Brumbies vs Lions Tuesday

by maestegmafia Sun 16 Jun 2013, 9:39 am

First topic message reminder :

[quote="George Carlin"]Brumbies team is up, Maes:

15-Jesse Mogg,
14-Henry Speight,
13-Tevita Kuridrani,
12-Andrew Smith,
11-Clyde Rathbone,
10-Matt Toomua,
9-Ian Prior,

8-Peter Kimlin (captain),
7-Colby Faingaa,
6-Scott Fardy,
5-Sam Carter,
4-Leon Power,
3-Scott Sio,
2-Siliva Siliva,
1-Ruan Smith.

Replacements: 16-Josh Mann-Rea, 17-Jean-Pierre Smith, 18-Chris Cocca, 19-Etienne Oosthuizen, 20-Jordan Smiler, 21-Mark Swanepoel, 22-Robbie Coleman, 23-Zack Holmes.

Lions team: Rob Kearney, Christian Wade, Brad Barritt, Billy Twelvetrees, Shane Williams, Stuart Hogg, Ben Youngs; Ryan Grant, Rory Best (capt), Matt Stevens, Ian Evans, Richie Gray, Sean O'Brien, Justin Tipuric, Toby Faletau

Replacements: Richard Hibbard, Alex Corbisiero, Dan Cole, Geoff Parling, Dan Lydiate, Conor Murray, Owen Farrell, Simon Zebo

This team points to a number of players who must be fringe selections or definitely not going to make it.

by sirBiggles Tue 18 Jun 2013, 1:48 pm

Good grief... picard

Look I'm disapointed too, I was hoping that this tour could have delivered a 100% win record. However, it hasnt....

Ok, some players will want to forget today, as they fell a million miles from their potential. However, at the end of the game it was close. Just 2 points, which was possible to pinch, but the Brumbies held out and closed the game down. Well done to them.

As for knocking Shane, he did what he was asked to do. He came in and gave much needed rest to players who WILL be competing for the test jersey. And for that, well done Shane. (He didnt have a bad game either... Ok not as we remember him, but he is in semi-retirement..).

As for Hogg, I hope he picks himself up from this, as he wasnt at his best, and I felt he left the 10 channel at times. Whether that is why Youngs kicked so much, or whether the fact Youngs was going to kick is why Hogg left the 10 position I dont know. But he should take heart from this as I think we'll be seeing far more of him in years to come.

...but to go back to what I wanted to say. The game was a tough one, probably the best Aussie opposition so far, and the Lions put out a weaker, less prepared side, yet only lost by 2. Not the end result I wanted, but I can live with that, if the Lions (test players) get their R & R and are ready to feast on Wallaby steaks come Saturday.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Jun 2013, 1:52 pm

bluestonevedder wrote:Was Wade really as terrible as everyone is making out? It sounded as though he fluffed up the tackle at the begnning, but then made a few half breaks during the rest of the game?

Terrible? Terrible is making big errors and fluffing almost certain tries. No not terrible...just not there. Well there was one big error but that i'm afraid comes down to his size, which he can't fix and which will be an issue at International level as he perhaps heads down that route.
But overall, it was a complete non-show from the backs. But they were up against a real team. Space wasn't being created.

by Sin é Tue 18 Jun 2013, 1:53 pm

BlueNote wrote:"Simon Zebo didn't have any problem getting his hands on the ball"

Zebo came into a different game, with the 'proper' front row on and the side a bit more on the front foot. He does look promising, though. There is a real dynamism to him.

Shane did pretty well, particularly considering he won't have played a game of that intensity for ages.

Zebo went looking for the ball.

by bluestonevedder Tue 18 Jun 2013, 1:54 pm

SecretFly wrote:
bluestonevedder wrote:Was Wade really as terrible as everyone is making out? It sounded as though he fluffed up the tackle at the begnning, but then made a few half breaks during the rest of the game?

Terrible? Terrible is making big errors and fluffing almost certain tries. No not terrible...just not there. Well there was one big error but that i'm afraid comes down to his size, which he can't fix and which will be an issue at International level as he perhaps heads down that route.
But overall, it was a complete non-show from the backs. But they were up against a real team. Space wasn't being created.

