The RugbyRebels Messageboard
http://rugbyrebels.co.uk/
JDs rushing up is part of the game plan. He isn't doing it because he suddenly thinks its worth doing something different. If JJ played there he would be doing the same.Stom wrote:JD was never our best player. He was not bad, I'd give him a pass, but he wasn't our best player. And he's never underrated. It's like when any English fans say Mike Brown is/was underrated. Maybe, but the fact he cannot pass to a high enough standard drags him down. The same is true of Davies. If you cannot consistently pass to a high standard and be aware of your immediate passing and support options, you have no place in the best of the best of B&I.Sandydragon wrote:I wouldn't blame the backs too much, they had poor possession for much of the match. My biggest criticism is the lack of composure some displayed, but that was a down side of the entire XV.Digby wrote:
Also we lost the game in the tackle collisions one out and at the breakdown, which is tough couple of points to bring the outside backs to task over
I'm stunned that our best player, JD2, is potentially dropped out of the squad. Perhaps one of he most underrated players in modern rugby.
There was one glaring case of him "supporting" SOB, when SOB was turned over. That never should have happened: he should have been there to hit that ruck. Or, actually he shouldn't, because he should have been there for an offload, but that's a different problem. He did it again with Murray, when we should have scored: he just was nowhere near a supporting position. He should have been on the shoulder ready for a pass, but he was nowhere close.
Now. he was by far not the worst offender, so don't get me wrong, I've got a big downer on all our backs bar Williams and Watson after that shoite show, but these are bloody basics. And NZ do them perfectly. They are the one major difference between us.
On dropping him, I do not feel the Lions defensive plans can/will ever work against NZ. They play around the idea of supporting each other. Whenever someone makes a break, there are minimum 2 players close by. So if someone comes close to the gainline, cutting off his wide pass is not going to stop the half break: he will have 2 options close in. In fact, all it does is take a defender out of the game.
In the second half, JD was exposed time and again for overrunning defence. I didn't pull him up on it because it's not his individual fault, it's the system. But it does not work against teams who support the ball carrier effectively. All that happened was JD, or sometimes Farrell after Sexton came on, stepped out, SBW or ALB hit a close by suppport runner instead of flinging a pass to Ioane, and NZ were through a half gap and past the gainline, leaving JD out of the game, and needing to scramble back. It was infuriating, and one of the main reasons NZ could get so much quick ball: we were constantly 1 man down.
Joseph's drift is one of the best in the business. He can pass and he's aware. I see no reason to pick Davies over him unless you're looking for a big hit tackler for a system that I believe does not work against the best. So that is why I would pick Joseph: I want a 13 who can pass, who is aware of supporting options both with and without the ball, and I want to change defensive alignment.
it has been accepted; we are stuck with Faz and won't get JJ.Sandydragon wrote:JDs rushing up is part of the game plan. He isn't doing it because he suddenly thinks its worth doing something different. If JJ played there he would be doing the same.Stom wrote:JD was never our best player. He was not bad, I'd give him a pass, but he wasn't our best player. And he's never underrated. It's like when any English fans say Mike Brown is/was underrated. Maybe, but the fact he cannot pass to a high enough standard drags him down. The same is true of Davies. If you cannot consistently pass to a high standard and be aware of your immediate passing and support options, you have no place in the best of the best of B&I.Sandydragon wrote: I wouldn't blame the backs too much, they had poor possession for much of the match. My biggest criticism is the lack of composure some displayed, but that was a down side of the entire XV.
I'm stunned that our best player, JD2, is potentially dropped out of the squad. Perhaps one of he most underrated players in modern rugby.
There was one glaring case of him "supporting" SOB, when SOB was turned over. That never should have happened: he should have been there to hit that ruck. Or, actually he shouldn't, because he should have been there for an offload, but that's a different problem. He did it again with Murray, when we should have scored: he just was nowhere near a supporting position. He should have been on the shoulder ready for a pass, but he was nowhere close.
Now. he was by far not the worst offender, so don't get me wrong, I've got a big downer on all our backs bar Williams and Watson after that shoite show, but these are bloody basics. And NZ do them perfectly. They are the one major difference between us.
On dropping him, I do not feel the Lions defensive plans can/will ever work against NZ. They play around the idea of supporting each other. Whenever someone makes a break, there are minimum 2 players close by. So if someone comes close to the gainline, cutting off his wide pass is not going to stop the half break: he will have 2 options close in. In fact, all it does is take a defender out of the game.
In the second half, JD was exposed time and again for overrunning defence. I didn't pull him up on it because it's not his individual fault, it's the system. But it does not work against teams who support the ball carrier effectively. All that happened was JD, or sometimes Farrell after Sexton came on, stepped out, SBW or ALB hit a close by suppport runner instead of flinging a pass to Ioane, and NZ were through a half gap and past the gainline, leaving JD out of the game, and needing to scramble back. It was infuriating, and one of the main reasons NZ could get so much quick ball: we were constantly 1 man down.
