Lions vs Barbarians Player Ratings

First topic message reminder :

Here's how I saw the players. Be interesting to see all of yours.


Hogg: 7 - Some good touches but the BaBas barely kicked so didn't get much of a chance to see him counter

Cuthbert: 8 - Took his two tries very well and put himself in pole position early on

Davies: 8 - Had some great moments but a couple of wobbles here and there dropped his score, in better conditions he will thrive

Roberts: 7 - Great solid game from the big centre

Maitland: 5 - Looked a bit wobbly and failed to take his try chance, was good in defence and rucked well but overall not great

Farrell: 3 - A terrible day at the office. What was most worrying was his retaliation to punch.

Phillips: 9 - A well deserved MOTM performance. Very dangerous around the fringes. Passing wasn't great but that's not his strength

Vunipola: 5 - Was pretty quiet all round

Hibbard: 6 - Had some good carries and rucks but didn't get a chance to impress himself on the game

A Jones: 7 - Some great passes and put himself about the field

Gray: 7 - Made a couple of good runs and was the go-to man in the lineout but wasn't quite at his best

O'Connell: 8 - Scored a very good try and bossed the game well.

Lydiate: 8 - Very good game

Tipuric: 8 - Same as above

Faletau: 7 - Solid but a bit quieter than he had been in the 6Nations.

Replacements:

T. Youngs: 5 - Wonky lineout throw but didn't look out of place in the loose

Healy: 8 - Had a couple of very good runs and looked strong in the scrum.

Stevens: 5 - Made little impact.

A. W Jones: 7 - Did everything asked of him and finished off a try well.

Heaslip: 7 - Was strong when he came on but didn't have time to make a big impact.

Murray: 7 - Picked up where Phillips left off.

Sexton: 5 - Was poor with the boot and didn't get enough ball time to impress.

North: 6 - Had a good run but needs to start on Wednesday to put his hand up.

Oh for dear sake. Nobody does what Lydiate does apparently. That unseen work.

Really, I'm pretty sick hearing about it, the hype surrounding him is exceptional. How someone can have such an anonymous game and get such praise is properly beyond me. Maybe I will get the usual "you don't understand" response. His support play was shocking for a blindside flanker yesterday, he looked scared to take the ball.

Jonathan Davies has made a career out of Lydiate. I am not just having a go at the guy, I am genuinely bemused about all the fuss he gets for doing so little. I do hope he can improve for both Wales and on this Lions tour but at the minute he is not that impressive.

For the record, I don't think O'Brien is playing all that well at the minute either. Kelly Brown deserved the 6 shirt.

Well I think the test side is already picked as long as they reach a high enough level of performance. The starters and subs are so close at this stage that its just about picking players to suit his gameplan now.

I'd say Gatland will want a bench that makes maximum impact so he'll have the likes of SOB, Tuilagi, Youngs, North, Gray etc on it.

If you want supporting lines from the 6 you won't have to wait long Rory, Crofty will be in the red again soon and he finished the season in stonking form. Missing the first half of the season due to injury means he's got loads in the tank. He has added weight so will be in the breakdown and do the tackling then let him fly with ball in hand, he's grabbed 3 in the last 4 as well.

Gatland will defend his contentious decisions at every opportunity - and why not... as long as he delivers the series.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Oh for dear sake. Nobody does what Lydiate does apparently. That unseen work.

Really, I'm pretty sick hearing about it, the hype surrounding him is exceptional. How someone can have such an anonymous game and get such praise is properly beyond me. Maybe I will get the usual "you don't understand" response. His support play was shocking for a blindside flanker yesterday, he looked scared to take the ball.

Jonathan Davies has made a career out of Lydiate. I am not just having a go at the guy, I am genuinely bemused about all the fuss he gets for doing so little. I do hope he can improve for both Wales and on this Lions tour but at the minute he is not that impressive.

Again, you are the complete opposite though. You complain incessantly about Lydiate's over the top praise, but then proceed to offer over the top criticism as a counterbalance. I don't think given the conditions yesterday, we wouldn't have seen Croft or SOB featuring that prominently either. He did enough yesterday, ie scored, offered himself as a lineout option (which people say constantly he doesn't do) and was involved in a few small carries etc. I don't think he did anything noteworthy, but he doesn't deserve the panning that you give him constantly.

With some it is clearly a case of "anyone but Lydiate"!Used to be Ferris,then SOB,now Croft.Bit like a psychosis really.
The ignore list only works if other posters don't quote him sadly.

Risca Rev wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Oh for dear sake. Nobody does what Lydiate does apparently. That unseen work.

