RugbyRebels

Ahhh the stage after patriotic hope but right before dispair that it's 12 years before we get another crack at this and then it will be 36 years since the lions won a test in NZ, that is unless they pick an utter dickhead as coach and we end up with 17 lions from a team that couldn't manage to score 4 try's against the worst Italy we have ever seen.

Honestly the only benefit is the old duffers currently in charge will all be rotting in the ground and we may well have a lions committee that isn't a bunch of old wankers.

And for me woodentop has now been replaced as the worst lions coach of the worst tour. Say what you want about woodentop but at least he picked has beens. I doubt Cory hill will ever be a lion but he will remembered as another nail in the coffin of the lions.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Does either of you think that those changes will make a substantial difference? I'd probably make them as well but what you might gain from slightly better players you might lose from cohesion as you change the team again.

No but doing nothing is a worse option than trying something. There were some blinding moments today but only in broken play, no real game plan based cohesion so staying the same by way of worrying about cohesion seems a little pointless. The ABs will get better, so we need to change something.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

whatisthejava wrote:And for me woodentop has now been replaced as the worst lions coach of the worst tour. Say what you want about woodentop but at least he picked has beens. I doubt Cory hill will ever be a lion but he will remembered as another nail in the coffin of the lions.

We are one test in and its too early for that. Peoples memories are too short as 2005 was horrific from start to finish. Plus Gatland did not take Diane Abbot so still some way to go to beat mega twat's tour.

As expected.

cashead wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

Big D wrote:ABs are just very very good.

Lesson in finishing chances really. It's unreal how quickly the AIG's can run up a big score on you by just being clinical.

I know you think that referring to the All Blacks by one of their sponsors makes you look "edgy" and "cool," but all it does is make you look like an insufferable cunt instead. hth.

Haha.

Steady on.

cashead wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

Big D wrote:ABs are just very very good.

Lesson in finishing chances really. It's unreal how quickly the AIG's can run up a big score on you by just being clinical.

I know you think that referring to the All Blacks by one of their sponsors makes you look "edgy" and "cool," but all it does is make you look like an insufferable cunt instead. hth.

1. Go fuck yourself. 2. You'd have pulled that off better if you'd said New Zealand. 3. Go fuck yourself.

[quote="whatisthejava"]And for me woodentop has now been replaced as the worst lions coach of the worst tour. Say what you want about woodentop but at least he picked has beens.I doubt Cory hill will ever be a lion but he will remembered as another nail in the coffin of the lions.[/quote]

He's on the bench for the Hurricanes game. All 3 of the conveniently located Taffs are. Finn too. But he won't get on.

kk67 wrote:As expected.

Basically this.

The kiwis coped with our power up front, which surely was only a surprise to Gatland.
Our power in midfield was making progress into the Kiwi defence, but not quite breaking it - which surely surprised nobody, or maybe made a little more progress than some expected.
Our broken field play from the back 3 was pretty exciting.

We couldn't keep up with the pace, intensity and daring that the AB's put on the game - we won't surprise anyone who actually follows rugby.

The Lions had 3-5* try scoring opportunities, and converted about 50% of them - which sounds about right (and very pleasing that we manufactured that many TBH).
The ABs had 3 try scoring opportunities, and converted 100% of them - which sounds about right.

In reaction Gatland calls for "more physicality" from the lions - which once again, is 100% expected from him.


*Daly in the opening minute, Te'o slipping going for the inside shoulder, Watson trying to force one more offload - personally I'd call 4 good opportunities

Which Tyler wrote:

kk67 wrote:As expected.

Basically this.

The kiwis coped with our power up front, which surely was only a surprise to Gatland.
Our power in midfield was making progress into the Kiwi defence, but not quite breaking it - which surely surprised nobody, or maybe made a little more progress than some expected.
Our broken field play from the back 3 was pretty exciting.

We couldn't keep up with the pace, intensity and daring that the AB's put on the game - we won't surprise anyone who actually follows rugby.

The Lions had 3-5* try scoring opportunities, and converted about 50% of them - which sounds about right (and very pleasing that we manufactured that many TBH).
The ABs had 3 try scoring opportunities, and converted 100% of them - which sounds about right.

In reaction Gatland calls for "more physicality" from the lions - which once again, is 100% expected from him.


*Daly in the opening minute, Te'o slipping going for the inside shoulder, Watson trying to force one more offload - personally I'd call 4 good opportunities

Couple of line outs on their 5 too.

It was a fairly enjoyable game to watch. The main concern is the same as always though. Gatland and Howley can't produce an attacking game plan to make holes. A lot of the good Lions play was broken field, on the hoof type play.

Yeah, but I never felt that our maul was actually a threat against them. Gatland did, but I didn't

Big D wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

kk67 wrote:As expected.

Basically this.