Thanks Secretfly.

He got completely shrugged off the tackle then? Didn't Kearny miss it as well?

I didn't hear Barritt's name once.

by **rodders** Tue 18 Jun 2013, 1:58 pm

Ouch grim reading.... but lets face it this was a scratch lions side - a thrown together group of expendables rather than a side picked to do a job on the opposition.

Haven't watched the game yet but I'd have a bit of sympathy for anyone involved in this one.

This does confirm my suspicions that this Lions squad is nowhere near as strong as has been hyped in some quarters and that Australia are well capable of doing a number on them.

by sirBiggles Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:00 pm

SecretFly wrote:
i'm afraid comes down to his size, which he can't fix and which will be an issue at International level as he perhaps heads down that route.

Please lets not go down that route..

Rugby is a game for all shapes and sizes, providing you can put the "size and shape" you are to its best use.

I see Wade being very much like Shane Williams, and I do hope (God he's English.. am I really saying this Erm

) he doesnt let this game affect his ability. He needs to continue to work on running around the opposition (like Shane) and use his speed to his advantage. If he does, he's going to be a thorn in the sides on many teams for years to come...

by bluestonevedder Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:01 pm

rodders wrote:Ouch grim reading.... but lets face it this was a scratch lions side - a thrown together group of expendables rather than a side picked to do a job on the opposition.

Haven't watched the game yet but I'd have a bit of sympathy for anyone involved in this one.

This does confirm my suspicions that this Lions squad is nowhere near as strong as has been hyped in some quarters and that Australia are well capable of doing a number on them.

Hugely. I think this Lions squad is based around a few really central players, who when they are removed from the 23, make a huge difference to the overall play. I think guys like POC, BOD, North, Cuthbert, 1/2p, Vunipola, Gray (even though he played), even JD2 were all really missed today.

by ChequeredJersey Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:02 pm

We'll see how Wade does in the Autumn, or maybe next Tuesday

by SecretFly Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:03 pm

bluestonevedder wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
bluestonevedder wrote:Was Wade really as terrible as everyone is making out? It sounded as though he fluffed up the tackle at the begnning, but then made a few half breaks during the rest of the game?

Terrible? Terrible is making big errors and fluffing almost certain tries. No not terrible...just not there. Well there was one big error but that i'm afraid comes down to his size, which he can't fix and which will be an issue at International level as he perhaps heads down that route.
But overall, it was a complete non-show from the backs. But they were up against a real team. Space wasn't being created.

Thanks Secretfly.

He got completely shrugged off the tackle then? Didn't Kearny miss it as well?

I didn't hear Barritt's name once.

I was just explaining Wade because Wade was the subject. If Kearney was the subject, I'd explain him Wink

Yes, he lost the same guy as Wade lost but Wade was obstructing a clean shot at him by then. I'm not blaming Wade. Not blaming him because he couldn't hold onto the player. The player was going for a try and his job was to make sure Wade wouldn't hold onto him. People tend to forget what's in the attacking player's mind as they look for perfection from the defenders. If all defenders were perfect we'd have no perfect attackers.

But, Kearney lost a guy and caught an almost certain try too. So, a mixed bag in defence. Kicked well to chase onto a few but didn't catch a few so brownie points down there for him. But he wasn't ...terrible either Wink

by SecretFly Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:05 pm

sirBiggles wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
i'm afraid comes down to his size, which he can't fix and which will be an issue at International level as he perhaps heads down that route.

Please lets not go down that route..

I'm afraid it comes down to his size! Repeated for emphasis.

yes, Wade will catch some and he'll also miss some because of his size rather than his ability. It's a real world out there and size can matter in hot corners.

by Sin é Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:07 pm

Jones, POC, BOD, Sexton & Halfpenny are streets ahead of any of the rest of the competition for their places - without any of those, Gatland is feiced.

by ChequeredJersey Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:09 pm

Sin é wrote:Jones, POC, BOD, Sexton & Halfpenny are streets ahead of any of the rest of the competition for their places - without any of those, Gatland is feiced.