Really, I'm pretty sick hearing about it, the hype surrounding him is exceptional. How someone can have such an anonymous game and get such praise is properly beyond me. Maybe I will get the usual "you don't understand" response. His support play was shocking for a blindside flanker yesterday, he looked scared to take the ball.

Jonathan Davies has made a career out of Lydiate. I am not just having a go at the guy, I am genuinely bemused about all the fuss he gets for doing so little. I do hope he can improve for both Wales and on this Lions tour but at the minute he is not that impressive.

Again, you are the complete opposite though. You complain incessantly about Lydiate's over the top praise, but then proceed to offer over the top criticism as a counterbalance. I don't think given the conditions yesterday, we wouldn't have seen Croft or SOB featuring that prominently either. He did enough yesterday, ie scored, offered himself as a lineout option (which people say constantly he doesn't do) and was involved in a few small carries etc. I don't think he did anything noteworthy, but he doesn't deserve the panning that you give him constantly.

In what way is what I say over the top though? I think it is a pretty fair observation. Lydiate is very good at one thing - tackling. However, he isn't that effective on the floor, he isn't a great option in the line-out (clearly that was something Gatland wanted to fix last night, he was okay but dropped a few) he isn't a great support player, and he isn't good with ball in hand. If a player is only good when the opposition has the ball, what other word is there other than limited? Find me a 6 who isn't involved in the tight exchanges, they are a rarity at best. Tom Croft.. not sure who else.

As for Taff - I never even mentioned Croft, and I already said I don't think O'Brien has been that good. Kelly Brown would have been my choice. However as he isn't an option, I will wait and see who performs best over the next few games.

I realise I respond to the praise of Lydiate quite often, but it really is bizarre to me how a player can get so much praise for doing so little.

Of course this is all my own observations, I haven't seen him too much for the Dragons so maybe he is utilised differently?

EDIT: This would be my preferred back row btw. Unless O'Brien or Heaslip have a stormer:

6) Warburton
7) Tipuric
8) Faletau

Like I say Rory, I don't agree with the hype he gets either. I can't really comment on him from the Dragons point of view, as we don't get the luxury of seeing him that often (less now of course ha). We didn't have to use him as a lineout option, same as Wales as Toby would be the tail jumper generally, or Warburton (for Wales).

The thing with Wales and the Dragons is we have our outright scrapper on the floor in Waters/Cudd and Warburton and Tipuric, so his role in both is a luxury we can afford. I don't want Lydiate to start in the tests like I say, but if he does, it bothers me slightly how he will be overly analysed. As an example. Yes he dropped a couple of lineouts (one I remember for sure), but I didn't know whether to say Hibbard over threw him a bit, or whether as it turns out the ball was apparently like a bar of soap at times.

Risca Rev wrote:Like I say Rory, I don't agree with the hype he gets either. I can't really comment on him from the Dragons point of view, as we don't get the luxury of seeing him that often (less now of course ha). We didn't have to use him as a lineout option, same as Wales as Toby would be the tail jumper generally, or Warburton (for Wales).

The thing with Wales and the Dragons is we have our outright scrapper on the floor in Waters/Cudd and Warburton and Tipuric, so his role in both is a luxury we can afford. I don't want Lydiate to start in the tests like I say, but if he does, it bothers me slightly how he will be overly analysed. As an example. Yes he dropped a couple of lineouts (one I remember for sure), but I didn't know whether to say Hibbard over threw him a bit, or whether as it turns out the ball was apparently like a bar of soap at times.

Fair points.

If we can afford a "luxury" player in the back row, why not one who can do maximum damage on the attack, either Croft with his pace further our or O'Brien with his destructive ball carrying

BamBam wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:Like I say Rory, I don't agree with the hype he gets either. I can't really comment on him from the Dragons point of view, as we don't get the luxury of seeing him that often (less now of course ha). We didn't have to use him as a lineout option, same as Wales as Toby would be the tail jumper generally, or Warburton (for Wales).

The thing with Wales and the Dragons is we have our outright scrapper on the floor in Waters/Cudd and Warburton and Tipuric, so his role in both is a luxury we can afford. I don't want Lydiate to start in the tests like I say, but if he does, it bothers me slightly how he will be overly analysed. As an example. Yes he dropped a couple of lineouts (one I remember for sure), but I didn't know whether to say Hibbard over threw him a bit, or whether as it turns out the ball was apparently like a bar of soap at times.

Fair points.

If we can afford a "luxury" player in the back row, why not one who can do maximum damage on the attack, either Croft with his pace further our or O'Brien with his destructive ball carrying

Both Croft and SOB could be described as luxury players, but Lydiate certainly couldn't be.