The kiwis coped with our power up front, which surely was only a surprise to Gatland.
Our power in midfield was making progress into the Kiwi defence, but not quite breaking it - which surely surprised nobody, or maybe made a little more progress than some expected.
Our broken field play from the back 3 was pretty exciting.

We couldn't keep up with the pace, intensity and daring that the AB's put on the game - we won't surprise anyone who actually follows rugby.

The Lions had 3-5* try scoring opportunities, and converted about 50% of them - which sounds about right (and very pleasing that we manufactured that many TBH).
The ABs had 3 try scoring opportunities, and converted 100% of them - which sounds about right.

In reaction Gatland calls for "more physicality" from the lions - which once again, is 100% expected from him.


*Daly in the opening minute, Te'o slipping going for the inside shoulder, Watson trying to force one more offload - personally I'd call 4 good opportunities

Couple of line outs on their 5 too.

It was a fairly enjoyable game to watch. The main concern is the same as always though. Gatland and Howley can't produce an attacking game plan to make holes. A lot of the good Lions play was broken field, on the hoof type play.

Agree with most of that but I dont actually think the AB's were thst clinical. I think they had plenty of other chances that were the equal of the Watson attempted offload. Maybe not in dramatic moments but in terms of having play on the Lions 5 metre. For example, there was at least one stolen lineout on the five, there was Barret's chip that Watson caught and there was Perenara's fumble as he picked up and dived for the line

Cameo wrote:Agree with most of that but I dont actually think the AB's were thst clinical. I think they had plenty of other chances that were the equal of the Watson attempted offload. Maybe not in dramatic moments but in terms of having play on the Lions 5 metre. For example, there was at least one stolen lineout on the five, there was Barret's chip that Watson caught and there was Perenara's fumble as he picked up and dived for the line

I thought I was missing a decent AB chance (Peranara). Out of interest, I'd call the Watson one the least like a genuine chance for the Lions - probably the only one of those 3 that were as low as 50:50, whilst the chip, wasn't as high as 50:50, and Peranara's fumble was probably about 50:50 (for an AB/PI, less for anyone else), and caled our conversion rate at 2 from 4 - TBH 50% is a genuinely good conversion rate for anyone other than the ABs. I don't know the stats, but instinctively I'd suggest that about 35-40% for most teams, but about double that 70-80% for the ABs is what I'd expect to see.

Anyone think Finn will see time on Tuesday.

whatisthejava wrote:Anyone think Finn will see time on Tuesday.

I reckon hell get 10/15 so garland can say he's given him a shot after recent criticism. Won't matter a fuck if he single handily defeated the canes though.

whatisthejava wrote:Anyone think Finn will see time on Tuesday.

I hope so. In fact he should be benching for the test squad. The whole is-Farrel-better-than-Sexton debate is getting on my wick a bit as neither has been on sparkling form (despite what Barnes and other pundits claim). They are also too similar so swapping one for the other doesn't really seem to change anything. Finn showed against the Wallabies and Italy that he is the form European fly half in the southern hemisphere. Having said that all, as others have said Gatland might give him 10 minutes, and that will be that.

Matt Ha wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:Anyone think Finn will see time on Tuesday.

I hope so. In fact he should be benching for the test squad. The whole is-Farrel-better-than-Sexton debate is getting on my wick a bit as neither has been on sparkling form (despite what Barnes and other pundits claim). They are also too similar so swapping one for the other doesn't really seem to change anything. Finn showed against the Wallabies and Italy that he is the form European fly half in the southern hemisphere. Having said that all, as others have said Gatland might give him 10 minutes, and that will be that.

You do get that the wallabies and Italy aren't really a similar test to the ABs don't you? And that playing with unfamiliar players is an entirely different challenge to playing with most of the same people who have surrounded you every week of your professional life for years?

Or maybe you don't. And maybe you've not watched Ford either.

The most surprising thing for me about yesterday's game was that Gatland blinked first and moved away from the only game plan he's ever had. It seemed he finally clicked that he needed better strike runners in the back 3 but selected a midfield that can't distribute the ball and no plan how to bring width to the game. Sexton and Farrell on the pitch together was painful to watch - I thought both were poor and Farrell at 12 only will work with a 10 whose passing put others into space. Bringing Sexton on for Teo was bizarre - as was bringing Owens on for George when they'd been under the cosh for 10 mins and had at last got a chance to apply some pressure with a Sarries hooker and 2 Sarries jumpers.

The pack getting done in the scrum should not have been a surprise if folks had been watching the props objectively recently. MV was up against it on a few occasions in the CC and even against Glasgow he didn't show much in a dominant pack. BV's cleaning up at no.8 and his physicality to create go-forward ball masked things, I though. TF has also had moments on tour when he has been caught out. I fancied the ABs would think they could get on top there and they duly did.

hp18 wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:Anyone think Finn will see time on Tuesday.

