Ch-ch-changes? Your team for the 2nd Test

[Stom]

Didn't Stom say exactly that, regarding his defence? It's also debateable how well he used that space on the break but he got the pass away and the try was scored. I can see why there's a split on whether he has played well to be honest.

Picking players to fit an ill-conceived gameplan doesn't seem like the best approach, but it's certainly not a surprising one.

But there is a reality here that with one test game down, the game plan won't alter radically before next Saturday. It would be nice to see northern hemisphere rugby become more about supporting breaks than hitting rucks, but on a short tour that is unrealistic.

Even when it's obviously the wrong option against the opposition that we face?

Well, with Gatland, we know that it won't change, but we all knew we'd struggle on this tour with this coaching team.

BTW, Marler was excellent today, no? I would so have him on the bench on Saturday.

[Sandydragon]

Didn't Stom say exactly that, regarding his defence? It's also debateable how well he used that space on the break but he got the pass away and the try was scored. I can see why there's a split on whether he has played well to be honest.

Picking players to fit an ill-conceived gameplan doesn't seem like the best approach, but it's certainly not a surprising one.

But there is a reality here that with one test game down, the game plan won't alter radically before next Saturday. It would be nice to see northern hemisphere rugby become more about supporting breaks than hitting rucks, but on a short tour that is unrealistic.

Even when it's obviously the wrong option against the opposition that we face?

Well, with Gatland, we know that it won't change, but we all knew we'd struggle on this tour with this coaching team.

BTW, Marler was excellent today, no? I would so have him on the bench on Saturday.

Both props did well today - well enough though to force out someone from last Saturday's squad? McGrath has a fair bit of credit left in the bank after previous performances. If I were to bring in one of today's props it would be Cole, but Sinkler has that x factor that the coaches would want off the bench so I can't see that happening.

Given that New Zealand are probably the best counter attackers in the world, why would a more open game plan necessarily have worked? Gatland has his critics, myself included, but with such a short period of time to gel a team, there is merit in keeping things simple and we did create 5 try scoring opportunities last Saturday - only converting 2 is as much an issue about composure as it is about tactics.

You might wish to remember that this is one of the hardest coaching gigs in the world and for a damn good reason.

[Timbo]

How much credit does McGrath have in the bank? Seems to me like he's been pretty inconspicuous all tour.

[Stom]

But there is a reality here that with one test game down, the game plan won't alter radically before next Saturday. It would be nice to see northern hemisphere rugby become more about supporting breaks than hitting rucks, but on a short tour that is unrealistic.

Even when it's obviously the wrong option against the opposition that we face?

Well, with Gatland, we know that it won't change, but we all knew we'd struggle on this tour with this coaching team.

BTW, Marler was excellent today, no? I would so have him on the bench on Saturday.

Both props did well today - well enough though to force out someone from last Saturday's squad? McGrath has a fair bit of credit left in the bank after previous performances. If I were to bring in one of today's props it would be Cole, but Sinkler has that x factor that the coaches would want off the bench so I can't see that happening.

Given that New Zealand are probably the best counter attackers in the world, why would a more open game plan necessarily have worked? Gatland has his critics, myself included, but with such a short period of time to gel a team, there is merit in keeping things simple and we did create 5 try scoring opportunities last Saturday - only converting 2 is as much an issue about composure as it is about tactics.

You might wish to remember that this is one of the hardest coaching gigs in the world and for a damn good reason.

I thought Furlong was pretty shunt, too...

Defense is all wrong. That's got nowt to do with attack. Our rushing out of the line does not work against a team who support the ball carrier so effectively. It just takes a defender out of the game on the next phase, as NZ will get quick ball. Especially so as we do not commit to rucks.

So we get a situation whereby we're relying on having 14 men fanned across the pitch, but whereby one of those men (minimum) is always out of the game because he dashed out of the line.

Plus, Furlong is the slowest of our pack off the floor. It's almost glacial. Nothing compared to Samson Lee, but compared to the English props who have had Eddie Jones in their ear about it for 18 months...