Richard Hill never stood out in the limelight that much but people still eulogise about him as his presence and performances allowed the likes of Dallaglio et al to do what they did best. Lots of unwarranted criticism on here for the Lydiate guy who was the 6 Nations player of the series in 2012. Not having Dan this season cost us another GS - Thank feck Gatland knows better

Richard Hill played 7 as well as 6 and was apparently a total nuisance at the breakdown though. I also remember watching his last ever game for the Saracens and he certainly stood out in that game. Not in the flashy side of things, but he was all over the place making tackles, turnovers and taking the ball forward. All with a bad limp. In my opinion he is a totally different player.

Anyway, I will wait and see what happens the rest of the tour. I will stop commenting on Lydiate anyway.

You can comment all you want Rory - Do you think all the non welsh pundits are wrong when they talk about Lydiate?

Not in the flashy side of things, but he was all over the place making tackles, turnovers and taking the ball forward



That is exactly what the flashy things are for a flanker

RubyGuby wrote:You can comment all you want Rory - Do you think all the non welsh pundits are wrong when they talk about Lydiate?

Which non-welsh pundits? I think Jonathan Davies has done wonders for Lydiate, pointing out every tackle he made during the 6 nations, and now people have bought into the hype. Fantastic advertising, mind you. However I would love to know why exactly you think Lydiate was the reason you lost the grand slam? Your back row against England looked incredible, I doubt Lydiate would have improved it over Warburton at 6, who was immense in both defence and attack.

Yeah bluesman, that is exactly the sort of thing you want your flankers doing. People describe that as the "dirty work". However, I only see Lydiate doing the tackling and people tell me he is also doing the "unseen" work too. What does that even mean exactly?

The likes of McCaw or Dusautoir stand out because they have a large impact on the game in both defence and attack. At the breakdown, at the tackle area, in support. Not just one aspect of the game.

And I am clearly irritating some people with my comments, which is why I think I will stop!

Rory_Gallagher wrote:And I am clearly irritating some people with my comments, which is why I think I will stop!

Nah, you're sound. I think it helps having an opposing view on here to his supposed Herculean performances. I just wish I hadn't bought you that lifetime subscription to the Danny Lydiate fan club.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

RubyGuby wrote:You can comment all you want Rory - Do you think all the non welsh pundits are wrong when they talk about Lydiate?

Which non-welsh pundits? I think Jonathan Davies has done wonders for Lydiate, pointing out every tackle he made during the 6 nations, and now people have bought into the hype. Fantastic advertising, mind you. However I would love to know why exactly you think Lydiate was the reason you lost the grand slam? Your back row against England looked incredible, I doubt Lydiate would have improved it over Warburton at 6, who was immense in both defence and attack.

Yeah bluesman, that is exactly the sort of thing you want your flankers doing. People describe that as the "dirty work". However, I only see Lydiate doing the tackling and people tell me he is also doing the "unseen" work too. What does that even mean exactly?

The likes of McCaw or Dusautoir stand out because they have a large impact on the game in both defence and attack. At the breakdown, at the tackle area, in support. Not just one aspect of the game.

What you qouted though, carrying, turnovers and hits are the flash part of a flankers game, and generally not whats associated with good blindside play, what I like to see from a good blindside is the support side of their game that enables the 7 and 8 to do their jobs, and ease the pressure off the tight 5.

For example Lydiates carries are far tighter than Warbs and especially Falatau, hence he looks less effective. Watch the tight 5's picks, and mauls, he is on the shoulder lending his weight to every carry. Although he was used as a jumper yesterday he generally lifts. His role in defence is that of the marshall, leader and spoiler, he generally doesn't get involved in the breakdwon defencively, positions himself as first outside man from the pillars, makes the defence call then rush's out in an attempt to make the early contact and spoil posession. Also watch the number of attacking breakdowns he is first man into, it's staggering!

I'm not claiming he's the complete player, I wouldn't compare him to Hill, but he has potential and I'm pretty sure the reason he's so effective is that he looks so ineffective and teams aren't highlighting him as the issue as much as they should.

I agree with you Davies hyping of him is a bit OTT, but then Guscott is exactly the same, although I think he is just following the trend to look knowledgable, as I think a lot of people who hype him so much do.

My backrow would be...

6. Warbs
7. Tipuric
8. SOB

Do you think SOB deserves to start at 8 over Faletau?

The welsh back row against England was fantastic. I think they deserve at least one game together.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Do you think SOB deserves to start at 8 over Faletau?

The welsh back row against England was fantastic. I think they deserve at least one game together.

