Will the power game be good enough against a much improved Australia?

by BigTrevsbigmac Mon 06 May 2013, 08:19

First topic message reminder :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/britishandirishlionsrugby/10038919/British-and-Irish-Lions-2013-questions-will-be-asked-if-Wales-plus-others-fail-on-summer-tour-to-Australia.html

I don't believe the B & I Lions can match the Aussies for skill but will the inevitable power game be sufficient to beat them?

I don't believe Gats has even given the squad a chance of an alternative game plan with his picks & I agree with BMs comments. Has Gats boxed himself into a corner with the choice of captain & lack of playmakers?

by Hound of Harrow Wed 08 May 2013, 01:11

k_c - If people think that's what the Lions need, then Gats has omitted the best scrum half for quick ball*. Not to mention knowing when a tap and go is on.

My take is that the game plan will be to try for set piece dominance, and a mobile pack that will force Aus to tackle (but they are used to that) and we'll take the penalties.

For my money, Aus have had the best organised defence of any team over the last 15 years. The teams that beat them are the ones that can change the point of attack quickly, and often.

The so called power game might achieve some leverage. But unless we can get the ball away from the breakdown quickly and out to the centres and wings equally quickly, a power game won't be enough.

* Danny Care would be my choice to unhinge Australia defensively.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed 08 May 2013, 09:02

I haven't read back, but has anyone taken issue with the assumption made in the title of this thread?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Wallabies haven't played a Test match for a while. Why is it a given that they will be 'much improved'? The Australian franchises may be playing well, but we've seen up here that club / provincial success doesn't guarantee international success.

by **Biltong** Wed 08 May 2013, 09:11

Their players are showing great form in the Super XV mate, and not only a few, the competition is hotting up for positions, most positions you have a number of players putting their hands up, and most importantly, the injuries are gone.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 08 May 2013, 09:12

Good point luckless but on the injury front they are much improved at the moment and it seems a safe assumption that will have an effect on performance much like we can assume with the squad Gatland has picked that power will be a likely gameplan.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 08 May 2013, 09:14

Snap!

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed 08 May 2013, 09:14

All I'm saying is that just because the Australian sides are playing well in the Super XV, it doesn't necessarily follow that the Wallabies will be great.

It's not a given that they'll be 'much improved'. The first Test will be their first Test match in how many months?

by **Biltong** Wed 08 May 2013, 09:16

I get you drift, the first test they are likely to be rusty, so the Lions can strike in the first test, if you look at the 2001 test series, the first test went something like this.

Lions run the Wallabies ragged in the first half, scored 4 well executed tries, and then the Wallabies came back after 40 but was too far behind.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 08 May 2013, 09:25

The same can be said of the lions though. Club form or warm up form won't count for much. 6 n form will be the yardstick and good luck interpreting what that means.

The key is the injury count and the player pool deans can pick from. Last year was the worst injury count I have ever seen for any team in test rugby. The stars that were standing were players in franchises that were not performing and fatigue played a part as they were asked to do too much so super form is relevant. Players have confidence as all the wallabies have enjoyed significant victories. Compare that to the siege mentality last year with their players focusing on defence rather than attack. Make no mistake I fully expect the wallaby back line to express themselves rather than hold the line. Confidence should not be underestimated.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed 08 May 2013, 09:25

I wonder whether the Lions thought the series was won after the first Test in 2001. They wouldn't have said as much, but they seemed to find it so easy to break the Aussie defensive line in that match.

If we have as closely-fought a series as that, then it'll be great - for the neutral!

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed 08 May 2013, 09:27

Kia, the Lions' defence will have to be exceptional to contain the Wallabies' backs - and it could be argued that the best defence coach we have will be watching the series on telly at home.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 08 May 2013, 09:31

The first match is definitely the key match. Personally I think it's more likely for the Lions to do well in the second match and ironically if the wallabies win well in the first. Look at the confidence Oz had in the RWC with their 3 n win and how they came unstuck. I just get the idea that there is hunger in super rugby and Oz will be focused for the first match and will be mindful of 2001,

Certainly from a neutral perspective the last game has to be the decider for this series to have true appeal.

by thebluesmancometh Wed 08 May 2013, 10:47

Ive mentioned that Aus are not improved above, they still have injury issues (Pocock being huge) and issues with player divide and attitudes, the likes of Beale and Cooper are not going to just fit into a squad like nothing has happened over the last 12 - 18 months!!!

And as I said the lions backline has picked itself on merit, not on size at all, if the taller players in that backline weren't there it wouldnt be a less powerfull backline, it would be a lesser backline!!

Not sure who mentioned Care, but that would be Sextons worst nightmare, no forward platform and he's hit with quick ball over and over with an unarranged backline outside him and the likes of Gill and Hooper in his face. Care is a speed demon, but speed is only good in the right situations, you cant keep hitting the 10 and unready forwrds over and over, you need a platform, you need some go forward ball, you need your forwards to know the gameplan and know where the ball is going and when, a headless chicken scenario at 9 would almost certainly hand Aus turnover tries!!

