Brumbies vs Lions Tuesday

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.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: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.

I know youre only joking but in all fairness it was a close game and the Lions came close in the end so no disrespect there.

I think a lot of the lions players probably realised they were out of the test team when they featured... would have had a mental impact... sometimes positive, sometimes negative.

Strange that by all accounts the players who were most in the running played well whereas those who didn't have a sniff were again poor. You would have thought it would have been the other way around.

As for it being a close game, a number of relatively straightforward penalties were missed.  Also, had the replacement front row been on from the start, the Lions would probably have won; if their lineout had functioned somewhere near properly they'd have won, while I don't think you could have predicted the lineout would go as badly as it did.  I can't really see a case of disrespecting - desparation, maybe, given the injury situation.

So what you're saying, Blue, is that if the Lions played rugby better they probably would have won. Mind. Blown.

You're right GG. There was no disrespect from the Lions. Don't seem to be the disrespectful comments aimed either at the Brumbies like there were about the ironically named The Force (even though they seem to beat the Crusaders recently ).

Don't think the preparation was as bad as it was initially made out to be. The Lions played very well last Saturday and didn't play so well today. I think in general they've got enough out of their games to know what their test side is. Hence the tongue and cheek comment.

A collection of lads who've just come off the plane/holiday/retirement/out of position must make it a very hard game to play in. No wonder Brian Moore said they looked like a Barbarians team.

Poor old Best had a terrible time with his throwing too. When ball at the beginning of the set piece is slow - due to errors - it ain't going to get quicker. Domino effect on the rest of the team.

Maybe they needed this? May do them good.  I hope so, 'cause a lot of these lads will be featuring in the 2nd and 3rd tests if the injuries continue.

Effervescing Elephant wrote:So what you're saying, Blue, is that if the Lions played rugby better they probably would have won. Mind. Blown.

Stop being cheeky you! I have my eye on you.

BlueNote wrote:As for it being a close game, a number of relatively straightforward penalties were missed.  Also, had the replacement front row been on from the start, the Lions would probably have won; if their lineout had functioned somewhere near properly they'd have won, while I don't think you could have predicted the lineout would go as badly as it did.  I can't really see a case of disrespecting - desparation, maybe, given the injury situation.

Playing Devil's advocate here (that phrase has a great origin) but Mogg also missed some kickable penalties

I think this has little bearing on the Saturday test but fair play to the brumbies for turning up. This is highlighting the need for a bigger squad as injuries will continue to plague both the lions and australia.

So hands up who had money on brumbies here? I had 20 on them to win which was a close one, but my easy money was putting a ton on them to beat a handicap of -11. I'll probably lose it all against australia either through drink or rash bets....

Time to focus on Saturday now!!!!!

I haven't seen the game but I hope certain players aren't judged too much on this performance. Billy, Wade, Williams and Barritt were basically named in the side before getting to Aus just a few days ago! Crazy expectations on them. And Hogg, brilliant at 15, is having to play 10.

OK, a couple of the lads don't really have an excuse but no huge surprise, this scoreline.

IIRC Mogg missed one from about 54+m,so not a given, it was their no9 who missed the easier ones

littlejohn wrote:I think this has little bearing on the Saturday test but fair play to the brumbies for turning up. This is highlighting the need for a bigger squad as injuries will continue to plague both the lions and australia.

So hands up who had money on brumbies here? I had 20 on them to win which was a close one, but my easy money was putting a ton on them to beat a handicap of -11. I'll probably lose it all against australia either through drink or rash bets....

Time to focus on Saturday now!!!!!

I picked them on SuperBru by 7 - so if they'd landed those 2 easy 1st half kicks I'd have been bang on.

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.

So two and a half weeks is enough to share a hotel and suddenly you get a rugby team! This is a scratch side just as every Lions team in the modern era is a scratch side, but this one even moreso. Club sides who bring in new players can take whole seasons to integrate them into their teams, yet the Lions are expected to do this in a couple of dozen days?

The set piece is the one area that teams practice above others - because they can. There is simply no way that level of understanding can be engendered in such a short time. This is especially important when a cobbled together 'plan A' doesn't work, as there simply hasn't been time to have any other plan to fall back on. Even though the guys off the plane were backs, that doesn't absolve them of every duty except scoring tries. Backs have to work to the same defensive pattern as their forwards, they have to hit rucks and secure ball, and they have to run lines where they'll support and be supported. It is hardly surprising that the most anonymous players were the ones just arrived and that anonymity put even more pressure on the already malfunctioning pack.