Falatau is a cracking player, but his game is based around good footwork in the wider channells and good stamina in defence, and with the 2 7's I'd need a bigger stronger option in the tight. Heaslip was my first thought but SOB brings more grunt to the table than either 8 IMO.

If I were to start Falatau I'd have to replace Warbs with either Lydiate or SOB at 6 to counter balance the wider 2.

The welsh back row were good, but for me it was the tight 5 who did all the damage, added to the scrum fiasco (for England) and the fact that Englands lineout was the worst in the comp, the backrow did all their work on the front foot. I actually think Robshaw and Cole were doing a great job at the break down that day, but it was all in defence and even they tired late on due to the amount of work they had to do.

Walesonline gave Paul O'Connell a six, they said he was a fading presence on the pitch.
I went mad, he had the same as farell.
WHAT?

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Do you think SOB deserves to start at 8 over Faletau?

The welsh back row against England was fantastic. I think they deserve at least one game together.

Falatau is a cracking player, but his game is based around good footwork in the wider channells and good stamina in defence, and with the 2 7's I'd need a bigger stronger option in the tight. Heaslip was my first thought but SOB brings more grunt to the table than either 8 IMO.

If I were to start Falatau I'd have to replace Warbs with either Lydiate or SOB at 6 to counter balance the wider 2.

The welsh back row were good, but for me it was the tight 5 who did all the damage, added to the scrum fiasco (for England) and the fact that Englands lineout was the worst in the comp, the backrow did all their work on the front foot. I actually think Robshaw and Cole were doing a great job at the break down that day, but it was all in defence and even they tired late on due to the amount of work they had to do.

I agree regarding the back row selections, this would provide us with some excellent tacklers in what will be a very tight series but with all 3 on the relatively small side i would play tuilagi with roberts to get some ball carriers. It is just a shame heaslip has not shown much form in the last year or so otherwise he would be starting at 8. Lydiate as good as a player but he is does not add anything special and I would of preferred robshaw or kelly brown to have gone.

Jhamer25 wrote:Walesonline gave Paul O'Connell a six, they said he was a fading presence on the pitch.
I went mad, he had the same as farell.
WHAT?

Ignore Walesonline scores. It was probably Andy Howell who nobody in Wales takes any notice of!

Must admit I'm another in the Lydiate is over hyped club.

He's a great defender but doesn't offer enough going forward to warrant inclusion imo.

I'd much prefer SOB at 6 who is not that far away from Lydiate in defensive terms (often top tackling stats etc) and is on another planet in attack (carrying & support play).

People are being a bit harsh on Phillips. He duffed his first pass and it made him realize that he needed to make sure he had a good grip on the ball before passing it. I was at the game in HK and it was hard enough holding onto a cold beer it was so humid. Wouldn't have wanted to try to pass a rugby ball.

Phillips actually had a very solid game though I would have given Roberts MOTM as he seemed to get across the gain line every time he got the ball.


People are also being a bit harsh on Lydiate. He did plenty of work at the rucks and on the fringes. Didn't do a massive amount of ball carrying but I think that had as much to do with the game plan as anything else. Always seemed to be there. I don't know what people were expecting really.


Overall it was a pretty good performance - conditions were brutal - and that was just for sitting in the stand!

thebluesmancometh wrote:
The welsh back row were good, but for me it was the tight 5 who did all the damage, added to the scrum fiasco (for England) and the fact that Englands lineout was the worst in the comp, the backrow did all their work on the front foot. I actually think Robshaw and Cole were doing a great job at the break down that day, but it was all in defence and even they tired late on due to the amount of work they had to do.

I think it's fair to say that day showed us just how important Corbisiero and Morgan had rapidly become to the functioning of our pack!

Looking at your front 5 I'd say Alun Wyn is the guy who really stood out to me that day. I'd always viewed him as a very good player but one whose size didn't really come across in the effectiveness of his ground work. He really impressed that day though throwing his weight around in the tight. His performance when he came on at the weekend wasn't bad either - the second rows to me were the standout bright point for the Lions with POC and Gray showing they were fit and firing then AWJ coming on and keeping up that standard.

I still feel it's a real shame that Nathan Hines isn't tour as he's still playing brilliantly in France. He's a big unit, a very smart player in tight and loose plus has just about the best handling skills of any second row around.

Feckless - people eulogise far more about SOB than they do about Lydiate, yet in the last 3 games Lydiate has played against the "mighty" Irish back row the men in green have been virtually anonomous, I know why, seems many others don't

king_carlos wrote:...a real shame that Nathan Hines isn't tour as he's still playing brilliantly in France...