JD2 played pretty well last match. Kearney, I'm sure, will be fine. Cole made a big difference coming on today

by broadlandboy Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:14 pm

IMHO due to his size Wade needs to tackle low and take the legs,he mustn't worry about the off load, other team mates should cover that.

by aitchw Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:19 pm

Wade didn't have a bad game in the context of the performance of the rest and could arguably claim to have done OK. You could easily make the case for Kearney being as much to blame as Wade for that early try. In 15 minutes or so following the substitutions the improved team damn near pulled it back. The Brumbies defence was solid and energetic and with poor Lions scrummaging the backs had little to work with.

Dissappointing result but that was more down to the management than most of the players. Apart from the subs who did well the rest have every right to feel shafted by the coaches and selection.

by **George Carlin** Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:20 pm

sirBiggles wrote:Good grief...

Look I'm disapointed too, I was hoping that this tour could have delivered a 100% win record. However, it hasnt....

Ok, some players will want to forget today, as they fell a million miles from their potential. However, at the end of the game it was close. Just 2 points, which was possible to pinch, but the Brumbies held out and closed the game down. Well done to them.

As for knocking Shane, he did what he was asked to do. He came in and gave much needed rest to players who WILL be competing for the test jersey. And for that, well done Shane. (He didnt have a bad game either... Ok not as we remember him, but he is in semi-retirement..).

As for Hogg, I hope he picks himself up from this, as he wasnt at his best, and I felt he left the 10 channel at times. Whether that is why Youngs kicked so much, or whether the fact Youngs was going to kick is why Hogg left the 10 position I dont know. But he should take heart from this as I think we'll be seeing far more of him in years to come.

...but to go back to what I wanted to say. The game was a tough one, probably the best Aussie opposition so far, and the Lions put out a weaker, less prepared side, yet only lost by 2. Not the end result I wanted, but I can live with that, if the Lions (test players) get their R & R and are ready to feast on Wallaby steaks come Saturday.

I was in a meeting all afternoon so I didn't see this but I am hoping that Biggles' measured summary above is about the right tone when describing it.

Is there any way of regarding this as a statement about the quality of our players? - i.e. that we can have a forward pack that dialled in their performance and a backline that just about knows each other's first names and we still managed to finish within 2 against the current Top 14 Aussie table leaders?

Or is that going a bit too far? I'm not suggesting we should be happy with a loss or anything and if our problem was lack of intensity, then there really isn't an excuse for that.

by BlueNote Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:22 pm

I felt particularly sorry for Twelvetrees, who I rate highly. He pretty much always got the ball with Brumbies hanging off it.

by Luckless Pedestrian Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:23 pm

aitchw wrote:Dissappointing result but that was more down to the management than most of the players. Apart from the subs who did well the rest have every right to feel shafted by the coaches and selection.

I don't follow. Should today's players have started against the Waratahs last Saturday instead, or against the Wallabies this coming Saturday? Headscratch

by Geordie Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:25 pm

Dissspointing to see a loss...

Any players stand out?

Oh and re Wade..he's a young lad just called up to the squad. I dont believe size will be an issue...Shane Williams couldnt tackle candy floss when he first started but he learned very well...Wade can do the same...

Hugely. I think this Lions squad is based around a few really central players, who when they are removed from the 23, make a huge difference to the overall play. I think guys like POC, BOD, North, Cuthbert, 1/2p, Vunipola, Gray (even though he played), even JD2 were all really missed today.

Now i dont think many people would have suggested him after he was first announced Wink

by RuggerRadge2611 Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:28 pm

So do we think there was a performance rebellion from the Players? That in a SCW style comment they knew in advance they had no chance of a test slot?

Rory Best's mind is broken too. Throwing the ball in is almost 99% mental. The guy is a pro and I'm sure can hit that big tyre in his barn till the cows come home, litteraly.

He really needs to see a sports psychologist or something because this has nothing to do with ability.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:31 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
aitchw wrote:Dissappointing result but that was more down to the management than most of the players. Apart from the subs who did well the rest have every right to feel shafted by the coaches and selection.

I don't follow. Should today's players have started against the Waratahs last Saturday instead, or against the Wallabies this coming Saturday?

I think he's saying some of them shouldn't have started at all; and one of them shouldn't have started in the position he started in.

by bluestonevedder Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:33 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:Dissspointing to see a loss...

