There is no time for rejoicing; this contest is for real
Royal played according to a plan. The forwards were good. The mauls were perfect. The forwards knew what to do when they got the ball. Trinity had possession, but lacked finish. The right winger could have been used more. Trinity can win. They have to devise a plan and stop the rolling maul.
If any ardent Royalist think that the Bradby Shield is gift- wrapped and awaiting delivery on June 3 at the Royal Complex, he had better think again. This may not be the first step in a thousand mile journey as Mao Tse Tung so famously said. Nevertheless, it represents a significant step towards the retention of the famous shield.
There are two significant games to look back on in connection with this. Prasanna Jayawardena's team of 1998 won the first leg 20-18, only for Royal to come back with a blinder ( 42- 11) and wrest the prized possession.
Thirteen years later, in 2011 to be precise, Murad Ramzeen and his band achieved the same result, but with more style Royal led Trinity by 8 points after the initial encounter (33-25). But Ramzeen's boys led a riot in the second joust, Royal 5, Trinity 40. It couldn't have been more comprehensive than that!
In an attempt to give readers an insight into what could happen, the Sunday Times spoke to a few stal- warts on the likely outcome. Their views are thought-provoking.
@ Rugby player, Analyst and Academic :
"Trinity fluffed several opportunities. The ball should have been sent out more. The Trinity pack weighed 100 kilos more than Royal's. Their line outs were bad. The Royal 'eight' had better technique. A heavier pack doesn't always guarantee success. They must know the answers. Royal's Rolling Maul worked again. Once a maul gets going it's difficult (though not impossible) to stop. In a typical Rolling Maul, opposing players don't really know who is carrying the ball. The ball is available above the ground and it can be played."
@ A popular coach who hails from a family of Rugby players :
"Royal played according to a plan. The forwards were good. The mauls were perfect. The forwards knew what to do when they got the ball. Trinity had possession, but lacked finish. The right winger could have been used more. Trinity can win. They have to devise a plan and stop the rolling maul."
@ A coach and former Sri Lanka player :
"Trinity might do well. They were lacking in forward play. Throwing the ball around could work in a sevens situation. With thirty players on the field, there are no gaps. Trying to run through will not work with a well- organised defence. Maul to Maul, ruck to ruck, Royal had structure."
@ Rugby enthusiast :
"Trinity could have won, but they were selfish. Didn't work the line, after the first try. The pack was not ready for the rolling maul. Trinity didn't counter it by having a defensive wall. For Royal, Hamza Reeza and Nikhil Silva were good. In fact Silva steadied the pack after he came on. The Bandaranaike brothers and the two props impressed for Trinity."
@ Ex Sri Lanka player :
"Trinity's strength is in the back division. Yet the fly half didn't set the line in motion often enough. Decision-making was poor, wrong decisions at the wrong time. Even though Trinity didn't excel in the set pieces, they got possession. But it was not used in the correct way.
Royal didn't have to do much. They did not play great rugby. They did their basics right. They employed a lot of pick and drive. Royal's modus operandi was to get a penalty, kick to touch, and then to employ the rolling maul."
Even though Trinity were 100 kilos heavier. They got pushed in the scrums. That points to bad scrum positioning. They did not go low and hold it.
By all accounts, Referee Dinka Pieris had a good game. Yet, his decision to rest a maul and go back raised a few eye-brows.