Apropos nothing at all, if Hines was to join up later, we'd be in the statistically unique position of having three players in the squad who have been red-carded at Test level.

There were two in 2009: Hines and Simon Shaw.

king_carlos wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:
The welsh back row were good, but for me it was the tight 5 who did all the damage, added to the scrum fiasco (for England) and the fact that Englands lineout was the worst in the comp, the backrow did all their work on the front foot. I actually think Robshaw and Cole were doing a great job at the break down that day, but it was all in defence and even they tired late on due to the amount of work they had to do.

I think it's fair to say that day showed us just how important Corbisiero and Morgan had rapidly become to the functioning of our pack!

Looking at your front 5 I'd say Alun Wyn is the guy who really stood out to me that day. I'd always viewed him as a very good player but one whose size didn't really come across in the effectiveness of his ground work. He really impressed that day though throwing his weight around in the tight. His performance when he came on at the weekend wasn't bad either - the second rows to me were the standout bright point for the Lions with POC and Gray showing they were fit and firing then AWJ coming on and keeping up that standard.

I still feel it's a real shame that Nathan Hines isn't tour as he's still playing brilliantly in France. He's a big unit, a very smart player in tight and loose plus has just about the best handling skills of any second row around.

Although I agree with you, Corbs was a real miss in the scrum, and his and Morgans weight in the tight were definately missed, I think the England issues are elsewhere that are compounding Vumipolas struggles and the beakdown.

Before the tournament I saw the English pack as lightweight, and without Corbs or Morgan it was even more so. The big issue I think is the set peice, many teams got the better of England this tournament in the scrum, and evry team benefited from the worst lineout in the comp. Therefore without this platform the pack is hindered.

My first England pack would be...

Corbisiero
Hartley
Cole
Parling
Kennedy/Lawes
Wood
Robshaw
Morgan

Sounds rough on the hugely impressive Youngs and Launchbury I know, but IMO they are just experience and size away from being good int players.

Cole is a good scrummager, but is currently vulnerable because of the lack of grunt inside him and behind him, compare the help Jenkins had last time out in AWJ and Hibbard and it is no wonder Cole is a targetted man, I dislike the criticism Cole gets scrumtime because he can scrummage with the best, it's just he has no grunt around him.

Launchbury is possibly one of the classiest locks Ive seen of his age and I like to make comparisons of Etzabeth, but Etzabeth is far more physical right now, and therefore just ready for int rugby a little sooner than Launchbury is. Parling and Launchbury are very good players but as a combo I don't think they work right now, and one must realise if they are to work and compete against the best as a unit they need to throw their weight around at the breakdown more, and one has to take the responsibility of backing Cole up in the scrum.

The irony is throughout the 6N it was the packs performances that put England where they were, in a great position come the final game, but there are question marks over every pack they had played until then, and none IMO compete against the SH teams.

I know I'm going to get slated now for once again criticising Youngs, but you have to realise I'm only criticising his game on the int level as not ready yet, his club form is superb. But the England set peice is pretty weak right now in 2 areas, and both those areas are the hookers fault right now. I also get the feeling when he gets praised by pundits it's far more fairytale than factual, his conversion is very impressive, but nmowhere near complete.

Kennedy & Parling in the engine room! We'd make minus yards every game!

I agree Blue our engine room was powder puff against the Welsh and we need the option to fall back on a bit of grunt.

I'm not a huge Parling fan, for a supposed line out expert he often can struggle at Int level and is too weak in the loose for what I like in a lock.

Going forward I'd have Launchbury and one of Slater/Attwood. The lineout can't go as badly as it has recently and at least we'll get some carrying and physicality.

Launchbury is incredible for one so young but he's no enforcer, he would thrive alongside a lump imo as he covers every blade of grass.

RubyGuby wrote:Feckless - people eulogise far more about SOB than they do about Lydiate, yet in the last 3 games Lydiate has played against the "mighty" Irish back row the men in green have been virtually anonomous, I know why, seems many others don't

We all know why - no attack plan!

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Kennedy & Parling in the engine room! We'd make minus yards every game!

I agree Blue our engine room was powder puff against the Welsh and we need the option to fall back on a bit of grunt.

I'm not a huge Parling fan, for a supposed line out expert he often can struggle at Int level and is too weak in the loose for what I like in a lock.

Going forward I'd have Launchbury and one of Slater/Attwood. The lineout can't go as badly as it has recently and at least we'll get some carrying and physicality.

Launchbury is incredible for one so young but he's no enforcer, he would thrive alongside a lump imo as he covers every blade of grass.

