There was plenty of interesting talking points to come out of the game, but the one that interests me the most is the discussion about the standard of the game. Some posters (here and elsewhere) opined that the game was a horrible display, and the standard of play across the Tasman was far better than what we saw at Homebush. I disagree. I thought the game was actually pretty good to watch, even if the first half was a little slow. The last 20 was absorbing, and it was telling that there was not the usual procession of older members out of the ground with 10 minutes to go.
But more than that I think people may have expected a little bit too much from the first game of the season. Round 1 is always a weekend of scrappy, physical slogs played by teams at 70 or 80% of what they are generally capable of doing. On top of that when was the last time a Reds/Tahs game was a free-flowing game? I think there may have been one back in the 60s, b
ut it’s been lean since then. When you combine those two factors the game was always going to be a physical slogfest.And as far as physical slogfests go I thought the standard was pretty good. There weren’t too many dropped balls, wayward kicks or missed tackles. Both defensive lines performed with aplomb, which is more than can be said for the Blues and Crusaders. I’m not saying this game was the game of the round, but I do think it was up there, and I expect both sides to be right in there at the business end of the season.