Again all the talk is of Phillips being slow and the issue picard

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 08 May 2013, 12:03

It doesn't matter who the Lions pick blues man they would still be not as slick as the Aussies. No one in rugby is. Nz also offer more power in their back line but no one calls them slow. For someone who objects to the slow issue you do like banging on about it yourself!

And it's laughable to suggest the Aussies still have injury issues. They have AN injury. You could have made a decent test side with the injured players and they'd have beaten most test teams.

The Lions can't compete if the game opens up. Gatland knows this and I agree with you that the best backs are in the squad. But they're playing a different game to Oz or at least want to. There's no shame in admitting that. It's common sense!

by thebluesmancometh Wed 08 May 2013, 12:11

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:It doesn't matter who the Lions pick blues man they would still be not as slick as the Aussies. No one in rugby is. Nz also offer more power in their back line but no one calls them slow. For someone who objects to the slow issue you do like banging on about it yourself!

And it's laughable to suggest the Aussies still have injury issues. They have AN injury. You could have made a decent test side with the injured players and they'd have beaten most test teams.

The Lions can't compete if the game opens up. Gatland knows this and I agree with you that the best backs are in the squad. But they're playing a different game to Oz or at least want to. There's no shame in admitting that. It's common sense!

pocock was single handedly the most effective back rower on the planet of the last year or so... thats a huge loss!

And when you look at the Aus potential team at present there is an unbalanced mixture of inexperience and ageing players, IMHO Moore, Robinson, and Alexander are on the cusp of being over the hill and aren't performing that well really, there are a few backs who are performaing really well but aren't experienced, Higginbotham is being talked about at 8, but has never convinced me there, Hooper and Gill could both play together, Smith might be involved, Beale and Cooper are still big issues to deal with etc... I am not saying Aus will be easy to beat but we should be looking at a 3 - 0 with the options we have.

And i'm not banging on about the slow issue at 9, just responding to those who are, the slow issue is Gatlands gameplan, not the execution.

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed 08 May 2013, 12:19

thebluesmancometh wrote:I am not saying Aus will be easy to beat but we should be looking at a 3 - 0 with the options we have.

That's quite a statement, Bluesman.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 08 May 2013, 12:42

That's fantasy is what it is. You talk about untried Oz combinations but what about the Lions? A good test side should always be able to overcome a composite side no matter how good the players are.

It's a formidable squad and there is great expectation for the Lions to perform but I'll happily take up any bet that the lions won't win 3 0. I can respect your support and belief for the team and it is if course feasible but I don't see it happening.

by thebluesmancometh Wed 08 May 2013, 12:54

Why not?

I beleive...

by Luckless Pedestrian Wed 08 May 2013, 12:59

It's possible, Bluesman, but the way you worded it made it look like it was probable. I wouldn't go that far.

by Icu Wed 08 May 2013, 13:09

thebluesmancometh wrote:Ive mentioned that Aus are not improved above, they still have injury issues (Pocock being huge) and issues with player divide and attitudes, the likes of Beale and Cooper are not going to just fit into a squad like nothing has happened over the last 12 - 18 months!!!

Have to disagree. Rugby hasn't looked healthier here for a few years at least.The Brumbies and Reds are near the top the SXV table and the Waratahs and the Force are playing good, if inconsistent rugby - the Force will almost be at full strength when they play the Lions and I wouldn't be surprised to see an upset win by them in that game (the Reds and Crusaders are among their scalps this season). Not saying it will happen but it wouldn't be a surprise. Only 1 injury issue and IMO Hooper was just as effective as Pocock on the EOYT. He's a loss but 7 is a position where we have plenty of strength. There are several players putting their hands up for each position and some quality young players coming through. I think talk of player divide is very wishful thinking. QC's spat was with RD not the other players. From the interviews i've seen all seems to be forgiven. Coopers attitude has changed this year - he is significantly more mature as a person and a player.

by thebluesmancometh Wed 08 May 2013, 15:48

Icu wrote:
thebluesmancometh wrote:Ive mentioned that Aus are not improved above, they still have injury issues (Pocock being huge) and issues with player divide and attitudes, the likes of Beale and Cooper are not going to just fit into a squad like nothing has happened over the last 12 - 18 months!!!