I agree Launchbury is the way forward, in 2-4 seasons he'll be one of the finest around. And I share your fears around Parlings lineout work, Ive never got that 'lineout expert' tag either, but in his defence Youngs throwing is erratic at best, and must effect his %!

When you mean too weak in the loose though, are you talking actual loose, or the tight, because he's been pretty effective in the wider channels ball in hand, it's his lack of grunt in the tight I find hampers England.

But as I say Parling and Kennedy would be a decent combo at present, with a view of Launchbury stamping his name on the shirt by RWC 2015 and a partner stepping up to provide the grunt needed (I like Attwood a lot)

I meant the tight channels but in general play, Parling gets thrown about a bit. I think Hogg bumped him off in a fron ton tackle in the 6N which was pretty bad.

Kennedy would be nowhere near an England jersey for me, imagine Parling/Kennedy facing up to a combo of Etzebeth and Botha, it would be carnage.

I think the ratings in the OP are about right. I'd probably take Phillips down from a 9 to an 8 - very strong performance but his service wasn't always good, even by his standards. The Welsh centres were both excellent as was Cuthbert, but for me Falateu was the pick of the bunch. Abrasive and powerful throughout his stint on the pitch.

From a Scots perspective I was disappointed that Maitland didn't slide in for that finish, and Hogg had a couple of knocked-on half chances (although was generally bright and ran some good lines). Gray was solid, played the full 80 and put in some big hits and telling carries. More a performance to build on than "putting his hand up", but a good start given he hasn't played rugby for a while. I think his best chance of being involved in the Tests will be as an impact sub from the bench.

RE: Lydiate, people seem to understand what Gatland wants from his backline, in terms of physicality, and gameplan, but are not grasping what he wants from a forward i.e Lydiate.
I believe that Lydiate is an absolute Lion heart, and deserved to be a Lion, although I wouldn't have taken him on this tour due to his lack of gametime.
There were no fireworks yesterday, but he hit every ruck, had a high tackle count, showed good hands at the tail of the lineout (with one drop) and took his try well. Tipuric and Faletau both looked very good, so you'd have to assume that there wasn't a weak link in the back row.
Singling him out for unjustified criticism is just people's way of showing that they still can't accept that he was selected. 99% of people on here are saying that the MOTM was sh1te, so I guess you can take what you want from that.

thebluesmancometh wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:
The welsh back row were good, but for me it was the tight 5 who did all the damage, added to the scrum fiasco (for England) and the fact that Englands lineout was the worst in the comp, the backrow did all their work on the front foot. I actually think Robshaw and Cole were doing a great job at the break down that day, but it was all in defence and even they tired late on due to the amount of work they had to do.

I think it's fair to say that day showed us just how important Corbisiero and Morgan had rapidly become to the functioning of our pack!

Looking at your front 5 I'd say Alun Wyn is the guy who really stood out to me that day. I'd always viewed him as a very good player but one whose size didn't really come across in the effectiveness of his ground work. He really impressed that day though throwing his weight around in the tight. His performance when he came on at the weekend wasn't bad either - the second rows to me were the standout bright point for the Lions with POC and Gray showing they were fit and firing then AWJ coming on and keeping up that standard.

I still feel it's a real shame that Nathan Hines isn't tour as he's still playing brilliantly in France. He's a big unit, a very smart player in tight and loose plus has just about the best handling skills of any second row around.

Although I agree with you, Corbs was a real miss in the scrum, and his and Morgans weight in the tight were definately missed, I think the England issues are elsewhere that are compounding Vumipolas struggles and the beakdown.

Before the tournament I saw the English pack as lightweight, and without Corbs or Morgan it was even more so. The big issue I think is the set peice, many teams got the better of England this tournament in the scrum, and evry team benefited from the worst lineout in the comp. Therefore without this platform the pack is hindered.

My first England pack would be...

Corbisiero
Hartley
Cole
Parling
Kennedy/Lawes
Wood
Robshaw
Morgan

Sounds rough on the hugely impressive Youngs and Launchbury I know, but IMO they are just experience and size away from being good int players.

Cole is a good scrummager, but is currently vulnerable because of the lack of grunt inside him and behind him, compare the help Jenkins had last time out in AWJ and Hibbard and it is no wonder Cole is a targetted man, I dislike the criticism Cole gets scrumtime because he can scrummage with the best, it's just he has no grunt around him.

Launchbury is possibly one of the classiest locks Ive seen of his age and I like to make comparisons of Etzabeth, but Etzabeth is far more physical right now, and therefore just ready for int rugby a little sooner than Launchbury is. Parling and Launchbury are very good players but as a combo I don't think they work right now, and one must realise if they are to work and compete against the best as a unit they need to throw their weight around at the breakdown more, and one has to take the responsibility of backing Cole up in the scrum.