[Numbers]

Even when it's obviously the wrong option against the opposition that we face?

Well, with Gatland, we know that it won't change, but we all knew we'd struggle on this tour with this coaching team.

BTW, Marler was excellent today, no? I would so have him on the bench on Saturday.

Both props did well today - well enough though to force out someone from last Saturday's squad? McGrath has a fair bit of credit left in the bank after previous performances. If I were to bring in one of today's props it would be Cole, but Sinkler has that x factor that the coaches would want off the bench so I can't see that happening.

Given that New Zealand are probably the best counter attackers in the world, why would a more open game plan necessarily have worked? Gatland has his critics, myself included, but with such a short period of time to gel a team, there is merit in keeping things simple and we did create 5 try scoring opportunities last Saturday - only converting 2 is as much an issue about composure as it is about tactics.

You might wish to remember that this is one of the hardest coaching gigs in the world and for a damn good reason.

I thought Furlong was pretty shunt, too...

Defense is all wrong. That's got nowt to do with attack. Our rushing out of the line does not work against a team who support the ball carrier so effectively. It just takes a defender out of the game on the next phase, as NZ will get quick ball. Especially so as we do not commit to rucks.

So we get a situation whereby we're relying on having 14 men fanned across the pitch, but whereby one of those men (minimum) is always out of the game because he dashed out of the line.

Plus, Furlong is the slowest of our pack off the floor. It's almost glacial. Nothing compared to Samson Lee, but compared to the English props who have had Eddie Jones in their ear about it for 18 months...

It stops them from getting the ball wide and exploiting overlaps by making them attack in a narrow channel, there is nothing wrong with this tactic as long as that channel is well defended or do you want to give the ABs space on the outside?

I'm not sure why you are criticsing the defence when it was very good again last Saturday, the only tries having come off some individual errors by Lions players.

What we should be concentrating on is the breakdown, gainline success and ball retention.

[Sandydragon]

Exactly Numbers, exactly. The Lions shut down 2 of the most prolific try scoring teams by their defence, which basically involved stopping the ball from getting to the wide channels. That is why it was employed in that manner against the ABs, and to some extent it worked. Each of the AB tries was as a result of individual errors, not a system failure.

We lost that game because we couldn't slow down their ball enough (hence the call for Warburton), individual mistakes across the whole team, and because their pack got on top of ours for substantial periods of time. We also lacked composure, which I wouldnt put down to our attacking plays being shyte, given that we fashioned 5 opportunities which is more than many teams manage against the All Blacks.

In a nutshell we failed to deal with the pressure effectively. We can strengthen the team i some areas, second row and back row for definite, but Im against wholesale changes given that those who played last weekend will cope with the pressure of this weekend better as a result of their experience. It laos gives some unsettled pairings time to gel still further.

[Cameo]

What are these 5 opportunities that keep getting trotted out? Are we counting every time we got into their twenty two because this doesnt fit with how the AB's 2 opportunities is calculated?

The Lions played quite well but apart from about 15 minutes, New Zealand looked much more likely to score. I think the defence was an issue as New Zealand made ground relatively quickly every time they had the ball. In attack, I wouldnt advocate anything particularly rash but some pundits are talking as if having a few backs moves would play into New Zealand's hands

[bitts]

Before I say this I'll allow that Gats strategy may well be the least worst statergy for this tour, which was perhaps an impossible one. But:

Has this style ever done consistently well against southern hemisphere opposition? A much as it has it routes in Wales' style of play, it was very reminiscent of watching Burt's England. Where we'd do really well in loads of stats without ever looking like winning.

I understand the need for a simple game plan, but shouldn't it also be one that had a record of working? Especially when it comes to defense, both Faz coached England and Wales have a good record of being ripped apart by teams capable of accurate handling and decision making in attack.

I suppose the last time it worked was the last tour. But a few things have changed since then: the game has moved on a lot and attack more dominant, Wales aren't the force they were and the AB scrum is nowhere near as comical as the Aus one.

