v AB'S - First Test

Moderators: Puja, Misc Forum Mod

Post Reply
User avatar
skidger
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:09 am

Re: RE: Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by skidger »

Banquo wrote:
Big D wrote:
Banquo wrote: ouch. Bit harsh on George, whose throwing was top notch.
I thought George had a decent game. Plenty of tackles made too.
me too, solid first international start :)
Nice to see him eased in at Eden Park with low quality opposition.
jared_7
Posts: 615
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 4:47 pm

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by jared_7 »

Good test match, I thought there were periods when it looked like the ABs were going to run away with it but the Lions kept going and surprised me. I don't think the injuries to Smith and Crotty helped the ABs, Cruden has stagnated and isn't a patch on Barrett and Crotty was looking solid.

The Lions try was something special and there was another break, eventually breaking down when Watson pushed a pass, that was magical as well.

In the end it probably came down to the fact the Lions had maybe 3 opportunities and converted just one, while the ABs took their 3. I suspect this may be the closest the Lions get, at least in terms of performance. The ABs are usually rusty first test and as we gel hopefully those periods of dominance will get longer and longer.

Read and Smith my two ABs MOTM. Great to see Smith back to his best and Read leading from the front.
User avatar
Adam_P
Posts: 1813
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:14 pm

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by Adam_P »

Lawes had to be involved in the next test. He has been the form lock in the previous Lions fixtures and Kruis and AWJ were average to poor today. Yet again, the omission of Lauchbury is made to look laughable.

Though Teo went well at 12, especially defensively in the second half. Sinckler looked good when he came on, and I would have brought him on far earlier.
User avatar
skidger
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:09 am

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by skidger »

Adam_P wrote:Lawes had to be involved in the next test. He has been the form lock in the previous Lions fixtures and Kruis and AWJ were average to poor today. Yet again, the omission of Lauchbury is made to look laughable.

Though Teo went well at 12, especially defensively in the second half. Sinckler looked good when he came on, and I would have brought him on far earlier.
I thought Lawes was so good in the last game that he could be even in the running to cover the back row from the bench let alone lock. I would like to see Kruis given another go but i think Lawes is needed somewhere on the pitch being a pain in the arse.
Last edited by skidger on Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Banquo
Posts: 20883
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by Banquo »

Adam_P wrote:Lawes had to be involved in the next test. He has been the form lock in the previous Lions fixtures and Kruis and AWJ were average to poor today. Yet again, the omission of Lauchbury is made to look laughable.

Though Teo went well at 12, especially defensively in the second half. Sinckler looked good when he came on, and I would have brought him on far earlier.
wouldn't underestimate Kruis's influence on the lineout, but he turned it over badly today.
WaspInWales
Posts: 4503
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:46 pm

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by WaspInWales »

ESPN has Farrell down as missing two tackles. I thought he missed at least 4.

Those walesonline ratings are a piss take.
User avatar
Adam_P
Posts: 1813
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:14 pm

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by Adam_P »

Banquo wrote:
Adam_P wrote:Lawes had to be involved in the next test. He has been the form lock in the previous Lions fixtures and Kruis and AWJ were average to poor today. Yet again, the omission of Lauchbury is made to look laughable.

Though Teo went well at 12, especially defensively in the second half. Sinckler looked good when he came on, and I would have brought him on far earlier.
wouldn't underestimate Kruis's influence on the lineout, but he turned it over badly today.
A good argument if our line out was faultless, but it wasn't particularly great today. He coughed up a lot of ball around the park too. Having said that though I'd still go with Kruis paired with Lawes and Itjoe on the bench.
dk4
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 12:45 am

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by dk4 »

Cracking game!

Well done to Lions. What a try and fantastic effort.

The difference is in the forwards. The AB forwards kept ball alive, made Lions defense go backwards and scrum was v good.

The absence of Ben Smith and Crotty had an impact on the AB defense. Suspect that probably they wont feature in next games?
do they bring fekitoa as replacement?