Have to disagree. Rugby hasn't looked healthier here for a few years at least.The Brumbies and Reds are near the top the SXV table and the Waratahs and the Force are playing good, if inconsistent rugby - the Force will almost be at full strength when they play the Lions and I wouldn't be surprised to see an upset win by them in that game (the Reds and Crusaders are among their scalps this season). Not saying it will happen but it wouldn't be a surprise. Only 1 injury issue and IMO Hooper was just as effective as Pocock on the EOYT. He's a loss but 7 is a position where we have plenty of strength. There are several players putting their hands up for each position and some quality young players coming through. I think talk of player divide is very wishful thinking. QC's spat was with RD not the other players. From the interviews i've seen all seems to be forgiven. Coopers attitude has changed this year - he is significantly more mature as a person and a player.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 08 May 2013, 16:15

AN injury is not injury issues. I know you rate Pocock because of the damage he CAN do but work out a good plan to nullify him and take that area away from his game and he doesn't offer much else. I'm afraid to make the comparison but think of him as as an Aussie Phillips on terms of what he can and can't bring to the cause. He can win you matches but he's far from the complete player. I don't think Australia loses as much as you believe.

by thebluesmancometh Wed 08 May 2013, 18:04

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:AN injury is not injury issues. I know you rate Pocock because of the damage he CAN do but work out a good plan to nullify him and take that area away from his game and he doesn't offer much else. I'm afraid to make the comparison but think of him as as an Aussie Phillips on terms of what he can and can't bring to the cause. He can win you matches but he's far from the complete player. I don't think Australia loses as much as you believe.

what they lose is the most effective man at the breakdown on the planet bar none, what they lose is a captain option, what they lose is the pack leader, and a very experienced player. he may well get replaced with Smith too Yahoo

the injury is a big one, but that is just one reason of many I wouldn't put my hand on heart and say Aus have improved, partly because there is no evidence they have... AT ALL!!! Super form isn't comparible, and all the stuff regarding Cooper and RD making up is conjecture, nothing more. They have as many problems as thay had this time last year, and the squad looks much more uneven than last year too, with a certain few on the crest of the hill, and others very inexperienced/have been out of int rugby for a while, in differing positions etc...

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 08 May 2013, 19:21

So too is it conjecture they have issues. The big thing Australia have improved on is their injury count. 1 instead of twelfty is a marked improvement. Of course we can't compare test form but at least they have many more key players to call upon. Of course that is likely to lead to an improved performance. If you didn't have carter white lock woodcock mealamu McCaw dagg savea and quite a few others and then had all of those players back except McCaw you'd be confident of improving your performance. Surely that's not hard to see?!

by thebluesmancometh Wed 08 May 2013, 20:06

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:So too is it conjecture they have issues. The big thing Australia have improved on is their injury count. 1 instead of twelfty is a marked improvement. Of course we can't compare test form but at least they have many more key players to call upon. Of course that is likely to lead to an improved performance. If you didn't have carter white lock woodcock mealamu McCaw dagg savea and quite a few others and then had all of those players back except McCaw you'd be confident of improving your performance. Surely that's not hard to see?!

I see your point, but a lot of those injuries were fringe and squad men, the likes of JOC, and Cooper were the obvious misses from the summer tests last year, majority of the team that beat Wales by a point were starters, lets not get sucked into the 20 injuries that hampered australia, that is not true of starting team players...

Kurtley Beale (Melbourne Rebels); Adam Ashley-Cooper (NSW), Rob Horne (NSW), Pat McCabe (ACT), Digby Ioane (Queensland); Berrick Barnes (NSW), Will Genia (Queensland); Benn Robinson (NSW), Tatafu Polota-Nau (NSW), Sekope Kepu (NSW), Sitaleki Timani (NSW), Nathan Sharpe (Western Force), Scott Higginbotham (Queensland), David Pocock (Western Force, capt), Wycliff Palu (NSW).

Australia will look pretty similar to that come test time son't you think, except Pocock and Sharpe (Aus stand out players that tour) will not be there.

by kiakahaaotearoa Wed 08 May 2013, 20:31

That's not how the year ended or at least in the middle of the year. No genia, horwill, slipper, pocock, Palu, JOC and I'm probably missing out more. Ioane I think as well. There were so many. Wales had plenty of injuries this year but not as many as Australia.

by thebluesmancometh Wed 08 May 2013, 20:50

Going into the summer tests Wales were missing 4/5 first team players, probably similar to Aus, Genia got injured in the summer tests. Slipper and Palu played 4 times against Wales, Pocock played every test vV Wales, so Genia, Horwill and JOc are the huge injury list you speak of.

And you mention that Wales injuries weren't as bad as Australias, they were as bad, Wales were missing 4 front rowers, 2 locks, 3 blindside options, an openside, and an 8, not to mention North, plus Roberts and Preistland were rushed back into the squad after knocks the weeks previous after losing Beck to injury.

Australia had a full strength front row (with full bench options) were missing a lock, and had a full choice back row. They were missing Genia to injury, Mccabe, JOC and Ioane.

So lets get some perspective, when a team has a bench TH prop in the shape of an 19 yr old, no locks, and players with 1 cap each, you are severely injury hit!

I love the way noone remembers the Wales injuries though, like having to play a 4th choice debut TH in 3 AI games until he is lost to injury, like a string of injuries at 6

by thebluesmancometh Wed 08 May 2013, 20:55

I was talking about the December test above by the way, the last time they met.

Wales injury list hasn't been publicised massively due to the losses they incurred, bare in mind that they were missing not just key players in the AI's, but their back ups, and their back ups!!!