We're stuck with the style I guess, but some changes are needed. I'd start Itoje and Lawes. Both of whom have the power to disrupt the ABs. It's a risk with the lineout, but the England one didn't miss Kruis as much as people seem to think it would. If he's not knackered Henderson to bench.

Sexton for Farrell is the only change in the backs.

But, while I know these coaches have a lot more experience and knowledge than me, 1/2penny should be nowhere near the bench. He must be the lowest impact sub since Alex Goode. I'd go North instead. Harsh on JJ but he has no place in Gats gameplan.

[Digby]

I suppose the last time it worked was the last tour. But a few things have changed since then: the game has moved on a lot and attack more dominant, Wales aren't the force they were and the AB scrum is nowhere near as comical as the Aus one.

Also the NZ backs aren't idiots who refuse to pass to each other, and Hansen didn't suddenly decide to pick Jordie Barrett at 10

[Stom]

Both props did well today - well enough though to force out someone from last Saturday's squad? McGrath has a fair bit of credit left in the bank after previous performances. If I were to bring in one of today's props it would be Cole, but Sinkler has that x factor that the coaches would want off the bench so I can't see that happening.

Given that New Zealand are probably the best counter attackers in the world, why would a more open game plan necessarily have worked? Gatland has his critics, myself included, but with such a short period of time to gel a team, there is merit in keeping things simple and we did create 5 try scoring opportunities last Saturday - only converting 2 is as much an issue about composure as it is about tactics.

You might wish to remember that this is one of the hardest coaching gigs in the world and for a damn good reason.

I thought Furlong was pretty shunt, too...

Defense is all wrong. That's got nowt to do with attack. Our rushing out of the line does not work against a team who support the ball carrier so effectively. It just takes a defender out of the game on the next phase, as NZ will get quick ball. Especially so as we do not commit to rucks.

So we get a situation whereby we're relying on having 14 men fanned across the pitch, but whereby one of those men (minimum) is always out of the game because he dashed out of the line.

Plus, Furlong is the slowest of our pack off the floor. It's almost glacial. Nothing compared to Samson Lee, but compared to the English props who have had Eddie Jones in their ear about it for 18 months...

It stops them from getting the ball wide and exploiting overlaps by making them attack in a narrow channel, there is nothing wrong with this tactic as long as that channel is well defended or do you want to give the ABs space on the outside?

I'm not sure why you are criticsing the defence when it was very good again last Saturday, the only tries having come off some individual errors by Lions players.

What we should be concentrating on is the breakdown, gainline success and ball retention.

If NZ spin the ball wide, they're left with less support. If NZ keep the ball 1 or 2 out, their ball carrier has a metric fecktonne of options.

I disagree that the defence was good. We constantly conceded a lot of ground, and we constantly allowed them quick ball from the ruck. If it wasn't for some individual hits and some uncharacteristically poor handling at times, we would have been steamrollered.

The simple fact is, we used a defensive alignment that puts 13 men (sorry, not 14, the FB stays back, of course) in a line across the park, making a wall it's hard to get through. It then bends this wall around the attack.

Which is great when you're against any other team. But the difference between NZ and us is not any individual ball skill, speed, strength or handling. No, it's their support work. So, while we cut off their line out to the wing, they play through our 10/12/13 channels. One goes through and draws the tackle, then passes/offloads to either the inside or outside depending on who supported where, and whether he has the 12 outside him or space because the 13 has stepped up.

If the former, they simple recycle the ball within 1 second (because the 9 is already at the ruck), and do exactly the same again. If the 12 makes the tackle, there is a nice big gap where the 13 would be in a drift system. So they just run through it. Sometimes they'll be caught quickly because the gap isn't huge, sometimes the wing will have to come across or the FB up. But as soon as that happens, there is suddenly space elsewhere.

And because we don't contest the ruck, isntead spreading out, they can quickly play the ball again. If they got through the 13, they now have only 11 players to get through (the 13 and wing/FB are out of the game). And in this system, that's huge.