AB forwards pack outstanding.
They need to work on midfield defense with ALB.SBW. Wings good but must make sure they dont spill the kick boxes.

For Lions, they should not have replaced Teo. Mistake because immediately ABs started using SBW.
They need to focus on forwards and how to use their 11/14 and 15 more.

Again it was a fantastic game. As an AB fan i was v impressed with the effort of Lions.
Banquo
Posts: 20883
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by Banquo »

Has Bin Smuff had problems with concussion before?
User avatar
skidger
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:09 am

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by skidger »

WaspInWales wrote:ESPN has Farrell down as missing two tackles. I thought he missed at least 4.

Those walesonline ratings are a piss take.
You get the impression some are when there is a rival that is Welsh like George getting a 4/10 but the ratings are pretty brutal right across the board.
Banquo
Posts: 20883
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by Banquo »

Adam_P wrote:
Banquo wrote:
Adam_P wrote:Lawes had to be involved in the next test. He has been the form lock in the previous Lions fixtures and Kruis and AWJ were average to poor today. Yet again, the omission of Lauchbury is made to look laughable.

Though Teo went well at 12, especially defensively in the second half. Sinckler looked good when he came on, and I would have brought him on far earlier.
wouldn't underestimate Kruis's influence on the lineout, but he turned it over badly today.
A good argument if our line out was faultless, but it wasn't particularly great today. He coughed up a lot of ball around the park too. Having said that though I'd still go with Kruis paired with Lawes and Itjoe on the bench.
Our lineout was faultless until Owens came on, and furthermore hugely disrupted the the kiwi lineout, which kept us in the game early doors. I did say he turned it over.
User avatar
morepork
Posts: 7860
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by morepork »

RETALLICKA
Doorzetbornandbred
Posts: 499
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 6:03 pm

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by Doorzetbornandbred »

morepork wrote:RETALLICKA
On a seek and destroy mission tonight.
Banquo
Posts: 20883
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by Banquo »

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:
morepork wrote:RETALLICKA
On a seek and destroy mission tonight.
Nothing else matters
fivepointer
Posts: 6484
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:42 pm

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by fivepointer »

jared_7 wrote:Good test match, I thought there were periods when it looked like the ABs were going to run away with it but the Lions kept going and surprised me. I don't think the injuries to Smith and Crotty helped the ABs, Cruden has stagnated and isn't a patch on Barrett and Crotty was looking solid.

The Lions try was something special and there was another break, eventually breaking down when Watson pushed a pass, that was magical as well.

In the end it probably came down to the fact the Lions had maybe 3 opportunities and converted just one, while the ABs took their 3. I suspect this may be the closest the Lions get, at least in terms of performance. The ABs are usually rusty first test and as we gel hopefully those periods of dominance will get longer and longer.

Read and Smith my two ABs MOTM. Great to see Smith back to his best and Read leading from the front.
Failure to convert good positions into scores has been a recurring flaw with these Lions. Get to 5m out of the tryline and you simply HAVE to score.
Didnt see much evidence of NZ being rusty. Some of their attacking play, with quick ball, transfers and offloads was a joy to watch.
Felt NZ did their homework - as you would expect. Lions got no go forward, or penalties, from scrums and their driving maul was very well contained.
Lions did have some good periods and did score a great try, but the difference in quality was there for all to see by the end.
Beasties
Posts: 1552
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:31 am

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by Beasties »

I can't see the sense in dropping Te'o to pay Farrell there at all. The Lions backline visibly wilted when Te'o went off. Either play Farrell at 10 or not.

NZ's pace that they put on the game in the first half was stunning, I was shocked that the Lions managed to just about compete at that point. There were wave upon wave of incisive lightning attacks with amazing skill levels on display. I take my hat off to Aaron Smith (who has hardly been mentioned). What a player. Every breakdown was shifted on at breakneck speed, the guy's an absolute firefly. One mistake I counted by him. I'd defy any international team to not improve 20% with him at SH. Imagine those NZ players with Youngs at 9. They'd not look so clever then would they?