So playing teams with uncapped TH props, locks, flankers, and centres and back 3 players.

by thebluesmancometh Wed 08 May 2013, 21:01

Oh and I'm wrong, Ioane cam off the bench to play more than 30 minutes too!!!

by Hound of Harrow Wed 08 May 2013, 21:56

blues - it was me who mentioned Care. It was in the context of the Lions being able to change the point of attack and keep them guessing; the way I believe we can break down Aussie's superb defence.

One guy can't do that on their own (and it's a moot point as Care has not been picked). But with rapid support. from Tipuric and Warburton, I think we could run Aussie around a bit with Care at 9

Phillips has shown he can do a similar job to be fair. What's wrong with quick ball? It's up to the coaches and players to ensure that the team can align properly for any given situation.

Quick ball to set up another forward to create the next phase is equally important. Care has consistently done that this season too.

As I said, it's a moot point.

by thebluesmancometh Wed 08 May 2013, 22:03

Hound of Harrow wrote:blues - it was me who mentioned Care. It was in the context of the Lions being able to change the point of attack and keep them guessing; the way I believe we can break down Aussie's superb defence.

One guy can't do that on their own (and it's a moot point as Care has not been picked). But with rapid support. from Tipuric and Warburton, I think we could run Aussie around a bit with Care at 9

Phillips has shown he can do a similar job to be fair. What's wrong with quick ball? It's up to the coaches and players to ensure that the team can align properly for any given situation.

Quick ball to set up another forward to create the next phase is equally important. Care has consistently done that this season too.

As I said, it's a moot point.

Don't get me wrong, I like Care, and I probably wouldve taken him over Murray, but quick ball is massively overrated, if the forwards aren't ready for it, and it gets to them early isolated it'a turnover, if a tap is too quick and noone supports it's a turnover, and if the 10 gets the ball constantly quick the attack won't be set and it'll create chaos, Gatland is all about precision, and attacking low risk, quick ball is only any good when a strike or score play is on out wide.

We hear the term quick ball bandied around like it's the only job of a 9, but in reality it is a very small element of a good 9's job.

by TJ1 Wed 08 May 2013, 22:04

thebluesmancometh wrote:
pocock was single handedly the most effective back rower on the planet of the last year or so... thats a huge loss!

.

Apart from when he was Schooled by Rennie.

by TJ1 Wed 08 May 2013, 22:06

Quick ball is the be all and end all - the team that gets and uses quick ball wins. it allows you to attack before the defence is set. Assuming of course the rest of your team are expecting it. the quicker you get the ball moving the greater the advantage to the attacking team .

by king_carlos Wed 08 May 2013, 23:57

It could depend a lot on how the two coaches view their teams when you think about it. Dean's and Gatland have both showed a preference for a conservative game plan at times. Dean's has also shown a liking for sticking with solid players who are performing such as McCabe and Horne. If all of their exceptional core of backs are on form and fit then I can't see them being ignored though - they have also played enough rugby together to fit back in playing around each other.

1.Robinson
2.Moore
3.Slipper
4.Simmons
5.Horwill
6.Gill/Smith
7.Hooper
8.Palu

9.Genia
10.Cooper

11.Ioane
12.O'Connor
13.Ashley-Cooper
14.Mitchell/Mogg/Folau
15.Beale

Whilst that pack wouldn't be destructive at scrum-time it wouldn't be as liable as many think and with a good line-out, excellent ground work to get quick ball and Hooper/Gill providing turnovers for THAT backline I can't see a power game from a side such as below winning the series.

1.Healy 2.Hibbard 3.Jones 4.AWJ 5.Gray 6.Lydiate 7.Warburton 8.Faletau
9.Phillips 10.Sexton 11.North 12.Roberts 13.Tuilagi 14.Cuthbert 15.Halfpenny
16.Youngs 17.Jenkins 18.Cole 19.POC 20.O'Brien 21.Youngs 22.Farrell 23.Hogg

I don't think it's too unlikely given Gatlands tactics and selection tendencies to see a side such as the one above and I simply think Aus will lick their lips, absorb the big runners in attack, wait for mistakes and then capitalise on them with those backs.

by dragonbreath Thu 09 May 2013, 00:35

TJ wrote:Quick ball is the be all and end all - the team that gets and uses quick ball wins. it allows you to attack before the defence is set. Assuming of course the rest of your team are expecting it. the quicker you get the ball moving the greater the advantage to the attacking team .

Does it. At last I understand, why has nobody explained this to me before.

by Icu Thu 09 May 2013, 00:46

thebluesmancometh wrote:
kiakahaaotearoa wrote:So too is it conjecture they have issues. The big thing Australia have improved on is their injury count. 1 instead of twelfty is a marked improvement. Of course we can't compare test form but at least they have many more key players to call upon. Of course that is likely to lead to an improved performance. If you didn't have carter white lock woodcock mealamu McCaw dagg savea and quite a few others and then had all of those players back except McCaw you'd be confident of improving your performance. Surely that's not hard to see?!