Any players stand out?

Oh and re Wade..he's a young lad just called up to the squad. I dont believe size will be an issue...Shane Williams couldnt tackle candy floss when he first started but he learned very well...Wade can do the same...

Hugely. I think this Lions squad is based around a few really central players, who when they are removed from the 23, make a huge difference to the overall play. I think guys like POC, BOD, North, Cuthbert, 1/2p, Vunipola, Gray (even though he played), even JD2 were all really missed today.
Now i dont think many people would have suggested him after he was first announced

Very true! But he's rapidly becoming the find of the tour. England's loosehead situation is looking rather nice now. Mako, Carbs, and Marler all really on a rich vein of form.

by Luckless Pedestrian Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:45 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
aitchw wrote:Dissappointing result but that was more down to the management than most of the players. Apart from the subs who did well the rest have every right to feel shafted by the coaches and selection.

I don't follow. Should today's players have started against the Waratahs last Saturday instead, or against the Wallabies this coming Saturday?

I think he's saying some of them shouldn't have started at all; and one of them shouldn't have started in the position he started in.

That makes a bit more sense - and I really feel for Stuart Hogg, who's a quality player but has been hung out to dry a bit by Gatland. (You get called up to play for the Lions and the head coach asks you to play in a different position: well you can't really say no, can you?) But the fact remains that fifteen players had to start this game, and I'm sure the coaching team would be getting slated if they'd played probable Test players in this match only for them to get injured.

by wanderingdragon Tue 18 Jun 2013, 2:51 pm

It just wasn't a great performance all over.

Starting front row were suspect.
Best's throwing was why he wasn't initially picked - put pressure on the team at times and stopped them getting any momentum
Gray/Evans were ok - not their fault if the throw is off
SOB was a bit nonymous for him
Tipuric was very quiet and out-muscled at the breakdown
Faletau tried hard but back row wasn't cohesive
Youngs passing was a bit off for him but as much to do with having to 'find' Hogg too often
Hogg looked out of position - get him back to 15!
Williams was quiet but it was that kind of game - didn't let anyone down
Twelvetrees tried hard but sat too deep and put himself under pressure
Barritt - was he playing? Heard his name for the 1st time with 74 minutes on the clock
Wade - poor tackle but will get better as he plays at this level more
Kearney - also at fault for the try. Got better as game went on but not looking test quality

The most disappointing thing was the lack of fire until the bench was cleared. Backs had an excuse for lack of cohesion but the forwards didn't.

Probably made Gatland's selection meeting for the test much shorter!

by **profitius** Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:04 pm

I know the players were not great but the main reason why everyone played below par was because they failed to play as a team. Nobody was on the same wavelength and that made it harder to get any momentum going.

The lineout was awful and it wasn't just Bests fault. The second rows don't look like great lineout men either, no matter what height they are. Unfortunately Best showed why he wasn't picked in the first place. Great in the loose but he is poor thrower.

The luckiest player to be on the tour must be Ian Evans with Stevens not far behind. The subs made a big impact in the set pieces when they came on.

The Lions should have stolen it near the end. Murray took the wrong option although it wasn't his fault there were no players supporting him. Another example of a systems failure. Murray however was at fault for kicking the ball away to the Brumbies a few min later.

Twelvetrees and Barrett looked limited as a combination and it was no surprise the back 3 hardly touched the ball.

by mckay1402 Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:06 pm

If you put this game into context it was a club side who play regularly together vs a scratch team who have only just met with two retired players in. Brumbies should have been more comfortable from that point of view.

That said the forwards did not put their hands up tonight. Disappointed with tipuric but the back row weren't a unit.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:09 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:But the fact remains that fifteen players had to start this game, and I'm sure the coaching team would be getting slated if they'd played probable Test players in this match only for them to get injured.

But you see the dilemma that causes, Luckless. What you're thinking, the players who played today probably know all too well - that it was a game and a team designed to save the 'real' Lions from injury and....well, "the rest of you vermin, get out there and honour the Lions shirt that you're not really fit to be wearing anyway"

I know it isn't as blunt as that of course but the inference is certainly there - certainly in that actual selection of it.

