RugbyRebels

Has there been any comment on why the pitch was chuffing bad?

They just kept saying it wasn’t for rugby, which didn’t really seem like much of an explanation for why you’d play 3 tests on it.

and then with the pitch so bad why are refs still so happy to penalise the scrum? granted I have a long standing dislike of a technical restart taking so much time and resulting in shots at goal or kicks to touch.

the games could surely have been better for just saying the ball is there just play it

How is anyone meant to score any points if you can’t milk penalties from a scrum?

whatisthejava wrote:

Spiffy wrote:Very few players[|quote]
Price
Finn
Wyn Jones


All come out much better

Loses
Everyone else

I think that is over simplistic. Plenty of players played well in the warmup games. From a Scottish perspective you could say Harris and Watson, from a Welsh one Beard would be the obvious.

The Lions were not good in the tests but only a relatively small part of that was underperforming individuals. I'd say Curry wasn't great, Sutherland, Murray, Biggar and Farrell too. For a lot of others, I'd say individually they were fine, they were just in a team with no purpose.

It's the same with this Liam Williams Vs Hogg debate. It ended up coming down to an argument over doing the basics and then of course Williams looks silly when he fails at them (apart from one very good catch). But that argument is missing the point. The Lions had the second best attacking talent in the NH at full back for the first two matches and used him as if he was Matt Perry. I'm confident he would have had a much bigger influence today given some ball in attack. Equally, though, L Williams is a very good player and given his time again would probably have made the pass (if not the tackle).

Digby wrote:

What are we meant to glean from this? That there’s nothing SA rugby people won’t moan about on Twatter? That SA rugby people would rather watch someone hoof a ball up in the air, block the chasers and then repeat ad nauseum than a free flowing game with the odd questionable pass?

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

What are we meant to glean from this? That there’s nothing SA rugby people won’t moan about on Twatter?

Are you irritated that she's moaning about NZ repeatedly appearing to not give a fuck that some of their squad members are domestic abusers? Is that what I'm reading? I genuinely can't tell if I'm misreading that. Was that not the focus of that post?

I am not irritated with Elma. What people glean from it seems rather up to them

Cameo wrote:

whatisthejava wrote:

Spiffy wrote:Very few players[|quote]
Price
Finn
Wyn Jones


All come out much better

Loses
Everyone else

I think that is over simplistic. Plenty of players played well in the warmup games. From a Scottish perspective you could say Harris and Watson, from a Welsh one Beard would be the obvious.

The Lions were not good in the tests but only a relatively small part of that was underperforming individuals. I'd say Curry wasn't great, Sutherland, Murray, Biggar and Farrell too. For a lot of others, I'd say individually they were fine, they were just in a team with no purpose.

It's the same with this Liam Williams Vs Hogg debate. It ended up coming down to an argument over doing the basics and then of course Williams looks silly when he fails at them (apart from one very good catch). But that argument is missing the point. The Lions had the second best attacking talent in the NH at full back for the first two matches and used him as if he was Matt Perry. I'm confident he would have had a much bigger influence today given some ball in attack. Equally, though, L Williams is a very good player and given his time again would probably have made the pass (if not the tackle).

Yeah, this was one of the most infuriating things. Play Williams and focus on the high balls above everything, play Hogg and Russell and at least try to give them the ball, whatever. It just felt like every area of the team had this weird mismatch between team and tactics.

All the talk of keeping our cards close to our chests, would we really have benefitted more from hiding our tactics against SA than actually seeing if we were capable of playing a bit more?

Digby wrote:I am not irritated with Elma. What people glean from it seems rather up to them

I quoted you but I was trying to understand Mells' confusion.

There is quite an odd gulf in the way forward passes are refereed in games not involving the All Blacks, to be fair.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Digby wrote:I am not irritated with Elma. What people glean from it seems rather up to them

I quoted you but I was trying to understand Mells' confusion.

There is quite an odd gulf in the way forward passes are refereed in games not involving the All Blacks, to be fair.

I'd love to see Italy get away with thise forward passes - not acceptable from a ref that

Wasn't that disallowed for the forward pass or did they have a similar one referred to the tmo at another point? I only saw the highlights.

That was the disallowed one

So what's the Twitter about then? Weird.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

What are we meant to glean from this? That there’s nothing SA rugby people won’t moan about on Twatter?

Are you irritated that she's moaning about NZ repeatedly appearing to not give a fuck that some of their squad members are domestic abusers? Is that what I'm reading? I genuinely can't tell if I'm misreading that. Was that not the focus of that post?

It’s a thread entitled ‘Lions squad named’ on the ‘General Rugby forum’, I’m therefore discussing the aspects pertaining to the Lions and general rugby.
If a thread is entitled ‘NZ selection policy lacks a moral compass’ on the ‘Politics and stuff’ board then I’ll comment that Elma has point.

Hardly an unfair general rugby point

This isn't the Scottish board though - I can confirm as the mod that you are allowed to start another thread here if you have a General Rugby point unrelated to one of the existing threads.

Puja

Any thread seems a chance to note the NZ selection strategy is an ongoing celebration of domestic violence as a national sport.