I see your point, but a lot of those injuries were fringe and squad men, the likes of JOC, and Cooper were the obvious misses from the summer tests last year, majority of the team that beat Wales by a point were starters, lets not get sucked into the 20 injuries that hampered australia, that is not true of starting team players...

Kurtley Beale (Melbourne Rebels); Adam Ashley-Cooper (NSW), Rob Horne (NSW), Pat McCabe (ACT), Digby Ioane (Queensland); Berrick Barnes (NSW), Will Genia (Queensland); Benn Robinson (NSW), Tatafu Polota-Nau (NSW), Sekope Kepu (NSW), Sitaleki Timani (NSW), Nathan Sharpe (Western Force), Scott Higginbotham (Queensland), David Pocock (Western Force, capt), Wycliff Palu (NSW).

Australia will look pretty similar to that come test time son't you think, except Pocock and Sharpe (Aus stand out players that tour) will not be there.

Have to disagree with that. The Wallaby team won't look anything like that. Horne, McCabe (who can't even make the Brumbies run-on side), Barnes TPN, Kepu, Timani, Sharpe (retired), Higgers and possibly Kurtley won't make the starting side. Perhaps Higgers but i will be very surprised to see any of the others. In some cases, like Horne,Kepu, Sharp and Barnes, they were 3rd choice at best. Players like CL, Toomua etc would have been picked ahead of these guys were they not injured. Sharpie had to delay his retirement to fill the gaps. The front 5 the Lions will face could be completely different ( Robinson, Moore, Palmer, Horwill, MMM/Simmons - my picks) and the backline you name will most likely only contain Genia, AAC, Ioane and possibly KB. If you think the Wallabies will not be different (or improved) from last seasons pretty average performances you may be in for a shock. The team named above was, by general consensus, one of the most average sides fielded by Australia for a long time.

by dragonbreath Thu 09 May 2013, 00:56

Icu wrote:
thebluesmancometh wrote:
kiakahaaotearoa wrote:So too is it conjecture they have issues. The big thing Australia have improved on is their injury count. 1 instead of twelfty is a marked improvement. Of course we can't compare test form but at least they have many more key players to call upon. Of course that is likely to lead to an improved performance. If you didn't have carter white lock woodcock mealamu McCaw dagg savea and quite a few others and then had all of those players back except McCaw you'd be confident of improving your performance. Surely that's not hard to see?!

I see your point, but a lot of those injuries were fringe and squad men, the likes of JOC, and Cooper were the obvious misses from the summer tests last year, majority of the team that beat Wales by a point were starters, lets not get sucked into the 20 injuries that hampered australia, that is not true of starting team players...

Kurtley Beale (Melbourne Rebels); Adam Ashley-Cooper (NSW), Rob Horne (NSW), Pat McCabe (ACT), Digby Ioane (Queensland); Berrick Barnes (NSW), Will Genia (Queensland); Benn Robinson (NSW), Tatafu Polota-Nau (NSW), Sekope Kepu (NSW), Sitaleki Timani (NSW), Nathan Sharpe (Western Force), Scott Higginbotham (Queensland), David Pocock (Western Force, capt), Wycliff Palu (NSW).

Australia will look pretty similar to that come test time son't you think, except Pocock and Sharpe (Aus stand out players that tour) will not be there.

Have to disagree with that. The Wallaby team won't look anything like that. Horne, McCabe (who can't even make the Brumbies run-on side), Barnes TPN, Kepu, Timani, Sharpe (retired), Higgers and possibly Kurtley won't make the starting side. Perhaps Higgers but i will be very surprised to see any of the others. In some cases, like Horne,Kepu, Sharp and Barnes, they were 3rd choice at best. Players like CL, Toomua etc would have been picked ahead of these guys were they not injured. Sharpie had to delay his retirement to fill the gaps. The front 5 the Lions will face could be completely different ( Robinson, Moore, Palmer, Horwill, MMM/Simmons - my picks) and the backline you name will most likely only contain Genia, AAC, Ioane and possibly KB. If you think the Wallabies will not be different (or improved) from last seasons pretty average performances you may be in for a shock. The team named above was, by general consensus, one of the most average sides fielded by Australia for a long time.

Hate to bust bubbles and all that but if that is the best front 5 available Oh dear. You have named 4 of the backs so who are the others I do love an inexperienced league convert come test time. It will be close overall but that front 5 will be smashed, maybe not at first but by the end of the series they will be ruined and in Moore's case retired

by Icu Thu 09 May 2013, 01:18

No problem. No bubble burst here. We're quite used to supporters from the NH telling all and sundry they are going to come down and "smash" us. In recent times it is only the Welsh who say that however. The English do occasionally but they generally back-up their statements on the field and the Scots and Irish don't say anything, they just do the job. Statements like are taken with a grain of salt if not downright amusement. I gather you haven't been watching any SXV lately. Those front 5, Palmer aside, take on the AB and Bok packs regularly who are on par if not better than the Lions. It's wishful thinking on your part to think they will be "smashed". I hope the Lions and their coaches are as over -confident as you.