So players who never expected to play on the Lions tour are out there playing. A player who isn't an International 10 plays it against the Brumbies (highest team in Super). Players who expected a bigger role in the tour (and who trained with units over the last few weeks to get there) are then lumped with the fresh-off-the-plane guys and expected to drag the team through to a win - knowing they'll get more criticism than the new guys whatever happens.

It was just a badly planned mess of a selection and game...and it only proves that Gatland initially felt his players were much tougher than they are as regards gametime and heavy duty training. He now knows that if he pushes too hard, the annointed ones break down. The first opponents were over-killed to gain momentum and now momentum itself is the first casualty as rests are needed more often than he had planned.

But vermin are still vermin and have to cover for the fragility of some of the big names Wink

by funnyExiledScot Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:13 pm

I don't think the excuse of the Lions being a "scratch side" is particularly valid personally. The pack was formed entirely of players who have been on the tour throughout, the back row also being close to the Test XV, and the pack didn't match up.

As for the backline, well several of the changes were entirely of the Lions own making. We all said that they should have had three fly halves on the tour, and the decision not to do so has backfired. Had they brought proper cover in the midfield then there would have been no reason to cobble together this backline so hap hazardly. Sure, the Lions have been unlucky with one or two injuries, but the cover at fly half and centre looked threadbare from the outset. Annoying to lose such a winnable tour game.

Still, the 1st Test is where it's at now. Come on you Lions!!

by Luckless Pedestrian Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:19 pm

I see your point, Fly, but there's no avoiding it, is there - apart from turning down a match the Tuesday before a Test match.

Also, despite how poorly the Lions played (I'm told - I only got to listen to radio commentary), we lost by two points. Our worst performance all tour and we lost by two points to the strongest Australian franchise. Hardly cause for the sackcloth and ashes, in my book.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:20 pm

wanderingdragon wrote:

Probably made Gatland's selection meeting for the test much shorter!

Let's hope his selection meeting for the test is more professional and longer than the meeting that put together today's side.

by Scrumpy Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:23 pm

Its not the end of the world, the Aussies will be full of it come Saturday which will make it all the more enjoyable when we smash them. Very Happy

by **Ozzy3213** Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:24 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:I don't think the excuse of the Lions being a "scratch side" is particularly valid personally. The pack was formed entirely of players who have been on the tour throughout, the back row also being close to the Test XV, and the pack didn't match up.

Spot on.

Interestingly, I thought Tipuric was poor, and has made Gatland's decision for the 7 jersey easy. As a result of this performance I think in terms of the back row 6. Croft 7. Warburton and 20. O'Brien are now nailed on for the first test. Faletau tried manfully behind a front 5 that did very little, and I think the discussion about whether Heaslip or him wear the 8 jersey, will the longest one the coaching staff have in relation to the pack.

by aitchw Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:28 pm

Luckless, sorry for the late response. SecretFly has it just about right. The Brumbies were acknowledged the best of the pre-test sides and for various reasons we fielded the worst prepared side so far. Not a promising situation. If you've ever been prevailed upon to make up the numbers for any team at any level you'll know how it feels and what the likely outcome will be for you. At this level it's even more punishing. A few of today's side will not get another chance because of the performance and apart from the starting pack they don't deserve to be in that position.

by The Boss Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:38 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:So do we think there was a performance rebellion from the Players? That in a SCW style comment they knew in advance they had no chance of a test slot?

Rory Best's mind is broken too. Throwing the ball in is almost 99% mental. The guy is a pro and I'm sure can hit that big tyre in his barn till the cows come home, litteraly.

He really needs to see a sports psychologist or something because this has nothing to do with ability.

i believe Rory has holes in bales of hay for practice I'm really feeling for him at the minute he looks like a shadow of his former self!

by glamorganalun Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:39 pm

If the Lions started with Hibbard the Lions would have had some decent ball from the line out rather than turned over ball. The half backs were very poor Hogg was getting the ball above his head which is not good for an learner at 10. 12 Trees was too far back resulting in being tackled behind the gain line. Barrit I only heard his name once 5 mins from the end. The backs were so poor the only options they could do was kick poorly.

