RugbyRebels

I thought it last week and Saturday underlined it. I think Farrell got it wrong. I do not buy into the Aussie bollocks that they would have won the series but for the pen decision in the 2nd test as the Lions would have come out differently were it a series decider. That said tho, given the series was wrapped up., he should have made more changes and brought in hungrier players for third test to freshen things up. We will never know of course but they may have made the difference. there is not a massive difference in ability within the squad and i feel that this could have tipped it into Lions favour. Picking guys with a point to prove. We will never know....

Tuco Ramirez wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 12:44 pm I thought it last week and Saturday underlined it. I think Farrell got it wrong. I do not buy into the Aussie bollocks that they would have won the series but for the pen decision in the 2nd test as the Lions would have come out differently were it a series decider. That said tho, given the series was wrapped up., he should have made more changes and brought in hungrier players for third test to freshen things up. We will never know of course but they may have made the difference. there is not a massive difference in ability within the squad and i feel that this could have tipped it into Lions favour. Picking guys with a point to prove. We will never know....

Maybe. The 6:2 bench was a mistake and some players were jaded. That said, who else could have made a difference within the squad? It feels like Farrell had forced his own hand by his initial selections.

As you say, we can never know for sure. But certainly the Aussies were up for the third test in a way that we just weren’t. And given the expectations on this tour, that spiels like a huge let down and missed opportunity.

should have freshened it up. imho.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 9:23 am

Tuco Ramirez wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 12:44 pm I thought it last week and Saturday underlined it. I think Farrell got it wrong. I do not buy into the Aussie bollocks that they would have won the series but for the pen decision in the 2nd test as the Lions would have come out differently were it a series decider. That said tho, given the series was wrapped up., he should have made more changes and brought in hungrier players for third test to freshen things up. We will never know of course but they may have made the difference. there is not a massive difference in ability within the squad and i feel that this could have tipped it into Lions favour. Picking guys with a point to prove. We will never know....

Maybe. The 6:2 bench was a mistake and some players were jaded. That said, who else could have made a difference within the squad? It feels like Farrell had forced his own hand by his initial selections.

As you say, we can never know for sure. But certainly the Aussies were up for the third test in a way that we just weren’t. And given the expectations on this tour, that spiels like a huge let down and missed opportunity.

Surely that's the very situation that Pollock was picked in the squad for? Yes, he's not the finished article on the pitch, but bringing him off the bench brings an energy boost and bounce to the whole team. DVDM on the bench would've been another option - not the most complete winger in the world, but if you're chasing a game, he's a very useful option to bring on. Same with MSmith coming on at 10.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 11:48 am

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 9:23 am

Tuco Ramirez wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 12:44 pm I thought it last week and Saturday underlined it. I think Farrell got it wrong. I do not buy into the Aussie bollocks that they would have won the series but for the pen decision in the 2nd test as the Lions would have come out differently were it a series decider. That said tho, given the series was wrapped up., he should have made more changes and brought in hungrier players for third test to freshen things up. We will never know of course but they may have made the difference. there is not a massive difference in ability within the squad and i feel that this could have tipped it into Lions favour. Picking guys with a point to prove. We will never know....

Maybe. The 6:2 bench was a mistake and some players were jaded. That said, who else could have made a difference within the squad? It feels like Farrell had forced his own hand by his initial selections.

As you say, we can never know for sure. But certainly the Aussies were up for the third test in a way that we just weren’t. And given the expectations on this tour, that spiels like a huge let down and missed opportunity.

Surely that's the very situation that Pollock was picked in the squad for? Yes, he's not the finished article on the pitch, but bringing him off the bench brings an energy boost and bounce to the whole team. DVDM on the bench would've been another option - not the most complete winger in the world, but if you're chasing a game, he's a very useful option to bring on. Same with MSmith coming on at 10.

Puja

Yes i agree, Schoeman wouldnt have let anyone down either, the Scottish second rower and even VDF and Pollock as you mentioned. could have really re jigged it and who knows how it would have changed

I do think Aus could have won the series had it not been for one call in the 2nd test. I also think has they had another warm up, or released more players to play against the Lions pre 1st test then the 1st test could have been different, the longer that game went on.......
Had they gone into the 3rd test level I think 2 things are certain. Aus would have been even more fired up - the chance to win a series when the had been so written off - bigger incentive than saving face a bit IMHO, much bigger. And Farrell would not have freshened up. He would have doubled down exactly as he did. Sure he might just have picked VDF - could he have changed the game? not that game it needed bruisers not cruisers, Aussie pack were physically dominant. He might even have stuck with Lowe as he did with Aki

But it is all hindsight. Farrell got his initial squad wrong, his fly in replacements half wrong, his staring teams wrong, his bench selections wrong and his in game substitutions at times bizarre

The media think he walks on water

Yep. It was foolish - not something you can usually accuse Schmidt of - to send most of the Aussies into the tests completely undercooked when the Lions had been warming up for a fortnight. The difference between test 1 and 3 was night and day and, as awesome as they were, that wasn't all down to Tupou, Skelton and Valentini being available.