Other backs? Take your pick from Cooper, JOC, CL, Cummins, Tapuai, Tomane, Mogg, Toomua and of course Folau. Folau may a league convert but hardly inexperienced when it comes to big games. NRL at 17, youngest ever Kangaroo plus State of origin games many played in front of 60k+ crowds. He has the temperament no doubt not to mention freakish skill. Wasn't Jason Robinson a pretty inexperienced league convert as well in 2001? He seemed to do alright last time the Lions played here.

by The Saint Thu 09 May 2013, 01:47

Icu wrote:

Have to disagree with that. The Wallaby team won't look anything like that. Horne, McCabe (who can't even make the Brumbies run-on side), Barnes TPN, Kepu, Timani, Sharpe (retired), Higgers and possibly Kurtley won't make the starting side. Perhaps Higgers but i will be very surprised to see any of the others. In some cases, like Horne,Kepu, Sharp and Barnes, they were 3rd choice at best. Players like CL, Toomua etc would have been picked ahead of these guys were they not injured. Sharpie had to delay his retirement to fill the gaps. The front 5 the Lions will face could be completely different ( Robinson, Moore, Palmer, Horwill, MMM/Simmons - my picks) and the backline you name will most likely only contain Genia, AAC, Ioane and possibly KB. If you think the Wallabies will not be different (or improved) from last seasons pretty average performances you may be in for a shock. The team named above was, by general consensus, one of the most average sides fielded by Australia for a long time.

Where is Berrick Barnes these days, is he injured? While he does less of the flashy stuff in contrast to JOC and Cooper I think he is a lot less flaky and very composed. He can hit above his weight too, I've seen him get straight back up after hits from some of the bigger units. I always rated him pretty highly and thought he would be best suited to take on the Lions.

by Icu Thu 09 May 2013, 02:53

Barnes has been injured for most of the season. He's ready to come back and may play off the bench against The Stormers this weekend. I agree he cops a lot of flak when perhaps he shouldn't. I am guilty of this. He has performed well when asked and if he regains match fitness would be an ideal on the bench as he can cover 10, 12, and 15. He seems to step it up in Test matches as opposed to when playing SXV.

by TJ1 Thu 09 May 2013, 04:58

dragonbreath wrote:
TJ wrote:Quick ball is the be all and end all - the team that gets and uses quick ball wins. it allows you to attack before the defence is set. Assuming of course the rest of your team are expecting it. the quicker you get the ball moving the greater the advantage to the attacking team .

Does it. At last I understand, why has nobody explained this to me before.

I don't know why you don't understand this. Its a very basic part of rugby and one thing all top teams have in common - get the ball from the breakdown quickly

Asked why the 2008 Grand Slam hero was pedestrian getting the ball away from the breakdown, the former Wales and Australia skills coach replied: “I wish I knew why, to be honest, mate.

“If you think that’s tactical you ought to go to my coaches’ meeting!”

And Johnson rapped: “There’s this thing in the modern game where they (No 9s) get reasonably quick ball and they turn it into slow ball.

“I just don’t understand it and it’s a bugbear of mine so I’m in complete agreement on that one.”

Phillips was indecisive for Wales in New Zealand during the summer with Warren Gatland’s men being transformed as an attacking force after the sharper Richie Rees replaced him in the second Test.

And last weekend Phillips was again on a go-slow, turning fast ball into slow at the base of rucks for the Ospreys at the Scarlets in the Magners League, looking around and weighing up his options before either passing or box-kicking.

The delay meant the Scarlets defence often had time to reorganise and close down star-studded Ospreys’ attacking wizards like Shane Williams, Tommy Bowe, Lee Byrne and James Hook.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/scott-johnson-blasts-go-slow-mike-1890203

by BigTrevsbigmac Thu 09 May 2013, 05:49

Icu wrote:
thebluesmancometh wrote:
kiakahaaotearoa wrote:So too is it conjecture they have issues. The big thing Australia have improved on is their injury count. 1 instead of twelfty is a marked improvement. Of course we can't compare test form but at least they have many more key players to call upon. Of course that is likely to lead to an improved performance. If you didn't have carter white lock woodcock mealamu McCaw dagg savea and quite a few others and then had all of those players back except McCaw you'd be confident of improving your performance. Surely that's not hard to see?!

I see your point, but a lot of those injuries were fringe and squad men, the likes of JOC, and Cooper were the obvious misses from the summer tests last year, majority of the team that beat Wales by a point were starters, lets not get sucked into the 20 injuries that hampered australia, that is not true of starting team players...