Back on the rugby, and again something of a departure from just the Lions, we have seen disrupted scrums again this series and it is now the case the likes of Sky are looking at whether consumers would accept ad breaks during stoppages in play. Obviously they hate going more than 50 minutes without an ad break, which it can easily be given how much SA looks to slow the play, but the IRB might find the TV companies are happier to push the stoppages more than speed up the play

Digby wrote:Any thread seems a chance to note the NZ selection strategy is an ongoing celebration of domestic violence as a national sport.

Back on the rugby, and again something of a departure from just the Lions, we have seen disrupted scrums again this series and it is now the case the likes of Sky are looking at whether consumers would accept ad breaks during stoppages in play. Obviously they hate going more than 50 minutes without an ad break, which it can easily be given how much SA looks to slow the play, but the IRB might find the TV companies are happier to push the stoppages more than speed up the play

We should have stops every 10 minutes for water breaks, thus allowing the fat boys to have a breather. Even better we could swap out the entire side and bulk players up like American Football players.

The ability to play ten man rugby or a more expansive game has always been one of the more appealing things about this sport. But if the emphasis on the forwards and Noah is so great that coaches don’t want to use the ball at all then I might start watching sevens instead.

Sandydragon wrote: We should have stops every 10 minutes for water breaks, thus allowing the fat boys to have a breather. Even better we could swap out the entire side and bulk players up like American Football players.

If I could drag my ass around a pitch for 40 mins without a drink a professional rugby can.

Especially since water is unnecessary during 40 mins of sport in the NH.

(In fact , there has been some academic studies where they weighed marathon runners before the marathon and then after and some runners took on soo much water they were actually heavier than when they started).

Evolution has given us a perfect way to know when to drink - it’s called being thirsty and 40 mins of sportin the NH doesn’t make you need to drink.

Rugby would also be better if the fatties got tired.

(I treat the water myth and the warm up myth as the same level of bullshit as eating before swimming )

Is Morne Steyn still a functional rugby player? Or is he just a place-kicker? It did feel quite NFL-like (among many other things) to see him used in this way, without having had a cap in 5 years.

On that note, did Daly not get on? It seems so odd that all this time he'd been talked about as crucial for his long goal-kicking. I would have thought that was even more true with Russell on the pitch. Seems interesting he wasn't trusted to come on anywhere even when we were down to such a tight game.

Mikey Brown wrote:Is Morne Steyn still a functional rugby player? Or is he just a place-kicker? It did feel quite NFL-like (among many other things) to see him used in this way, without having had a cap in 5 years.

On that note, did Daly not get on? It seems so odd that all this time he'd been talked about as crucial for his long goal-kicking. I would have thought that was even more true with Russell on the pitch. Seems interesting he wasn't trusted to come on anywhere even when we were down to such a tight game.

I don't know who Daly would've come on for. Not like we were using our backs to attack and he's a defensive liability so wherever you bring him on is a risk. His 60m kicking range is useful, but it's not accurate enough to be used in a last-play situation (and the football showed the error of bringing players on solely for a last minute dead-ball situation and having them go in cold).

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Is Morne Steyn still a functional rugby player? Or is he just a place-kicker? It did feel quite NFL-like (among many other things) to see him used in this way, without having had a cap in 5 years.

On that note, did Daly not get on? It seems so odd that all this time he'd been talked about as crucial for his long goal-kicking. I would have thought that was even more true with Russell on the pitch. Seems interesting he wasn't trusted to come on anywhere even when we were down to such a tight game.

I don't know who Daly would've come on for. Not like we were using our backs to attack and he's a defensive liability so wherever you bring him on is a risk. His 60m kicking range is useful, but it's not accurate enough to be used in a last-play situation (and the football showed the error of bringing players on solely for a last minute dead-ball situation and having them go in cold).

Puja

Daly should not even have been in the Lions squad as a 13, a position he has not played for a long time, and then at club level. He is not a great FB either. In his international career, he has looked most comfortable on the wing, where he played well in the last Lions tour to NZ.
Overall, the Lions backs appeared well short of the necessary class compared with their counterparts on earlier tours. DVDM looked a large, powerful lump, but short on footballing skills; Anthony Watson, potentially the best all-round wing, did not play up to his ability at all; Adams and LRZ were starved of chances to shine; except for Henshaw, the centres looked one dimensional, slow and non-inventive. For all their strength, defence etc, Aki and Harris are just not attacking threats. Hogg tried valiantly, despite having to play Gatball, and Liam Williams is clearly not the player of four years ago, especially on the counter attack. He had two major howlers in the final test in failing to release Adams for a likely try on the right wing; and missing a doable tackle on Kolbe.
At half back, Murray is past it, Price overrated and the competitive Davies ignored. Biggar a solid journeyman, but disappointing, Farrell a non event and the refreshing Russell unfortunately injured.
Gatland picked a set of backs designed primarily to stop the Boks from scoring rather than attack themselves, and, to fit this tactic , imposed a kicking game plan that throttled inventive running rugby.
I won't even get started on the forwards selection, especially back row !