NZ CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN AGAIN! BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHA)
In that game you could almost sense the Crusaders starting to panic as, with the expectation being that they should run away from the Sharks and make it a one-sided game because of their advantage in numbers (EXPECT YELLOW CARDS - THE NOT SO SECRET WEAPON OF NZ RUGBY - SHARKIES), the Durbanites hung in and just refused to let that gap open up. The Sharks shut the Crusaders down at the breakdown, slowed down their ball, made them jittery and panicky as there plans just didn’t come together.
It wasn’t the first time a favoured New Zealand team has struggled in a low scoring game. You wouldn’t question the All Black temperament when they are involved in high scoring contests where both teams are out to play and try scoring isn’t difficult. Last year’s Rugby Championship decider against the Springboks in Johannesburg, when the hosts were committed to chase the four try bonus point, is a case in point.
So was the later game played by the All Blacks, their last match of the year against Ireland in Dublin. They came back from a big deficit in that match to win it at the death. But the 2007 World Cup quarterfinal against France was the opposite example, the one of suspect Kiwi temperament when they just can’t get ahead and get their moves together, and the closely fought 2011 World Cup final between the teams was another. New Zealand did get home that night, but they sweated along the way and were helped by good fortune.(THE GOOD FORTUNE WAS A VERY BAD DISPLAY BY OUR CRAIG JOUBERT WHO HANDED THE WC TO NZ ON A PLATER AFTER THE FRENCH HAD OUTPLAYED THE HOME SIDE)
A repeat of the way the match in May was played will be what the Sharks will be hoping for in Christchurch. They did attack well in that game too, when there was the chance to do so, and they made full use of their limited opportunities in a clash where they did most of the defending, so that will be a needed element for them too.
But most of all, they just need to shut the Crusaders down, and then hope they implode like they did then and in some other games played at their home ground towards the beginning of the season. That should be the aim, and loose-forward Jean Deysel, who will have ambiguous memories of that last meeting between these teams as he was the man sent off, has noted that the pressure is on the hosts.
“The pressure is all on the Crusaders. They are expected to win. They have had a weekend off to freshen up, they have all their stars back and have 18 All Blacks in their squad (ITS CALLED LOADING GUYS - DONE VIA CENTRAL CONTRACTING!), and they have a parochial home crowd to urge them on,” said Deysel in a telephone hook-up with Durban based reporters.
What Deysel didn’t say, but is true, is that being written off should also suit the Sharks, for there is a long history of the Durban side showing their mettle when the odds are stacked against them. The 2012 season saw them go where no Super Rugby team has been before in the history of the competition by going from a sixth placed finish to the final, winning away play-off matches against the Reds in Brisbane and the Stormers in Cape Town, both formidable venues for visiting teams that year.
What the Sharks haven’t done before, and where they will be breaking new ground for South African teams if they win, is to travel to New Zealand to win a play-off. Their Brisbane win in 2012 wasn’t the first in their history – Gary Teichmann’s Natal team won a semifinal there in 1996. But the 2012 defeat to the Chiefs in the Hamilton final was their fifth defeat in knock-out games on New Zealand soil, having lost to Auckland in the 1996 final, to Auckland Blues in the 1997 semifinal, to Crusaders in the 1998 semifinal, to the Crusaders in the 2011 play-off qualifier and then to the Chiefs.
It is a tall order to fly from South Africa to New Zealand and win a knock-out game in the same week that you travel. But the expectation that should create in Christchurch could just be the Sharks’ friend against a team that may struggle if the Sharks succeed in changing parts of the anticipated script in the early parts of the game.
THE TRAVEL IS A REAL CONCERN. I EXPECT THOUGH THE ROLE OF THE REF TO BE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FACTOR. THE SHARKS, IF LOOKING LIKE THEY CAN WIN, WILL BE BLOWN OUT THE GAME. ANY THEORIES AS TO HOW NZ MANAGED TO GET A KIWI REF OFFCIATING?
