And we're back to why coaches love Farrell - he will always make the play that the playbook says - he'll even attempt to if it's beyond his actual capabilities skill-wise.
If the playbook says that in this phase of play, in this quarter of the game, in this position on the pitch, the balkl is kicked high, to land 10m out from the R touchline, 23m out from the tryline; then that's what he'll do - 5 on 2 overlap with half the width of the pitch be damned!
The coaches see him making the decision he was told to; the fans see it being the wrong decision (and poorly executed even then)
Which begs the question about the quality of the coaches. When people like Vesty, Blackett et al are letting their charges play heads up, why are international coaches so obsessed with immovable structures (sorry I've gone a smidge Dors there)
Lions team to face Australia
Keenan, Freeman, Jones, Tuipulotu, Lowe, Russell, Gibson-Park; Genge, Sheehan, Furlong. Itoje, McCarthy, Beirne, Curry, Conan.
Replacements: Kelleher, Porter, Stuart, Chessum, Earl, Mitchell, M Smith, Aki
I'm with everyone here that Morgan is hard done by and Beirne is lucky. Very glad the Scots centre partnership gets it's chance.
Are there any surprises in this team? I think I wouldn't have expected Chessum, Earl and MSmith to force their way into the test squad before the tour.
Mitchell, Smith and Aki on bench are surprises if considering opinions going into the tour. But injuries have forced the hand a little.
For Aki it is more surprising having a pure 12 on the bench.
Aki only covers 12 but if Jones is injured, Tuipolotu can play 13, that’s where he first played at Glasgow. Jones doesn’t play 12, he had a disastrous game for Scotland v Wales a few years ago, but he can cover wing.
I hate the back row but it matters little. If preparation is half-decent this XV should stuff the Aussies. A better XV would just do it more convincingly.
Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 4:03 pm
And we're back to why coaches love Farrell - he will always make the play that the playbook says - he'll even attempt to if it's beyond his actual capabilities skill-wise.
If the playbook says that in this phase of play, in this quarter of the game, in this position on the pitch, the ball is kicked high, to land 10m out from the R touchline, 23m out from the tryline; then that's what he'll do - 5 on 2 overlap with half the width of the pitch be damned!
The coaches see him making the decision he was told to; the fans see it being the wrong decision (and poorly executed even then)
Which begs the question about the quality of the coaches. When people like Vesty, Blackett et al are letting their charges play heads up, why are international coaches so obsessed with immovable structures (sorry I've gone a smidge Dors there)
Point of order, I'm not begging any questions; and I really don’t want any international sides looking too hard at Blackett
Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 4:03 pm
And we're back to why coaches love Farrell - he will always make the play that the playbook says - he'll even attempt to if it's beyond his actual capabilities skill-wise.
If the playbook says that in this phase of play, in this quarter of the game, in this position on the pitch, the ball is kicked high, to land 10m out from the R touchline, 23m out from the tryline; then that's what he'll do - 5 on 2 overlap with half the width of the pitch be damned!
The coaches see him making the decision he was told to; the fans see it being the wrong decision (and poorly executed even then)
Which begs the question about the quality of the coaches. When people like Vesty, Blackett et al are letting their charges play heads up, why are international coaches so obsessed with immovable structures (sorry I've gone a smidge Dors there)
Point of order, I'm not begging any questions; and I really don’t want any international sides looking too hard at Blackett
I don't think any professional rugby team really plays heads up rugby as romantics understand it. I think instituting structures that allow what appears to be off the cuff play would be a real challenge in a lions context. I personally have been quite impressed by how free flowing the lions play has been.
Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Jul 16, 2025 4:03 pm
And we're back to why coaches love Farrell - he will always make the play that the playbook says - he'll even attempt to if it's beyond his actual capabilities skill-wise.
If the playbook says that in this phase of play, in this quarter of the game, in this position on the pitch, the ball is kicked high, to land 10m out from the R touchline, 23m out from the tryline; then that's what he'll do - 5 on 2 overlap with half the width of the pitch be damned!
The coaches see him making the decision he was told to; the fans see it being the wrong decision (and poorly executed even then)
Which begs the question about the quality of the coaches. When people like Vesty, Blackett et al are letting their charges play heads up, why are international coaches so obsessed with immovable structures (sorry I've gone a smidge Dors there)
Point of order, I'm not begging any questions; and I really don’t want any international sides looking too hard at Blackett
Which begs the question about the quality of the coaches. When people like Vesty, Blackett et al are letting their charges play heads up, why are international coaches so obsessed with immovable structures (sorry I've gone a smidge Dors there)
Point of order, I'm not begging any questions; and I really don’t want any international sides looking too hard at Blackett
I don't think any professional rugby team really plays heads up rugby as romantics understand it. I think instituting structures that allow what appears to be off the cuff play would be a real challenge in a lions context. I personally have been quite impressed by how free flowing the lions play has been.