The irony is throughout the 6N it was the packs performances that put England where they were, in a great position come the final game, but there are question marks over every pack they had played until then, and none IMO compete against the SH teams.

I know I'm going to get slated now for once again criticising Youngs, but you have to realise I'm only criticising his game on the int level as not ready yet, his club form is superb. But the England set peice is pretty weak right now in 2 areas, and both those areas are the hookers fault right now. I also get the feeling when he gets praised by pundits it's far more fairytale than factual, his conversion is very impressive, but nmowhere near complete.

A big carrier like Morgan was certainly missed, but the biggest issue for me over the 6N was the change in approach to the breakdown. When the pack Lancaster initially selected at the very beginning of the 6N and during the AIs worked well it was with supporting players hitting the breakdown fast and hard and/or flooding the breakdown if needed and trying to shift the ball on as quickly as possible. That changed after almost the opening match with just 1 or 2 players at the breakdown and more or less just standing there, not clearing out or drawing in extra players and often getting turned over or the ball slowed. The team Lancaster selected didn't have the sort of attributes to make that work and although they got by against lesser opposition it was exposed against better.

The more athletic pack Lancaster has favoured can be effective but it needs a reversion to the more pacy and agressive breakdown tactic. If he wants to go the way of lesser numbers there he'll have to pick a side that is more capable of that gameplan.

markb wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:
The welsh back row were good, but for me it was the tight 5 who did all the damage, added to the scrum fiasco (for England) and the fact that Englands lineout was the worst in the comp, the backrow did all their work on the front foot. I actually think Robshaw and Cole were doing a great job at the break down that day, but it was all in defence and even they tired late on due to the amount of work they had to do.

I think it's fair to say that day showed us just how important Corbisiero and Morgan had rapidly become to the functioning of our pack!

Looking at your front 5 I'd say Alun Wyn is the guy who really stood out to me that day. I'd always viewed him as a very good player but one whose size didn't really come across in the effectiveness of his ground work. He really impressed that day though throwing his weight around in the tight. His performance when he came on at the weekend wasn't bad either - the second rows to me were the standout bright point for the Lions with POC and Gray showing they were fit and firing then AWJ coming on and keeping up that standard.

I still feel it's a real shame that Nathan Hines isn't tour as he's still playing brilliantly in France. He's a big unit, a very smart player in tight and loose plus has just about the best handling skills of any second row around.

Although I agree with you, Corbs was a real miss in the scrum, and his and Morgans weight in the tight were definately missed, I think the England issues are elsewhere that are compounding Vumipolas struggles and the beakdown.

Before the tournament I saw the English pack as lightweight, and without Corbs or Morgan it was even more so. The big issue I think is the set peice, many teams got the better of England this tournament in the scrum, and evry team benefited from the worst lineout in the comp. Therefore without this platform the pack is hindered.

My first England pack would be...

Corbisiero
Hartley
Cole
Parling
Kennedy/Lawes
Wood
Robshaw
Morgan

Sounds rough on the hugely impressive Youngs and Launchbury I know, but IMO they are just experience and size away from being good int players.

Cole is a good scrummager, but is currently vulnerable because of the lack of grunt inside him and behind him, compare the help Jenkins had last time out in AWJ and Hibbard and it is no wonder Cole is a targetted man, I dislike the criticism Cole gets scrumtime because he can scrummage with the best, it's just he has no grunt around him.

Launchbury is possibly one of the classiest locks Ive seen of his age and I like to make comparisons of Etzabeth, but Etzabeth is far more physical right now, and therefore just ready for int rugby a little sooner than Launchbury is. Parling and Launchbury are very good players but as a combo I don't think they work right now, and one must realise if they are to work and compete against the best as a unit they need to throw their weight around at the breakdown more, and one has to take the responsibility of backing Cole up in the scrum.

The irony is throughout the 6N it was the packs performances that put England where they were, in a great position come the final game, but there are question marks over every pack they had played until then, and none IMO compete against the SH teams.

I know I'm going to get slated now for once again criticising Youngs, but you have to realise I'm only criticising his game on the int level as not ready yet, his club form is superb. But the England set peice is pretty weak right now in 2 areas, and both those areas are the hookers fault right now. I also get the feeling when he gets praised by pundits it's far more fairytale than factual, his conversion is very impressive, but nmowhere near complete.