Joseph's drift is one of the best in the business. He can pass and he's aware. I see no reason to pick Davies over him unless you're looking for a big hit tackler for a system that I believe does not work against the best. So that is why I would pick Joseph: I want a 13 who can pass, who is aware of supporting options both with and without the ball, and I want to change defensive alignment.
Im presuming you are overlooking his part in our first try with regards to his inability to pass or be aware of options?
When there was a team pretty full of players who were below par, you want to replace one of our best (I think he was probably our best player and so do a lot of sports commentators) - that is just making a change for the sake of it.
The defensive alignment won't change. Accept that and pick players accordingly.
But there is a reality here that with one test game down, the game plan won't alter radically before next Saturday. It would be nice to see northern hemisphere rugby become more about supporting breaks than hitting rucks, but on a short tour that is unrealistic.Mikey Brown wrote:Didn't Stom say exactly that, regarding his defence? It's also debateable how well he used that space on the break but he got the pass away and the try was scored. I can see why there's a split on whether he has played well to be honest.
Picking players to fit an ill-conceived gameplan doesn't seem like the best approach, but it's certainly not a surprising one.
sounds that way, though leaving Henderson on may say otherwise....who came on for Lawes? If Kruis, you could well be right.Sandydragon wrote:Lawes off after 53 minutes having played very well. Henderson also playing very well. Wouldn't surprise me if the starting locks were Itoje and Lawes with Henderson on the bench.
Tommy Seymour just became the leading try scorer, maybe enough for a bench spot. North is making meters, but is playing in the centre.
\
Tipuric playing superbly, but has no chance.
Yes ,it was Kruis. Im wondering if Gatland might replace Henderson in the next few minutes and use him on the bench.Banquo wrote:sounds that way, though leaving Henderson on may say otherwise....who came on for Lawes? If Kruis, you could well be right.Sandydragon wrote:Lawes off after 53 minutes having played very well. Henderson also playing very well. Wouldn't surprise me if the starting locks were Itoje and Lawes with Henderson on the bench.
Tommy Seymour just became the leading try scorer, maybe enough for a bench spot. North is making meters, but is playing in the centre.
\
Tipuric playing superbly, but has no chance.
They certainly are. I suspect we are now seeing the benefit of the players having gelled. It just demonstrates the problem for the Lions in the pro era. By the end of the tour, we may just about have a team!Banquo wrote:Midweek side putting their hand up- good lads.
I totally agree. Lots of midweek players are playing well.Lord Llandaff wrote:They certainly are. I suspect we are now seeing the benefit of the players having gelled. It just demonstrates the problem for the Lions in the pro era. By the end of the tour, we may just about have a team!Banquo wrote:Midweek side putting their hand up- good lads.
He's had by far his best game, it's a shame.Sandydragon wrote:I totally agree. Lots of midweek players are playing well.Lord Llandaff wrote:They certainly are. I suspect we are now seeing the benefit of the players having gelled. It just demonstrates the problem for the Lions in the pro era. By the end of the tour, we may just about have a team!Banquo wrote:Midweek side putting their hand up- good lads.
Henderson is about to get carded - so I think he has just pissed on his chips.
yes, Gatland's strategy of calling up non playing extras was an utter travesty and likely cost them a win here.Adder wrote:What is the point of putting subs on the bench if you are not going to play them.
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
I did not want them out there in the first place but if they are there then surely you play them. Looks like Kruis has gone from starter to out of the 23 for the Lions after this game.Banquo wrote:yes, Gatland's strategy of calling up non playing extras was an utter travesty and likely cost them a win here.Adder wrote:What is the point of putting subs on the bench if you are not going to play them.
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
Maybe, but iirc AWJ was on the bench last Tuesday.skidger wrote:I did not want them out there in the first place but if they are there then surely you play them. Looks like Kruis has gone from starter to out of the 23 for the Lions after this game.Banquo wrote:yes, Gatland's strategy of calling up non playing extras was an utter travesty and likely cost them a win here.Adder wrote:What is the point of putting subs on the bench if you are not going to play them.
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk
He was but i think he only came on very briefly. Lawes,Itoje and Henderson have all gone past him and could well see both starting locks out of the 23.......maybe.Banquo wrote:Maybe, but iirc AWJ was on the bench last Tuesday.skidger wrote:I did not want them out there in the first place but if they are there then surely you play them. Looks like Kruis has gone from starter to out of the 23 for the Lions after this game.Banquo wrote: yes, Gatland's strategy of calling up non playing extras was an utter travesty and likely cost them a win here.
I don't see the point of Kruis on the bench tbh; his strongest contribution is in running the lineout, rather than an impact sub. Starter, or not in the squad imo.Sandydragon wrote:Based on performances, you have to start Itoje and Lawes with Henderson on the bench. Henderson had a superb game today.
Just seen that Geech would have Kruise and Henderson on the bench for Saturday. I'm not so sure; Id rather have an out and out back rower on the bench, either to support a looser game (Tipuric) or to provide additional carrying power (Stander).
as in bring him on after 5 minutes if it goes horribly wrong. Hmm, maybeTimbo wrote:Unless you're worried the lineout could completely fall apart without him...
