Stom wrote:
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.
Explain to me other than the first try how this worked out for them on Saturday? To limit the ABs to three tries is not a bad defensive performance, especially being as two of those tries were caused by individual errors.
We are playing the blitz defence, get over it. We will see an improvement at the breakdown if Warburton plays on Saturday.
I find your attitude to the tour perplexing, whereas most people I know who watch sport do it for the enjoyment you seem to torture yourself about it, each to his own I suppose.
iLovett wrote: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)
How many tries did they score from returning kicks on Saturday?
They scored one try through the middle and then wide, the other two as I have been saying ad nauseum were off individual errors.
iLovett wrote: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
iLovett wrote: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)
How many tries did they score from returning kicks on Saturday?
They scored one try through the middle and then wide, the other two as I have been saying ad nauseum were off individual errors.
You are not wrong on the tries themselves but using that to say the Lions' defence worked is a stretch. It was hard watching that game to say that the Lions defence was in any way dealing with the NZ attack. They didnt get ripped to shreds but NZ made lots of ground every time they had it and on another day could have scored plenty more.
Anyway, I suspect the Lions tight defence will be a bit better this week and they might havr more joy in the scrum and maul penalty lotteries. Equally, I think NZ might open up a bit more out wide
How many try scoring opportunities did New Zealand squander? They took their tries beautifully, but they were far from creating dozens more. Our defence was a lot better than you and Stom are giving it credit for.
If the Lions tight defence is better either we'll need to hit harder in the tackle or put more resources in. If the latter then history says NZ will start to go wider owing to their cunning plan of going where there defence isn't, 'tis almost cheating by the cunning gadflies
Digby wrote:If the Lions tight defence is better either we'll need to hit harder in the tackle or put more resources in. If the latter then history says NZ will start to go wider owing to their cunning plan of going where there defence isn't, 'tis almost cheating by the cunning gadflies
I'm assuming a coach is there to deal with just this sort of issue.
Digby wrote:If the Lions tight defence is better either we'll need to hit harder in the tackle or put more resources in. If the latter then history says NZ will start to go wider owing to their cunning plan of going where there defence isn't, 'tis almost cheating by the cunning gadflies
I like it when we're on the same side. Doesn't happen often, mind...
Sandydragon wrote:How many try scoring opportunities did New Zealand squander? They took their tries beautifully, but they were far from creating dozens more. Our defence was a lot better than you and Stom are giving it credit for.
Id say three or four. Only one glaring (the lienert-brown knock on) but if we count getting to five ten metres out with momentum and then screwing it up then several more. Im not saying the defence was particularly bad (and Im not sure I agree with Stom that Davies flying up is necessarily a bad plan) I just dont agree that the difference between the sides was them finishing their chances. I thought it was their attack getting the better of our defence all game, not dramatically but consistently. On the other hand we only really created on the counter attack.