The Lions only threatened the line once when Williams got close with no space in the first couple of mins. I was note sure Williams foot was in touch, he looked away.

The try showed the weak defence on Wade's side and Kearney was no help, Kearney is good in the air but tackling is not a strength.

Looking on the bright side none of the starters played today and the subs did OK but none of them are game changers with the exception of Zebo.

Evans seems to be taking some flack, he can't help it if the hooker can't throw straight, I did not see him miss tackles, drop the ball or give a penalty away and he was not like Gray remote from the tight play. He was not outstanding it looked like the front row were not up to much.

by Luckless Pedestrian Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:41 pm

That's fair enough, aitchw. I'd question the scheduling of the fixtures. Could we have played the Brumbies last Tuesday and done without the Country and Western XV?

N.B. I know they're not called the Country and Western XV. But it would be excellent if they were.

by BlueNote Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:42 pm

Can't agree Tipuric was poor, I don't really understand how you'd come to that view, he did what he had to in the circumstances pretty well.

I think the front row is still quite a difficult call, in terms of the selection meeting. There's an argument over each spot; Vunipola may be a weakness in the scrum, making Corbisiero a better choice, but you'd lose a bit in the loose; Youngs has many qualities, but again you'd worry about the scrum, Hibbard is not perfect at lineout time but is very strong in the scrum and powerful tackling and carrying; again with Jones/Cole you have the set-piece role versus Cole probably offering a bit more round the pitch. The choice in one spot may affect the others (choosing Vunipola and Youngs would be a mistake in my view, although there is a case for either as individuals). I can see a case for starting with Corbisiero/Hibbard/Jones with a view to swapping the whole front row after 50 mins or so. Maybe the expected weather conditions will affect the choice; if it's due to be wet, maybe you'd tend more towards the heavies.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:44 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:I don't think the excuse of the Lions being a "scratch side" is particularly valid personally.

A 10 who isn't a 10. A hooker who was known to be having major issues with his throwing over a hooker who was sitting on the bench having his rest. A rest that he could have waited for in the second half, when he actually had to come on anyway and play harder to try and retrieve a game that had gone away.

So, along with the fresh and green (to the Lions system) fly-in boys, a non-functioning 13, a non-International 10, a non-throwing hooker; yep, I'd say Gatland didn't give that side a fighting chance. A scratch-side from hell really - that might incidentally have pushed the Brumbies off the field in the first half had Gatland given them the one or two players they needed to compete.

by RubyGuby Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:51 pm

Gatland had to protect the players he had left; end of really - key players could have got really damaged in this game. We are there to win the tests and have major injury concerns. His hands were largely tied. If we win on Saturday then fans will be saying he did the right thing. thumbsup

by RubyGuby Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:52 pm

Corbs
Hibbard
Adam
POC
AWJ
Croft
Heaslip
Warburton

Cole and Youngs off the bench between the 50 and 60 minute mark. Brumbies vs Lions Tuesday - Page 8 732107

Brumbies vs Lions Tuesday - Page 8 732107

RubyGuby
Posts: 5575
Join date: 2011-05-31
Location: UK

by funnyExiledScot Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:52 pm

Secretfly - it sounds like we're in agreement. The Lions have no excuse. This defeat could easily have been avoided and the mess of a selection was entirely of Gatland's making.

Still, the pack should have performed better, particularly the back row. The blame for poor performance there rests in the shoulders of those individuals.

by RubyGuby Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:54 pm

FES - Probably on the shoulders unless you are referring to some ligament damage? thumbsup

by glamorganalun Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:57 pm

I bet there are a few flyhalves thinking up you Gatland.

by SecretFly Tue 18 Jun 2013, 3:58 pm

RubyGuby wrote:Gatland had to protect the players he had left; end of really - key players could have got really damaged in this game. We are there to win the tests and have major injury concerns. His hands were largely tied. If we win on Saturday then fans will be saying he did the right thing.

The fall guy players won't, Ruby. If Gatland really wanted to win a game against a team that was (on paper) better than the Warratahs then he could have given one or two of the second half players to the first half cause, when the winning is usually in the game and the opposition are at their freshest and most ambitious. He put his whole tank of subs on in the second half so no excuses about who he was trying to save from injury. An injury comes when you play, it doesn't care what half.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 18 Jun 2013, 4:02 pm

Well given the injury situation on this tour I suspect it's both on and in the shoulders!