I reckon hell get 10/15 so garland can say he's given him a shot after recent criticism. Won't matter a fuck if he single handily defeated the canes though.

If its 5 minutes or even 10 I'd sooner he didn't bother. Whats the best that could happen.....what's the worst (from a Scotland point of view)

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Matt Ha wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:Anyone think Finn will see time on Tuesday.

I hope so. In fact he should be benching for the test squad. The whole is-Farrel-better-than-Sexton debate is getting on my wick a bit as neither has been on sparkling form (despite what Barnes and other pundits claim). They are also too similar so swapping one for the other doesn't really seem to change anything. Finn showed against the Wallabies and Italy that he is the form European fly half in the southern hemisphere. Having said that all, as others have said Gatland might give him 10 minutes, and that will be that.

You do get that the wallabies and Italy aren't really a similar test to the ABs don't you? And that playing with unfamiliar players is an entirely different challenge to playing with most of the same people who have surrounded you every week of your professional life for years?

Or maybe you don't. And maybe you've not watched Ford either.

Your point on Ford is well taken. He has looked the best British/Irish FH in the past few weeks with his performances against a good Argentina team. But the point is, he is not with the Lions in NZ so it's all academic. Finn Russell is there, and I think his performances in the 6N and against Oz would warrant his having a run off the bench in the dirt trackers team at this stage of the tour. There is nothing to lose, nobody gives a rat's arse about the result anyway, and he's a better attacking threat than Biggar, scratch team or not, so might as well give it a thrash. But he won't get on the test bench. Gatland is too conservative for that. Farrell and Sexton are nailed on as the only possible test starters in Gatland's team and neither has been anything special. I'm really fed up with all the Farrell hype - he is the media's golden boy of British rugby and they simply just ignore his shortcomings, including spotty goalkicking, weak tactical kicking, an unreliable defence, and lack of pace. In the pundits' eyes he can do no wrong - a classic case of the Emperor's new clothes.

I see Garland has nicked the Munster playbook.

It's amazing that Murray can still walk.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Matt Ha wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:Anyone think Finn will see time on Tuesday.

I hope so. In fact he should be benching for the test squad. The whole is-Farrel-better-than-Sexton debate is getting on my wick a bit as neither has been on sparkling form (despite what Barnes and other pundits claim). They are also too similar so swapping one for the other doesn't really seem to change anything. Finn showed against the Wallabies and Italy that he is the form European fly half in the southern hemisphere. Having said that all, as others have said Gatland might give him 10 minutes, and that will be that.

You do get that the wallabies and Italy aren't really a similar test to the ABs don't you? And that playing with unfamiliar players is an entirely different challenge to playing with most of the same people who have surrounded you every week of your professional life for years?

Or maybe you don't. And maybe you've not watched Ford either.

I do get that but I also get that Sexton and Farrel have hardly set the heather alight either against the ABs or the other games, which aren't really similar to test rugby. Maybe one of them will come good, but neither have the attacking talent of Russel so why not be bold. I've seen Ford. And if he was in NZ I would be saying he should be benching, but he isn't, so I'm not.

Matt Ha wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Matt Ha wrote:
I hope so. In fact he should be benching for the test squad. The whole is-Farrel-better-than-Sexton debate is getting on my wick a bit as neither has been on sparkling form (despite what Barnes and other pundits claim). They are also too similar so swapping one for the other doesn't really seem to change anything. Finn showed against the Wallabies and Italy that he is the form European fly half in the southern hemisphere. Having said that all, as others have said Gatland might give him 10 minutes, and that will be that.

You do get that the wallabies and Italy aren't really a similar test to the ABs don't you? And that playing with unfamiliar players is an entirely different challenge to playing with most of the same people who have surrounded you every week of your professional life for years?

Or maybe you don't. And maybe you've not watched Ford either.

I do get that but I also get that Sexton and Farrel have hardly set the heather alight either against the ABs or the other games, which aren't really similar to test rugby. Maybe one of them will come good, but neither have the attacking talent of Russel so why not be bold. I've seen Ford. And if he was in NZ I would be saying he should be benching, but he isn't, so I'm not.

Sexton is straightforwardly a better player than Russell. He's been part of great attacking Leinster and island teams. He's perfectly capable of running a proper attack. And the game isn't just about attack. Unfortunately Russell's propensity for error is fine against most sides but lethal against the ABs. Farrell, despite being mostly rubbish throughout his rugby career and being poor in the first Test and being nowhere near the player lauded to the skies by the media had at least managed to play with the others in the Test side before. That's not nothing. So whilst I wouldn't even have taken him on tour, from where we are any other choice on the bench would be foolish.

Haha, I thought that was Seymour who intercepted that, was thinking, fuck me he's slow, Laidlaws blistering pace. That was well read, and a good support line.

Fucking great hands from Henderson in that try. Good finish Norh. Halfpenny did well to get up there and heap the pressure on.