So, either we do not rush up, or we commit to rucks and slowing down. Either one will make a difference, but the latter may cause problems elsewhere, with us not really the best at competing on the deck (one of the reasons I'd pair Warburton and Tipuric). If we drift, what will happen? They can try the same, but there's no intentional dogleg. Or they can go wide, and we have to deal with one of their wingers. With Joseph marshalling a drift from 13, I'm pretty confident that, barring individual errors, we can defend that.

[Sandydragon]

Which is why Warburton is likely to start on Saturday, to put pressure on their breakdown and to support ours.

[Sandydragon]

Before I say this I'll allow that Gats strategy may well be the least worst statergy for this tour, which was perhaps an impossible one. But:

Has this style ever done consistently well against southern hemisphere opposition? A much as it has it routes in Wales' style of play, it was very reminiscent of watching Burt's England. Where we'd do really well in loads of stats without ever looking like winning.

I understand the need for a simple game plan, but shouldn't it also be one that had a record of working? Especially when it comes to defense, both Faz coached England and Wales have a good record of being ripped apart by teams capable of accurate handling and decision making in attack.

I suppose the last time it worked was the last tour. But a few things have changed since then: the game has moved on a lot and attack more dominant, Wales aren't the force they were and the AB scrum is nowhere near as comical as the Aus one.

We're stuck with the style I guess, but some changes are needed. I'd start Itoje and Lawes. Both of whom have the power to disrupt the ABs. It's a risk with the lineout, but the England one didn't miss Kruis as much as people seem to think it would. If he's not knackered Henderson to bench.

Sexton for Farrell is the only change in the backs.

But, while I know these coaches have a lot more experience and knowledge than me, 1/2penny should be nowhere near the bench. He must be the lowest impact sub since Alex Goode. I'd go North instead. Harsh on JJ but he has no place in Gats gameplan.

Im not sure that Sexton has done enough to warrant ousting Farrell. After his performance yesterday, North has shown he can be a force with ball in hand but he was playing centre for much of the match. I don't think JJ did his cause any favours yesterday (albeit he was out of position as well).

Totally agree about Halfpenny not being an impact sub. I'd go for Seymour at the moment who has suddenly come to life.

[Mikey Brown]

Didn't see the game. Did JJ move to 12 to accommodate North then? I would have thought we'd just have Norh bash it up from 12 and at least keep one defender in a familiar position.

I'd love to see Seymour get a go. I can see the appeal of North or Joseph on the bench though.

[Sandydragon]

Didn't see the game. Did JJ move to 12 to accommodate North then? I would have thought we'd just have Norh bash it up from 12 and at least keep one defender in a familiar position.

I'd love to see Seymour get a go. I can see the appeal of North or Joseph on the bench though.

Actually, on reflection, I think North spent more time at 12, but it was somewhat fluid.

[Numbers]

I thought Furlong was pretty shunt, too...

Defense is all wrong. That's got nowt to do with attack. Our rushing out of the line does not work against a team who support the ball carrier so effectively. It just takes a defender out of the game on the next phase, as NZ will get quick ball. Especially so as we do not commit to rucks.

So we get a situation whereby we're relying on having 14 men fanned across the pitch, but whereby one of those men (minimum) is always out of the game because he dashed out of the line.

Plus, Furlong is the slowest of our pack off the floor. It's almost glacial. Nothing compared to Samson Lee, but compared to the English props who have had Eddie Jones in their ear about it for 18 months...

It stops them from getting the ball wide and exploiting overlaps by making them attack in a narrow channel, there is nothing wrong with this tactic as long as that channel is well defended or do you want to give the ABs space on the outside?

I'm not sure why you are criticsing the defence when it was very good again last Saturday, the only tries having come off some individual errors by Lions players.

What we should be concentrating on is the breakdown, gainline success and ball retention.

If NZ spin the ball wide, they're left with less support. If NZ keep the ball 1 or 2 out, their ball carrier has a metric fecktonne of options.