Kurtley Beale (Melbourne Rebels); Adam Ashley-Cooper (NSW), Rob Horne (NSW), Pat McCabe (ACT), Digby Ioane (Queensland); Berrick Barnes (NSW), Will Genia (Queensland); Benn Robinson (NSW), Tatafu Polota-Nau (NSW), Sekope Kepu (NSW), Sitaleki Timani (NSW), Nathan Sharpe (Western Force), Scott Higginbotham (Queensland), David Pocock (Western Force, capt), Wycliff Palu (NSW).

Australia will look pretty similar to that come test time son't you think, except Pocock and Sharpe (Aus stand out players that tour) will not be there.

Have to disagree with that. The Wallaby team won't look anything like that. Horne, McCabe (who can't even make the Brumbies run-on side), Barnes TPN, Kepu, Timani, Sharpe (retired), Higgers and possibly Kurtley won't make the starting side. Perhaps Higgers but i will be very surprised to see any of the others. In some cases, like Horne,Kepu, Sharp and Barnes, they were 3rd choice at best. Players like CL, Toomua etc would have been picked ahead of these guys were they not injured. Sharpie had to delay his retirement to fill the gaps. The front 5 the Lions will face could be completely different ( Robinson, Moore, Palmer, Horwill, MMM/Simmons - my picks) and the backline you name will most likely only contain Genia, AAC, Ioane and possibly KB. If you think the Wallabies will not be different (or improved) from last seasons pretty average performances you may be in for a shock. The team named above was, by general consensus, one of the most average sides fielded by Australia for a long time.

+1 I'm confident as a Lions supporter that we will have our work cut out against what will be a formidable & stronger looking Australia compared to last year. Many players look bang in form & for the sake of the Series I hope not too many injuries on either side. thumbsup

by thebluesmancometh Thu 09 May 2013, 08:05

TJ wrote:
dragonbreath wrote:
TJ wrote:Quick ball is the be all and end all - the team that gets and uses quick ball wins. it allows you to attack before the defence is set. Assuming of course the rest of your team are expecting it. the quicker you get the ball moving the greater the advantage to the attacking team .

Does it. At last I understand, why has nobody explained this to me before.
I don't know why you don't understand this. Its a very basic part of rugby and one thing all top teams have in common - get the ball from the breakdown quickly

Asked why the 2008 Grand Slam hero was pedestrian getting the ball away from the breakdown, the former Wales and Australia skills coach replied: “I wish I knew why, to be honest, mate.

“If you think that’s tactical you ought to go to my coaches’ meeting!”

And Johnson rapped: “There’s this thing in the modern game where they (No 9s) get reasonably quick ball and they turn it into slow ball.

“I just don’t understand it and it’s a bugbear of mine so I’m in complete agreement on that one.”

Phillips was indecisive for Wales in New Zealand during the summer with Warren Gatland’s men being transformed as an attacking force after the sharper Richie Rees replaced him in the second Test.

And last weekend Phillips was again on a go-slow, turning fast ball into slow at the base of rucks for the Ospreys at the Scarlets in the Magners League, looking around and weighing up his options before either passing or box-kicking.

The delay meant the Scarlets defence often had time to reorganise and close down star-studded Ospreys’ attacking wizards like Shane Williams, Tommy Bowe, Lee Byrne and James Hook.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/scott-johnson-blasts-go-slow-mike-1890203

I rest my case! There is little point arguing with someone who believes quick ball is the be all and end asll of rugby, I mean it's not like a structured low risk attack could help in playing 4 6N games without conceding a try and regaining the championship crown from last years grand slam.

Tell me how well exactly the speed demon went with England this year, and how Farell capitolised on all this fast ball England got, I mean their game was based around power and the pack went very well till the final game, they were very strong at the breakdown this year. So clearly Care supplied England with quick ball constantly and their backline ran in tries from everywhere? Laugh

As I said on another thread, show me the proof of Phillips inability to be quick, and I will gladly concede the argument he is too slow for international rugby.

by TJ1 Thu 09 May 2013, 09:01

“I just think he’s an outstanding player with a big heart,” said former No.10 genius Bennett.

“Yes, he has limitations. If you look at Dwayne Peel he has a quicker service and perhaps a bit sharper. But Mike’s the type of player others follow.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/lions-legend-phil-bennett-backs-3002174

a great who believes Phillips is slow but who believes his other abiulities outweigh this

another explayer

"He [Phillips] is an outstanding player, he plays like three men, I'm just wondering if the way the game is evolving that maybe his physical presence - he is a big guy with a very slow service - doesn't quite suit the style of play in the modern game any more.

"If a 16-and-a-half stone, 6ft 4in scrum-half was in vogue in the modern game I'm sure New Zealand, South Africa and Australia would have one by now.

"But they haven't, they've got much smaller versions who are quicker and can move in tight spaces in the face of some very well-organised defences."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/13073051

IU'll have a look for some youtube stuff to show you

by thebluesmancometh Thu 09 May 2013, 09:10

TJ wrote:
“I just think he’s an outstanding player with a big heart,” said former No.10 genius Bennett.