I think the crunch comes when there is a clear overlap but a player ignores it and kicks. Fans perception is that Russell would do the right thing no matter what the planning (as would Cipriani have done) whereas Farrell would kick if the scenario planning required it.
In reality, do coaches prescribe to that extent? Or, do they say things like, "I won't moan if you take the safe option."
With the usual caveat of never having played or coached at pro level (or close!) the point of modern attacking structures is they provide players a variety of tools that can be deployed situationally. Even sliding across players from inside the 15s into tighter phase play gives you second/third wave attacking options. Loops, pull-backs, decoys, miss passes all give heads up rugby that is still “part of the system”. And that’s before chips, rubbers, kick passes and plain old kicking for territory.
The point about structures is that they provide ruck defence. Playing unstructured by definition means the rest of the team are guessing what you might be doing and where. The structures are also chosen to play the percentages. Lots of analysis goes into which plays in specific circumstances lead to the greatest expected territory gain, or chance of ball retention. Conversely a play that has. 20% chance of conceding a penalty because of isolation and only a 5% chance of scoring is probably not a good trade unless you’re behind by a couple of scores.
Of course, with the nature of Lions tours, that team is, barring injuries or someone having an absolute shocker, also the Team that will run out for the 2nd Test, which is really why I think Morgan has been particularly hard done by. He's the future of open side rugby across the home unions and he's been sidelined for players who are out of form or being heavily managed due to injury.
Anyway, enough of my grumbling, I'd expect them to win convincingly enough and, if they play to their potential, it could produce some brilliant rugby.
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Not up to speed with the current crop of Aussie backrowers, but if they are like previous years they'll be pretty mobile. Ours on the hand looks to be fairly heavyweight and ponderous. Think the Lions will need to keep it tight with plenty of ruck support, else it will be turnover central.
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 1:43 pm
Of course, with the nature of Lions tours, that team is, barring injuries or someone having an absolute shocker, also the Team that will run out for the 2nd Test, which is really why I think Morgan has been particularly hard done by. He's the future of open side rugby across the home unions and he's been sidelined for players who are out of form or being heavily managed due to injury.
Anyway, enough of my grumbling, I'd expect them to win convincingly enough and, if they play to their potential, it could produce some brilliant rugby.
I don’t agree with that bit at all. I think he has picked a team for this match based on injuries and the ref. I think there are some plausible changes for test two before we get to any impact of performance in this match:
1. A back row featuring Morgan and possibly VdF.
2. Swapping the centre pairing with the Irish duo.
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 1:43 pm
Of course, with the nature of Lions tours, that team is, barring injuries or someone having an absolute shocker, also the Team that will run out for the 2nd Test, which is really why I think Morgan has been particularly hard done by. He's the future of open side rugby across the home unions and he's been sidelined for players who are out of form or being heavily managed due to injury.
Anyway, enough of my grumbling, I'd expect them to win convincingly enough and, if they play to their potential, it could produce some brilliant rugby.
I don’t agree with that bit at all. I think he has picked a team for this match based on injuries and the ref. I think there are some plausible changes for test two before we get to any impact of performance in this match:
1. A back row featuring Morgan and possibly VdF.
2. Swapping the centre pairing with the Irish duo.
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 1:43 pm
Of course, with the nature of Lions tours, that team is, barring injuries or someone having an absolute shocker, also the Team that will run out for the 2nd Test, which is really why I think Morgan has been particularly hard done by. He's the future of open side rugby across the home unions and he's been sidelined for players who are out of form or being heavily managed due to injury.
Anyway, enough of my grumbling, I'd expect them to win convincingly enough and, if they play to their potential, it could produce some brilliant rugby.
I don’t agree with that bit at all. I think he has picked a team for this match based on injuries and the ref. I think there are some plausible changes for test two before we get to any impact of performance in this match:
1. A back row featuring Morgan and possibly VdF.
2. Swapping the centre pairing with the Irish duo.
Because of the ref?
Bin is not a fan of allowing the defending team to jackal freely. He calls “hands off” far more easily than many other (even other SH) refs.
So less point in picking jackallers and more argument to choose a beefier back 3 or those who have a better engine for chasing play and kicks.
Coming in a bit late to echo a lot of what’s been said tbh. Delighted to see the Scottish centre combo, think Faz Snr would have liked to go with the Irish pair but Ringrose injury put paid to that no glad he didn’t try and do a mix and match tbh. Beirne I don’t think should be there, esp at 6 and Curry picked on past form rather than current, (as is Furlong a bit tbh). Would have gone with Morgan. Seen a few comments in various places about the picked for the Ref comments - maybe but I’d always rather go with a side for how we want to play than focus too much on the opposition/ref.
Biggest positive: TF no mini-Faz near the side (yet…)
Aus side not exactly inspiring. Easy to write them off but any Joe Schmidt side is going to punch above its weight I reckon, it’s just that that side looks very lightweight to begin with.