I disagree that the defence was good. We constantly conceded a lot of ground, and we constantly allowed them quick ball from the ruck. If it wasn't for some individual hits and some uncharacteristically poor handling at times, we would have been steamrollered.

The simple fact is, we used a defensive alignment that puts 13 men (sorry, not 14, the FB stays back, of course) in a line across the park, making a wall it's hard to get through. It then bends this wall around the attack.

Which is great when you're against any other team. But the difference between NZ and us is not any individual ball skill, speed, strength or handling. No, it's their support work. So, while we cut off their line out to the wing, they play through our 10/12/13 channels. One goes through and draws the tackle, then passes/offloads to either the inside or outside depending on who supported where, and whether he has the 12 outside him or space because the 13 has stepped up.

If the former, they simple recycle the ball within 1 second (because the 9 is already at the ruck), and do exactly the same again. If the 12 makes the tackle, there is a nice big gap where the 13 would be in a drift system. So they just run through it. Sometimes they'll be caught quickly because the gap isn't huge, sometimes the wing will have to come across or the FB up. But as soon as that happens, there is suddenly space elsewhere.

And because we don't contest the ruck, isntead spreading out, they can quickly play the ball again. If they got through the 13, they now have only 11 players to get through (the 13 and wing/FB are out of the game). And in this system, that's huge.

So, either we do not rush up, or we commit to rucks and slowing down. Either one will make a difference, but the latter may cause problems elsewhere, with us not really the best at competing on the deck (one of the reasons I'd pair Warburton and Tipuric). If we drift, what will happen? They can try the same, but there's no intentional dogleg. Or they can go wide, and we have to deal with one of their wingers. With Joseph marshalling a drift from 13, I'm pretty confident that, barring individual errors, we can defend that.

No he doesn't his options are cut down by the 13, the fact NZ are better in contact doesn't mean our defence was bad which is why the tries they scored were avoidable.

They don't play through the 10/12/13 channel, they play through the 10/12 channel, the Lions 13 is the one creating the dog-leg so that's where the move is stopped, if the ball gets to the NZ 13 then the Lions 13 takes him man and ball.

Contesting the ruck is more about personnel I would say, how many teams commit lots of players to rucks these days, I can't think of any.

The suggestion of playing a drift defence just flys in the face of all of our tactics.

[Numbers]

Didn't see the game. Did JJ move to 12 to accommodate North then? I would have thought we'd just have Norh bash it up from 12 and at least keep one defender in a familiar position.

I'd love to see Seymour get a go. I can see the appeal of North or Joseph on the bench though.

Nah, JJ stayed at 13, with North playing at 12 so JJ didn't receive much ball at all.

[Digby]

No he doesn't his options are cut down by the 13, the fact NZ are better in contact doesn't mean our defence was bad which is why the tries they scored were avoidable.

They don't play through the 10/12/13 channel, they play through the 10/12 channel, the Lions 13 is the one creating the dog-leg so that's where the move is stopped, if the ball gets to the NZ 13 then the Lions 13 takes him man and ball.

On Saturday the Lions 13 spent a lot of time avoiding man, ball or man and ball in defence.

[Numbers]

No he doesn't his options are cut down by the 13, the fact NZ are better in contact doesn't mean our defence was bad which is why the tries they scored were avoidable.

They don't play through the 10/12/13 channel, they play through the 10/12 channel, the Lions 13 is the one creating the dog-leg so that's where the move is stopped, if the ball gets to the NZ 13 then the Lions 13 takes him man and ball.

On Saturday the Lions 13 spent a lot of time avoiding man, ball or man and ball in defence.

Insightful.

[Digby]

No he doesn't his options are cut down by the 13, the fact NZ are better in contact doesn't mean our defence was bad which is why the tries they scored were avoidable.

They don't play through the 10/12/13 channel, they play through the 10/12 channel, the Lions 13 is the one creating the dog-leg so that's where the move is stopped, if the ball gets to the NZ 13 then the Lions 13 takes him man and ball.