I disagree with you that if we win the Test series Gatland will necessarily have done the right thing re: initial squad selection and selection for this game. He was always at least one midfield selection short in his initial squad - that was obvious. Kearney should not have gone, and he needed an extra specialist fly half. Had he made the right initial squad selection, I do not believe this fixture would have been the shambles it was. This isn't hindsight either - I and many others said it when the initial squad was announced. The depth of the squad in certain areas was too shallow.

I'll certainly care less if we win the series, but I still think Gatland has made mistakes with his squad selection. Hogg is not sufficient cover at 10 and should have been used at 15. If Gatland needed a 10 to play 2-3 on the tour other than Sexton or Farrell (neither of whom have been injured), then why on earth not pick another 10. It makes zero sense, and contributed to a tour defeat that could so easily have been avoided.

by Higher_Ground Tue 18 Jun 2013, 4:08 pm

Sin é wrote:
Aelandor wrote:Wouldn't put Williams as poor. Didn't get much ball on the wing and none of it in any space at all. Tackled fine and even won a high ball.

Simon Zebo didn't have any problem getting his hands on the ball.

Shane was coming in off his wing looking for work and scoring hatfuls of trys when Zebo was in Primary school, literally.

by Allty Tue 18 Jun 2013, 4:09 pm

[quote="Luckless Pedestrian"]I see your point, Fly, but there's no avoiding it, is there - apart from turning down a match the Tuesday before a Test match.

Also, despite how poorly the Lions played (I'm told - I only got to listen to radio commentary), we lost by two points. Our worst performance all tour and we lost by two points to the strongest Australian franchise. Hardly cause for the sackcloth and ashes, in my book.

________________________

LP there are 10 or so Brumbies first team players in the Oz squad and unavailable.

The first 60 mins were very poor and the original Lions in the team looked very tired possibly due to over training

[/quote]

by SecretFly Tue 18 Jun 2013, 4:12 pm

Higher_Ground wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Aelandor wrote:Wouldn't put Williams as poor. Didn't get much ball on the wing and none of it in any space at all. Tackled fine and even won a high ball.

Simon Zebo didn't have any problem getting his hands on the ball.

Shane was coming in off his wing looking for work and scoring hatfuls of trys when Zebo was in Primary school, literally.

Zebo went to school????? Now, there's something new for his biographer to work on. Thanks for the headsup on that one. Ground Wink

by kiakahaaotearoa Tue 18 Jun 2013, 4:19 pm

I think the Lions disrespected the Brumbies and paid the price. Playing the Brumbies is a great honour for any British or Irish player. The fact that the Lions are playing this Saturday is irrelevant. They probably won't win and they should've put out their best squad. Whistle

by Big Tue 18 Jun 2013, 4:24 pm

glamorganalun - I don't doubt you are right. I don't know anyone that saw the sense of only having 2 10s for the tour, presumably other than Gatland. I don't think any of the backs can be blamed when over half of the starters have only just joined the tour, and they've had nowhere near enough time to acclimatise and get used to playing together.

Some of the starting forwards were very dubious though. Seriously poor performance from them, which only made life harder for the backs.

by Scarpia Tue 18 Jun 2013, 4:25 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:But the fact remains that fifteen players had to start this game, and I'm sure the coaching team would be getting slated if they'd played probable Test players in this match only for them to get injured.

But you see the dilemma that causes, Luckless. What you're thinking, the players who played today probably know all too well - that it was a game and a team designed to save the 'real' Lions from injury and....well, "the rest of you vermin, get out there and honour the Lions shirt that you're not really fit to be wearing anyway"

Or, to put it another way, "You have a chance to impress us." Surely there were a number of players on this tour, like any other Lions tour, or in any rugby squad, who knew they were 2nd or 3rd choice in their position and would only play if they showed outstanding form or the players in front of them lost form or got injured. I doubt any of this starting XV were expecting to start a test when they were selected - Tipuric might have felt he had a good chance, Rob Kearney, Gray and O’Brien possibly.

by Sponsored content