But you always adapt to suit both the other team and the ref. Not to do that would be crazy and give you a massive disadvantage vs the oppo that does.
That’s not the same as negating your strengths for either - but in this case I think there is a very strong case for picking a different back row in test 1 vs test 2.
Donny osmond wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 1:43 pm
Of course, with the nature of Lions tours, that team is, barring injuries or someone having an absolute shocker, also the Team that will run out for the 2nd Test, which is really why I think Morgan has been particularly hard done by. He's the future of open side rugby across the home unions and he's been sidelined for players who are out of form or being heavily managed due to injury.
Anyway, enough of my grumbling, I'd expect them to win convincingly enough and, if they play to their potential, it could produce some brilliant rugby.
I don’t agree with that bit at all. I think he has picked a team for this match based on injuries and the ref. I think there are some plausible changes for test two before we get to any impact of performance in this match:
1. A back row featuring Morgan and possibly VdF.
2. Swapping the centre pairing with the Irish duo.
I'm not saying its what I would do, but my perception from previous Lions tours is that they stick with the same players for at least the first 2 tests and any changes only come in test 3.
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
Good luck on Saturday chaps. I’m backing the convicts. Would it be possible to petition commentators to not use the descriptor South Sea Islanders? It isn’t the 19th Century.
morepork wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 7:31 pm
Good luck on Saturday chaps. I’m backing the convicts. Would it be possible to petition commentators to not use the descriptor South Sea Islanders? It isn’t the 19th Century.
If they could eliminate justin Harrison from comms entirely that'd be fine with me
So, from the limited play I've seen, I think Beirne is very lucky. He's looked clunky, imo. But I feel like we want to shore up the set piece, and play relatively safe rugby.
Curry, as much as Morgan has impressed, makes sense. He's excellent on our ball and I think he'll empty the tank.
I think that's the best backline available. I don't get the calls that Mitchell is lucky or a surprise: he's been good, he's been very good at club and international rugby recently. Marcus makes sense, as you need to cover the back 3 somehow. But it's another backed into a corner selection in the 22 and 23 shirt.
Beirne has been far from his best, but at his best he has a very well rounded game with physicality, line out work, carrying, jackaling etc. and rugby brains. I do not think he has been quite so bad as made out. He has a lot of credit in the bank with Farrell. We know what he is capable of and he's due big game. Don't be too surprised if he has a blinder. If not he can always be dropped for the remaining games.
Spiffy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 9:42 pm
Beirne has been far from his best, but at his best he has a very well rounded game with physicality, line out work, carrying, jackaling etc. and rugby brains. I do not think he has been quite so bad as made out. He has a lot of credit in the bank with Farrell. We know what he is capable of and he's due big game. Don't be too surprised if he has a blinder. If not he can always be dropped for the remaining games.
Before tour he was a shoo in imo. But he’s looked leg heavy and error prone so far and no spring chicken for a back row. I think it’s experience and trust over form. As it happens, I don’t think it’ll matter
Spiffy wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 9:42 pm
Beirne has been far from his best, but at his best he has a very well rounded game with physicality, line out work, carrying, jackaling etc. and rugby brains. I do not think he has been quite so bad as made out. He has a lot of credit in the bank with Farrell. We know what he is capable of and he's due big game. Don't be too surprised if he has a blinder. If not he can always be dropped for the remaining games.
I don’t think anyone would be shocked by any player in this side having a blinder, they’re all fantastic, but it does feel a bit weird when form during the warmups ends up seeming so irrelevant.
Any of these players ‘at their best’ are good enough. It just feels like the guys in form should be first in the queue to show their ‘big game temperament’ (or whatever the phrase is) rather than giving others test matches to play themselves back in to form.
You could easily see a world where a 5/10 performance from Curry (or Beirne or Furlong or whoever) is enough to secure the win and they retain their spot for the series, while someone like Morgan may have had that exact same chance and missed out due to ‘credit in the bank’.
I’m sure Farrell knows what he’s doing, just doesn’t look quite like the form team (or most balanced pack) from outside.
pjm1 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 6:18 pm
But you always adapt to suit both the other team and the ref. Not to do that would be crazy and give you a massive disadvantage vs the oppo that does.
That’s not the same as negating your strengths for either - but in this case I think there is a very strong case for picking a different back row in test 1 vs test 2.
Sure, you do your homework on the ref and have a gameplan based on his interpretation, but actually picking players depending on the ref seems a bit... Too much.
morepork wrote: ↑Thu Jul 17, 2025 7:31 pm
Good luck on Saturday chaps. I’m backing the convicts. Would it be possible to petition commentators to not use the descriptor South Sea Islanders? It isn’t the 19th Century.
If they could eliminate justin Harrison from comms entirely that'd be fine with me