On Saturday the Lions 13 spent a lot of time avoiding man, ball or man and ball in defence.

Insightful.

What does one say? JD runs out of the line on any number of occasions causing a problem for others, whether leaving less defenders in the line or allowing attackers to move forward past his weak inside shoulder (not he has a weak shoulder but he exposes his inside shoulder in rushing up)

It'd not be a problem if he was putting down the ball carrier, but he just wasn't. Though again maybe he's supposed to be the shooter, maybe others were supposed to fill the hold vacated by the shooter (Sarries do, but Sarries also tend to use a shooter much close in than the 13) , but if he's too often not nailing a carrier, and he's not pushing attackers back into where the defenders are as one might see in an umbrella defence, he's just coughing up space for no good reason, and as we see with NZ's first try it's causing problems and it'd be pointless to pretend otherwise

[Stom]

It stops them from getting the ball wide and exploiting overlaps by making them attack in a narrow channel, there is nothing wrong with this tactic as long as that channel is well defended or do you want to give the ABs space on the outside?

I'm not sure why you are criticsing the defence when it was very good again last Saturday, the only tries having come off some individual errors by Lions players.

What we should be concentrating on is the breakdown, gainline success and ball retention.

If NZ spin the ball wide, they're left with less support. If NZ keep the ball 1 or 2 out, their ball carrier has a metric fecktonne of options.

I disagree that the defence was good. We constantly conceded a lot of ground, and we constantly allowed them quick ball from the ruck. If it wasn't for some individual hits and some uncharacteristically poor handling at times, we would have been steamrollered.

The simple fact is, we used a defensive alignment that puts 13 men (sorry, not 14, the FB stays back, of course) in a line across the park, making a wall it's hard to get through. It then bends this wall around the attack.

Which is great when you're against any other team. But the difference between NZ and us is not any individual ball skill, speed, strength or handling. No, it's their support work. So, while we cut off their line out to the wing, they play through our 10/12/13 channels. One goes through and draws the tackle, then passes/offloads to either the inside or outside depending on who supported where, and whether he has the 12 outside him or space because the 13 has stepped up.

If the former, they simple recycle the ball within 1 second (because the 9 is already at the ruck), and do exactly the same again. If the 12 makes the tackle, there is a nice big gap where the 13 would be in a drift system. So they just run through it. Sometimes they'll be caught quickly because the gap isn't huge, sometimes the wing will have to come across or the FB up. But as soon as that happens, there is suddenly space elsewhere.

And because we don't contest the ruck, isntead spreading out, they can quickly play the ball again. If they got through the 13, they now have only 11 players to get through (the 13 and wing/FB are out of the game). And in this system, that's huge.

So, either we do not rush up, or we commit to rucks and slowing down. Either one will make a difference, but the latter may cause problems elsewhere, with us not really the best at competing on the deck (one of the reasons I'd pair Warburton and Tipuric). If we drift, what will happen? They can try the same, but there's no intentional dogleg. Or they can go wide, and we have to deal with one of their wingers. With Joseph marshalling a drift from 13, I'm pretty confident that, barring individual errors, we can defend that.

No he doesn't his options are cut down by the 13, the fact NZ are better in contact doesn't mean our defence was bad which is why the tries they scored were avoidable.

They don't play through the 10/12/13 channel, they play through the 10/12 channel, the Lions 13 is the one creating the dog-leg so that's where the move is stopped, if the ball gets to the NZ 13 then the Lions 13 takes him man and ball.

Contesting the ruck is more about personnel I would say, how many teams commit lots of players to rucks these days, I can't think of any.

The suggestion of playing a drift defence just flys in the face of all of our tactics.