“Yes, he has limitations. If you look at Dwayne Peel he has a quicker service and perhaps a bit sharper. But Mike’s the type of player others follow.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/lions-legend-phil-bennett-backs-3002174

a great who believes Phillips is slow but who believes his other abiulities outweigh this

another explayer
"He [Phillips] is an outstanding player, he plays like three men, I'm just wondering if the way the game is evolving that maybe his physical presence - he is a big guy with a very slow service - doesn't quite suit the style of play in the modern game any more.

"If a 16-and-a-half stone, 6ft 4in scrum-half was in vogue in the modern game I'm sure New Zealand, South Africa and Australia would have one by now.

"But they haven't, they've got much smaller versions who are quicker and can move in tight spaces in the face of some very well-organised defences."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/13073051

IU'll have a look for some youtube stuff to show you

It doesn't matter who said what, Phil Bennet is a legend but played in a one dimensional era, he knows little of the subtelties of todays positional play!!!

Gimme a youtube clip and I'll talk you through whats happening.

by Luckless Pedestrian Thu 09 May 2013, 09:11

You don't need quick ball all the time, but when someone makes a break and you're in behind the opposition, that's when it's imperative that you get quick ball. In that situation, there's nothing more frustrating than seeing a scrum half with the ball at his feet pointing to the forwards and telling them where to stand, when the backs have a scrambling defensive line in front of them and are calling for the ball.

by thebluesmancometh Thu 09 May 2013, 09:19

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:You don't need quick ball all the time, but when someone makes a break and you're in behind the opposition, that's when it's imperative that you get quick ball. In that situation, there's nothing more frustrating than seeing a scrum half with the ball at his feet pointing to the forwards and telling them where to stand, when the backs have a scrambling defensive line in front of them and are calling for the ball.

I'm not sure if their are any 9's that do that though, infact most 9's are probably guilty of overload and throw the ball wild rather than keep it controlled, but it is a good example of when quick ball is needed, similar to the Cuthbert try V England, Warbs makes a break and Phillips is very controlled and finds Biggar who goes wide to score, he didn't rush the pass and it was controlled and accurate.

by **Biltong** Thu 09 May 2013, 09:36

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:You don't need quick ball all the time, but when someone makes a break and you're in behind the opposition, that's when it's imperative that you get quick ball. In that situation, there's nothing more frustrating than seeing a scrum half with the ball at his feet pointing to the forwards and telling them where to stand, when the backs have a scrambling defensive line in front of them and are calling for the ball.

I like to call it momentum ball, as soon as you have the momentum and the defending team is on the back foot ie. running back to get in position, the momentum must be maintained, if there is a lull or 3 second ruck , it is too late and the defences have reformed.

by thebluesmancometh Thu 09 May 2013, 09:38

Biltong wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:You don't need quick ball all the time, but when someone makes a break and you're in behind the opposition, that's when it's imperative that you get quick ball. In that situation, there's nothing more frustrating than seeing a scrum half with the ball at his feet pointing to the forwards and telling them where to stand, when the backs have a scrambling defensive line in front of them and are calling for the ball.
I like to call it momentum ball, as soon as you have the momentum and the defending team is on the back foot ie. running back to get in position, the momentum must be maintained, if there is a lull or 3 second ruck , it is too late and the defences have reformed.

Hence the saying, 'get behind stay behind', but this is digressing as once Wales get behind Phillips is more than quick enough, he did it perfectly V England, France and Scotland for tries this year.

by fa0019 Thu 09 May 2013, 09:40

Why does teams who tend to clear rucks quicker i.e. AUS and NZ always seem to score the most tries via backline breaks??

Quick ball is important... the reason why its not seen as important in NH rugby is that generally speaking no team has both a backrows and a first receiver good enough to utilise these opportunities.

Thats not a slight at the NH game... the weather, the size of players etc in the NH all contribute to teams concentrating on other things.

by **Biltong** Thu 09 May 2013, 09:41

thebluesmancometh wrote:
Biltong wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:You don't need quick ball all the time, but when someone makes a break and you're in behind the opposition, that's when it's imperative that you get quick ball. In that situation, there's nothing more frustrating than seeing a scrum half with the ball at his feet pointing to the forwards and telling them where to stand, when the backs have a scrambling defensive line in front of them and are calling for the ball.
I like to call it momentum ball, as soon as you have the momentum and the defending team is on the back foot ie. running back to get in position, the momentum must be maintained, if there is a lull or 3 second ruck , it is too late and the defences have reformed.

Hence the saying, 'get behind stay behind', but this is digressing as once Wales get behind Phillips is more than quick enough, he did it perfectly V England, France and Scotland for tries this year.

I often wonder about Phillips, and there is one issue I have with him, when he goes on the snipe he invertantly breaks the first tackle, and in my view it is what he does next that thwarts a lot of Wales' attacking momentum. He goes for the second and third tackler and then gets isolated to the points where his support runner cannot continue that momentum.

I sometimes think if he would just offload after he broke the first tackle, or draw the first tackler and get the ball wide.

by Sponsored content