A big carrier like Morgan was certainly missed, but the biggest issue for me over the 6N was the change in approach to the breakdown. When the pack Lancaster initially selected at the very beginning of the 6N and during the AIs worked well it was with supporting players hitting the breakdown fast and hard and/or flooding the breakdown if needed and trying to shift the ball on as quickly as possible. That changed after almost the opening match with just 1 or 2 players at the breakdown and more or less just standing there, not clearing out or drawing in extra players and often getting turned over or the ball slowed. The team Lancaster selected didn't have the sort of attributes to make that work and although they got by against lesser opposition it was exposed against better.

The more athletic pack Lancaster has favoured can be effective but it needs a reversion to the more pacy and agressive breakdown tactic. If he wants to go the way of lesser numbers there he'll have to pick a side that is more capable of that gameplan.

The problem is against the best you just can't afford to flood the breakdown in attack without losing options and tieing defenders in in the wider channells, this is the reason Englands backline looks poor right now. Baritt and Tuilagi have to be the big carriers because of the lack of forwards, and the back 3 just don't get the service they need to be dangerous.

Therefore the English pack individually are too light to do the job of modern day attack, the odd 2/3 forwards just don't have the size or intimidation at the breakdown and are therefore challenged more often in an attempt to disrupt.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think the ratings in the OP are about right. I'd probably take Phillips down from a 9 to an 8 - very strong performance but his service wasn't always good, even by his standards. The Welsh centres were both excellent as was Cuthbert, but for me Falateu was the pick of the bunch. Abrasive and powerful throughout his stint on the pitch.

From a Scots perspective I was disappointed that Maitland didn't slide in for that finish, and Hogg had a couple of knocked-on half chances (although was generally bright and ran some good lines). Gray was solid, played the full 80 and put in some big hits and telling carries. More a performance to build on than "putting his hand up", but a good start given he hasn't played rugby for a while. I think his best chance of being involved in the Tests will be as an impact sub from the bench.

I was gutted when Hogg didn't quite get that offload from POC, as I had him first scorer at tens. Wasn't half as bad as my mate getting teased though, as he had Phillips at twelves who looked like he was in just before POC's try (and then ended up being second scorer also).

Risca Rev wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think the ratings in the OP are about right. I'd probably take Phillips down from a 9 to an 8 - very strong performance but his service wasn't always good, even by his standards. The Welsh centres were both excellent as was Cuthbert, but for me Falateu was the pick of the bunch. Abrasive and powerful throughout his stint on the pitch.

From a Scots perspective I was disappointed that Maitland didn't slide in for that finish, and Hogg had a couple of knocked-on half chances (although was generally bright and ran some good lines). Gray was solid, played the full 80 and put in some big hits and telling carries. More a performance to build on than "putting his hand up", but a good start given he hasn't played rugby for a while. I think his best chance of being involved in the Tests will be as an impact sub from the bench.

I was gutted when Hogg didn't quite get that offload from POC, as I had him first scorer at tens. Wasn't half as bad as my mate getting teased though, as he had Phillips at twelves who looked like he was in just before POC's try (and then ended up being second scorer also).

I had Cuthbert at 10, and he wouldve gone in if he kept his eyes open and took Roberts pass the plick!!!

I agree that large numbers all the time won't work, which was why I said 'if needed', the principal aspect is the immediate supporting players hitting the breakdown harder and faster, getting the ball away quickly. If you look at the Scotland & NZ games that was exactly what happened, very rarely were too many numbers needed, the game was more about aggression and pace which more athletic forwards are highly capable of.

More athletic forwards need a high tempo close supporting game for offloading or quick breakdown work to be truly effective. If that's not the way you intend to play you need to look elsewhere. In the 6N Lancaster failed to match his side with what he was trying to play.

markb wrote:I agree that large numbers all the time won't work, which was why I said 'if needed', the principal aspect is the immediate supporting players hitting the breakdown harder and faster, getting the ball away quickly. If you look at the Scotland & NZ games that was exactly what happened, very rarely were too many numbers needed, the game was more about aggression and pace which more athletic forwards are highly capable of.

More athletic forwards need a high tempo close supporting game for offloading or quick breakdown work to be truly effective. If that's not the way you intend to play you need to look elsewhere. In the 6N Lancaster failed to match his side with what he was trying to play.

Oh I agree but the optimum way to hit a breakdown hard and fast is the previous ball carrier getting over the gameline, and thats part of where Englands plan fell down as with too many number in the ruck options wider are cut, defended easier and carriers make less ground.

Everything stems from the ball carrier getting on the front foot for his support, if he doesn't numbers are needed to secure ball which means everytime numbers are in an attacking ruck the carrier and co have done a poor job, which is where Youngs, Parling, Launchbury and Cole all struggle, carrying into contact