He loses 1 option, going wide. But that's my whole point. NZ are better than the rest because they run great support lines. Watch the match again (here's a link for YT: ). Whoever gets the ball, and it is usually Barrett/Cruden or SBW, but sometimes Crotty/ALB or Barrett/Smith, has minimum one player to offload to. They never once look outside them for a wide move. They know the Lions outside midfield defender (usually JD, but often others, I saw Te'o doing in and Daly, too) is going to rush up, and they keep the ball in close to the rucks. They couldn't give a monkey about their wingers until they've removed enough defenders. And remove them they do, as their superior support play means they either pop off a late pass or hit the ruck quickly and get the ball away too quick for our defence to reset.

We don't contest the ruck. We tackle, one man goes in to secure the ruck, then he steps out again once the ruck is formed and joins the defensive line. There's no attempt on 80% of our defensive rucks to win the ball or even slow it down, and that is a problem, imo, against NZ, whose biggest weapon is playing at pace and taking our defenders out of the game with short, quick passes and good close handling.

[Mellsblue]

When Shooter tackles his man:

[Numbers]

If NZ spin the ball wide, they're left with less support. If NZ keep the ball 1 or 2 out, their ball carrier has a metric fecktonne of options.

I disagree that the defence was good. We constantly conceded a lot of ground, and we constantly allowed them quick ball from the ruck. If it wasn't for some individual hits and some uncharacteristically poor handling at times, we would have been steamrollered.

The simple fact is, we used a defensive alignment that puts 13 men (sorry, not 14, the FB stays back, of course) in a line across the park, making a wall it's hard to get through. It then bends this wall around the attack.

Which is great when you're against any other team. But the difference between NZ and us is not any individual ball skill, speed, strength or handling. No, it's their support work. So, while we cut off their line out to the wing, they play through our 10/12/13 channels. One goes through and draws the tackle, then passes/offloads to either the inside or outside depending on who supported where, and whether he has the 12 outside him or space because the 13 has stepped up.

If the former, they simple recycle the ball within 1 second (because the 9 is already at the ruck), and do exactly the same again. If the 12 makes the tackle, there is a nice big gap where the 13 would be in a drift system. So they just run through it. Sometimes they'll be caught quickly because the gap isn't huge, sometimes the wing will have to come across or the FB up. But as soon as that happens, there is suddenly space elsewhere.

And because we don't contest the ruck, isntead spreading out, they can quickly play the ball again. If they got through the 13, they now have only 11 players to get through (the 13 and wing/FB are out of the game). And in this system, that's huge.

So, either we do not rush up, or we commit to rucks and slowing down. Either one will make a difference, but the latter may cause problems elsewhere, with us not really the best at competing on the deck (one of the reasons I'd pair Warburton and Tipuric). If we drift, what will happen? They can try the same, but there's no intentional dogleg. Or they can go wide, and we have to deal with one of their wingers. With Joseph marshalling a drift from 13, I'm pretty confident that, barring individual errors, we can defend that.

No he doesn't his options are cut down by the 13, the fact NZ are better in contact doesn't mean our defence was bad which is why the tries they scored were avoidable.

They don't play through the 10/12/13 channel, they play through the 10/12 channel, the Lions 13 is the one creating the dog-leg so that's where the move is stopped, if the ball gets to the NZ 13 then the Lions 13 takes him man and ball.

Contesting the ruck is more about personnel I would say, how many teams commit lots of players to rucks these days, I can't think of any.

The suggestion of playing a drift defence just flys in the face of all of our tactics.

He loses 1 option, going wide. But that's my whole point. NZ are better than the rest because they run great support lines. Watch the match again (here's a link for YT: ). Whoever gets the ball, and it is usually Barrett/Cruden or SBW, but sometimes Crotty/ALB or Barrett/Smith, has minimum one player to offload to. They never once look outside them for a wide move. They know the Lions outside midfield defender (usually JD, but often others, I saw Te'o doing in and Daly, too) is going to rush up, and they keep the ball in close to the rucks. They couldn't give a monkey about their wingers until they've removed enough defenders. And remove them they do, as their superior support play means they either pop off a late pass or hit the ruck quickly and get the ball away too quick for our defence to reset.