Would have much preferred a decider than this 2-1 'yeah ok we'll take it' outcome

Danno wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 10:31 pm Yep. It was foolish - not something you can usually accuse Schmidt of - to send most of the Aussies into the tests completely undercooked when the Lions had been warming up for a fortnight. The difference between test 1 and 3 was night and day and, as awesome as they were, that wasn't all down to Tupou, Skelton and Valentini being available.

Would have much preferred a decider than this 2-1 'yeah ok we'll take it' outcome

Mind, people are saying Australia should've had more gametime, but the one warmup match they did have cost them their fly-half to injury and left them with a debutant at 10. Australia have a very talented, but shallow talent pool - for every "Australia should've had more game time," there's an equal "Why did he play meaningless games and get his best players injured!" argument in a parallel universe.

Puja

The test team should have been Scotland, but with Itoje and Sheahan on the bench.

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 11:44 pm

Danno wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 10:31 pm Yep. It was foolish - not something you can usually accuse Schmidt of - to send most of the Aussies into the tests completely undercooked when the Lions had been warming up for a fortnight. The difference between test 1 and 3 was night and day and, as awesome as they were, that wasn't all down to Tupou, Skelton and Valentini being available.

Would have much preferred a decider than this 2-1 'yeah ok we'll take it' outcome

Mind, people are saying Australia should've had more gametime, but the one warmup match they did have cost them their fly-half to injury and left them with a debutant at 10. Australia have a very talented, but shallow talent pool - for every "Australia should've had more game time," there's an equal "Why did he play meaningless games and get his best players injured!" argument in a parallel universe.

Puja

That's fair. Difficult balance to strike I guess but I do think Schmidt went a touch too far in keeping his players in cotton wool and the training camp. And for everyone lost to injury you'd get some minutes into your backup which is at least a long term benefit

Lions would have been more switched on in third test if it were a decider too mind. the whole weather thisng was a perfect storm for the. litterally

Tuco Ramirez wrote: ↑Wed Aug 06, 2025 10:02 am .. the whole weather thing was a perfect storm for the. litterally

The looney 1-in -10 thousand bomb was just the leveller they needed for things to descend into a Schmidt-show that BIL were not mentally/physically ready for, for sure.
I'd still have backed AF's select to win in normal conditions, but credit to him he didn't look for excuses - just admitted BIL were outplayed.

On the HIA thing, Smart Mouthguard triggers will be causing chaos in some fixtures it seems, but can't fault the player safety progress/use of tech.

Galfon wrote: ↑Wed Aug 06, 2025 3:47 pm

Tuco Ramirez wrote: ↑Wed Aug 06, 2025 10:02 am .. the whole weather thing was a perfect storm for the. litterally

Smart Mouthguard

That wasn't his fault

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 11:44 pm

Danno wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 10:31 pm Yep. It was foolish - not something you can usually accuse Schmidt of - to send most of the Aussies into the tests completely undercooked when the Lions had been warming up for a fortnight. The difference between test 1 and 3 was night and day and, as awesome as they were, that wasn't all down to Tupou, Skelton and Valentini being available.

Would have much preferred a decider than this 2-1 'yeah ok we'll take it' outcome

Mind, people are saying Australia should've had more gametime, but the one warmup match they did have cost them their fly-half to injury and left them with a debutant at 10. Australia have a very talented, but shallow talent pool - for every "Australia should've had more game time," there's an equal "Why did he play meaningless games and get his best players injured!" argument in a parallel universe.

Puja

there is always a risk to playing a match. The balance between an injury or a match fit, test match read team was wrong. And The Lions were much sharper first half especially of first test, having lost Daly and Ringrose
Same for both teams. Aus had alternatives at 10, Smchidt went with who thought was the form player. So unlike Farrell

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 11:52 pm The test team should have been Scotland, but with Itoje and Sheahan on the bench.

Finally someone agrees with the test team I picked before the squad was announced

Tuco Ramirez wrote: ↑Mon Aug 04, 2025 12:44 pm I thought it last week and Saturday underlined it. I think Farrell got it wrong. I do not buy into the Aussie bollocks that they would have won the series but for the pen decision in the 2nd test as the Lions would have come out differently were it a series decider. That said tho, given the series was wrapped up., he should have made more changes and brought in hungrier players for third test to freshen things up. We will never know of course but they may have made the difference. there is not a massive difference in ability within the squad and i feel that this could have tipped it into Lions favour. Picking guys with a point to prove. We will never know....

There's a tension between refreshing the team and sacrificing hard won coherence. Too many changes and you may as well have not had the tour because you'll be running a team which hasn't played together. Before the 3rd test I tried to select such a team and it's not easy though I leaned more towards the new than Farrell. I think with injuries things became harder than they might have been but Farrell's selection wan't mad. I think the reality is that most of the players were running on vapours. Hard to know whether people could go to the well one more time.

Also in hindsight, it turns out that Australia aren't the awful team some people imagined. But I don't expect it to change anyone's minds. Some people just enjoy doomerism.