Wonderful first try for the Lions though. Absolute belter.
Banquo
Posts: 20883
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by Banquo »

Beasties wrote:I can't see the sense in dropping Te'o to pay Farrell there at all. The Lions backline visibly wilted when Te'o went off. Either play Farrell at 10 or not.

NZ's pace that they put on the game in the first half was stunning, I was shocked that the Lions managed to just about compete at that point. There were wave upon wave of incisive lightning attacks with amazing skill levels on display. I take my hat off to Aaron Smith (who has hardly been mentioned). What a player. Every breakdown was shifted on at breakneck speed, the guy's an absolute firefly. One mistake I counted by him. I'd defy any international team to not improve 20% with him at SH. Imagine those NZ players with Youngs at 9. They'd not look so clever then would they?

Wonderful first try for the Lions though. Absolute belter.
whilst I agree, everyone but the EMB (and rest of the board) seems to think Faz a world class 10 and 12- Eddie even clearly thinks he's a good 12; Grant Fox said he sees no flaws in his game. I'm confused- I think what we saw from Faz today was what we normally see, but with less ball. Teo should have stayed on for sure.

and yes on Aaron Smith, he's been the best 9 for a while now, bar his dodgy night club phase or whatever it was. Read was even more impressive given he's hardly played.
Matt Ha
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:56 pm

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by Matt Ha »

I feel Russel should come onto the bench. He brings an attacking swagger to a game (check highlights of Scotland's test against Italy and Wallabies) that others can't, and replacing Farrell with Sexton, or visa versa, always seems to be pretty much swapping like with like.
User avatar
Adam_P
Posts: 1813
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2016 11:14 pm

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by Adam_P »

Beasties wrote:I can't see the sense in dropping Te'o to pay Farrell there at all. The Lions backline visibly wilted when Te'o went off. Either play Farrell at 10 or not.
Absolutely agreed, was pretty unimpressed (though not surprised) when I saw Sexton coming on that it was Teo coming off rather than Farrell. I just don't get why everyone is so keen to shoe horn him into the side at all costs.
Beasties
Posts: 1552
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:31 am

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by Beasties »

Tbf I didn't think Sexton brought much to the party. What he did bring was the exit of Te'o. Farrell shuffled sideways as did the NZ defence after that.
User avatar
Sandydragon
Posts: 10299
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by Sandydragon »

Adam_P wrote:
Beasties wrote:I can't see the sense in dropping Te'o to pay Farrell there at all. The Lions backline visibly wilted when Te'o went off. Either play Farrell at 10 or not.
Absolutely agreed, was pretty unimpressed (though not surprised) when I saw Sexton coming on that it was Teo coming off rather than Farrell. I just don't get why everyone is so keen to shoe horn him into the side at all costs.
It really didn't work today. Commentators talking about bringing the back three into the game, but all I saw was two fly halves passing the ball and no one getting over the gainline.
dk4
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 12:45 am

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by dk4 »

So whats the info for AB injuries?
-B Smith HIA?
-Kaino concussion?
-Crotty hamstring?
User avatar
morepork
Posts: 7860
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by morepork »

Banquo wrote:
Doorzetbornandbred wrote:
morepork wrote:RETALLICKA
On a seek and destroy mission tonight.
Nothing else matters

One

has No Remorse.
Digby
Posts: 15261
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by Digby »

The Lions tried to fight fire with fire, but in the end we were left to watch their performance fade to black, sad but true.
Banquo
Posts: 20883
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:52 pm

Re: v AB'S - First Test

Post by Banquo »

Digby wrote:The Lions tried to fight fire with fire, but in the end we were left to watch their performance fade to black, sad but true.
Enter Sandman, Digby, zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Post Reply