We don't contest the ruck. We tackle, one man goes in to secure the ruck, then he steps out again once the ruck is formed and joins the defensive line. There's no attempt on 80% of our defensive rucks to win the ball or even slow it down, and that is a problem, imo, against NZ, whose biggest weapon is playing at pace and taking our defenders out of the game with short, quick passes and good close handling.

What is it that you are advocating exactly?

How many scores did they create through the middle?

Where do 80% of NZ's tries get scored including the three last saturday?

Basically they are brilliant at attacking the outside channels so that's why we are trying to negate that as much as possible, and to some extent successfully.

[Stom]

No he doesn't his options are cut down by the 13, the fact NZ are better in contact doesn't mean our defence was bad which is why the tries they scored were avoidable.

They don't play through the 10/12/13 channel, they play through the 10/12 channel, the Lions 13 is the one creating the dog-leg so that's where the move is stopped, if the ball gets to the NZ 13 then the Lions 13 takes him man and ball.

Contesting the ruck is more about personnel I would say, how many teams commit lots of players to rucks these days, I can't think of any.

The suggestion of playing a drift defence just flys in the face of all of our tactics.

He loses 1 option, going wide. But that's my whole point. NZ are better than the rest because they run great support lines. Watch the match again (here's a link for YT: ). Whoever gets the ball, and it is usually Barrett/Cruden or SBW, but sometimes Crotty/ALB or Barrett/Smith, has minimum one player to offload to. They never once look outside them for a wide move. They know the Lions outside midfield defender (usually JD, but often others, I saw Te'o doing in and Daly, too) is going to rush up, and they keep the ball in close to the rucks. They couldn't give a monkey about their wingers until they've removed enough defenders. And remove them they do, as their superior support play means they either pop off a late pass or hit the ruck quickly and get the ball away too quick for our defence to reset.

We don't contest the ruck. We tackle, one man goes in to secure the ruck, then he steps out again once the ruck is formed and joins the defensive line. There's no attempt on 80% of our defensive rucks to win the ball or even slow it down, and that is a problem, imo, against NZ, whose biggest weapon is playing at pace and taking our defenders out of the game with short, quick passes and good close handling.

What is it that you are advocating exactly?

How many scores did they create through the middle?

Where do 80% of NZ's tries get scored including the three last saturday?

Basically they are brilliant at attacking the outside channels so that's why we are trying to negate that as much as possible, and to some extent successfully.

They get there because they pull us apart. They just pierce hole after hole in the close defence, meaning more and more players need to shore it up. When we're down to 10 or 11 active defenders, they either punch right through or go around the now stretched defense.


So, by a) running that fly up from 13 defense and b) not contesting 80% of our defensive rucks outside the 22, we just play right into their hands.

I'm sorry, but I just see so many holes in the Lions game, and it's not caused by individuals, it's all gameplan. If it is individuals, these players are not pros. But they are, and some of them play a very similar but very effective gameplan every single week, and are the NHs most succesful club side of the current era.

Add to that, this is the first Lions tour where I am completely and utterly unfazed by missing games. I know exactly what will happen, I know we're not going to win a test, and I know we're going to make the same bloody mistakes time after time. And we all knew that as soon as it was announced Gatland was the coach.

Seriously, England would do better alone. And that isn't because Mike Brown is better than Liam Williams (he isn't), or Ben Youngs better than Murray (he isn't). It's because Eddie Jones is a world class coach and Gatland is not.

[iLovett]

Numbers; he's saying that NZ make good quick ground through the middle and close channels, then let lose when they've sucked enough defenders in. NZ back 3 also really come into play when returning shitty kicks (usually forced by being quick & powerful through the middle, in attach & defence)

[iLovett]

I'm with you on this one re: Gats STOM!!

Think this lions experience will do England the most favours though! I'm gutted for Hartley not getting a lions cap, but George starting 3 tests and playing some super rugby is brilliant, same for Teo. I wish Lawes was at home getting some rest, but also pleased at his exposure (apart from the KO of course!) - having so many lions meant we could tour so many young English players in Argentina, and we need practice vs them as well