Re: NZ
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:07 am
The Chiefs game is on a Tuesday, so it will no doubt be the dirt trackers.
Page 2 of 2
Re: NZ
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:33 pm
Re: NZ
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:32 pm
Nope, the English game will be 'revenge' and 'a chance for the boys to put the Twickenham nightmare behind them'.
I'm putting the quotes in now, to save Gatland the bother later. This tour is going to be car crash bad, as will next season due to player burnout. Still, maybe we won't have quite so many at the Lions as a result...
I'm putting the quotes in now, to save Gatland the bother later. This tour is going to be car crash bad, as will next season due to player burnout. Still, maybe we won't have quite so many at the Lions as a result...
Re: NZ
Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:32 pm
Nope, the English game will be 'revenge' and 'a chance for the boys to put the Twickenham nightmare behind them'.
I'm putting the quotes in now, to save Gatland the bother later. This tour is going to be car crash bad, as will next season due to player burnout. Still, maybe we won't have quite so many at the Lions as a result...
I'm putting the quotes in now, to save Gatland the bother later. This tour is going to be car crash bad, as will next season due to player burnout. Still, maybe we won't have quite so many at the Lions as a result...
Re: NZ
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:12 am
I suspect that your tour will have a tight first Test and then deteriorate to a bit of a blow out in the 3rd.
Re: NZ
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:27 am
Our experience with SH tours is quite the opposite. We start badly and get well beaten, followed by close tests thereafter. Our last tours to Australia and South Africa have followed this format.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I suspect that your tour will have a tight first Test and then deteriorate to a bit of a blow out in the 3rd.
If we start well it will make a welcome change.
Re: NZ
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 11:32 am
They'll be more pain than champagne rugby
Re: NZ
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 11:32 am
They'll be more pain than champagne rugby
Re: NZ
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 4:05 pm
not many improve as they go through NZ tours.Sandydragon wrote:Our experience with SH tours is quite the opposite. We start badly and get well beaten, followed by close tests thereafter. Our last tours to Australia and South Africa have followed this format.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I suspect that your tour will have a tight first Test and then deteriorate to a bit of a blow out in the 3rd.
If we start well it will make a welcome change.
Re: NZ
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 6:28 pm
We do. Under Gatland we've always improved as tours progress, even against NZ (2010).Eugene Wrayburn wrote:not many improve as they go through NZ tours.Sandydragon wrote:Our experience with SH tours is quite the opposite. We start badly and get well beaten, followed by close tests thereafter. Our last tours to Australia and South Africa have followed this format.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I suspect that your tour will have a tight first Test and then deteriorate to a bit of a blow out in the 3rd.
If we start well it will make a welcome change.
Re: NZ
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 7:19 pm
Improved, but never quite enough to win. A fourth test v Aussie in 2012 would have been interesting.Son of Mathonwy wrote:We do. Under Gatland we've always improved as tours progress, even against NZ (2010).Eugene Wrayburn wrote:not many improve as they go through NZ tours.Sandydragon wrote: Our experience with SH tours is quite the opposite. We start badly and get well beaten, followed by close tests thereafter. Our last tours to Australia and South Africa have followed this format.
If we start well it will make a welcome change.
Re: NZ
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:50 pm
We'd have lost by half a point.Lizard wrote:Improved, but never quite enough to win. A fourth test v Aussie in 2012 would have been interesting.Son of Mathonwy wrote:We do. Under Gatland we've always improved as tours progress, even against NZ (2010).Eugene Wrayburn wrote: not many improve as they go through NZ tours.