This was unquestionably a disorganised scratch team (forwards and backs) and there wasn't enough individual class to make up for the shortfall in team practice.

The Great Aukster wrote:

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.

So two and a half weeks is enough to share a hotel and suddenly you get a rugby team! This is a scratch side just as every Lions team in the modern era is a scratch side, but this one even moreso. Club sides who bring in new players can take whole seasons to integrate them into their teams, yet the Lions are expected to do this in a couple of dozen days?

The set piece is the one area that teams practice above others - because they can. There is simply no way that level of understanding can be engendered in such a short time. This is especially important when a cobbled together 'plan A' doesn't work, as there simply hasn't been time to have any other plan to fall back on. Even though the guys off the plane were backs, that doesn't absolve them of every duty except scoring tries. Backs have to work to the same defensive pattern as their forwards, they have to hit rucks and secure ball, and they have to run lines where they'll support and be supported. It is hardly surprising that the most anonymous players were the ones just arrived and that anonymity put even more pressure on the already malfunctioning pack.

This was unquestionably a disorganised scratch team (forwards and backs) and there wasn't enough individual class to make up for the shortfall in team practice.

So a Lions pack always has the excuse at being a scratch side? And pretty much all international sides.

I don't know. The Lions have looked pretty convincing to me. No more so than against NSW. What's the harm in saying the Lions were off today and the Brumbies played well? I don't hear comments if we weren't a scratch side we would've pumped NSW by 60. It's not the end of the world. The real test comes this Saturday.

Yeh, not sure "The Great Aukster" has really grasped the concept of the Lions, nor indeed the point I was making.

Some on these boards think that the Lions have an excuse for losing the game. Injuries leading to a scratch side with insufficient preparation. My view is that opinion (a) does the Brumbies an injustice, and (b) gives Gatland far too much slack.

Yes, the Lions have suffered injuries, but the lack of cover in key positions in the backline is of the Lions (or rather Gatland's) choosing. So no excuse for the disjointed performance there. The forwards were all original tourists, so why the lacklustre performance?

What I liked about the response from Gatland after the game is that he focused on the lack of intensity from the players and said that it wasn't good enough, rather than spend the whole time whining about injuries and the lack of preparation time. I suspect he realises that he could have had more depth in certain positions from the outset, fly half and centre in particular.

It wasn't great that Hogg had to play ten against a form player, but in theory he was playing behind a decent pack and with (allegedly) the better and speedier service of Youngs. Given the problems with Tuilagi and Roberts, I think he had to have another go there, to give him a chance at the bench (because Farrell had to be rested due to the likelihood that at the mo he is there as ten/centre cover). Also Kearney probably needed another start. I don't think it will affect Hogg's confidence though.

Re Best, I'd be surprised (after reading how much Sam Warburton likes using him) if the sports psychologist Wales use isn't available in some way. Though at the minute he might be busy with Robin McBryde etc after the Japan game the other day.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

littlejohn wrote:I think this has little bearing on the Saturday test but fair play to the brumbies for turning up. This is highlighting the need for a bigger squad as injuries will continue to plague both the lions and australia.

So hands up who had money on brumbies here? I had 20 on them to win which was a close one, but my easy money was putting a ton on them to beat a handicap of -11. I'll probably lose it all against australia either through drink or rash bets....

Time to focus on Saturday now!!!!!

I picked them on SuperBru by 7 - so if they'd landed those 2 easy 1st half kicks I'd have been bang on.

I mentioned my surprise that the bookies had them at 7/2. That was easy money to make really. Wish I'd put more money on though.

I wasn't expecting much from that backline, Hogg should never have been considered at 10, even less so with most of the players outside him (two of whom were even less internationally experienced than he) flown halfway round the world only a day or two before and with probably only one training session together under their belt.

The forwards have no such excuses however, they really should have done far, far better.  Most of those players are high quality, have been there the whole tour and even if they thought they were out of the 1st test running should have been performing to get a bench spot or a call up for latter tests if others underperform or get injured.  Yet they were shown up by the Brumbies in pretty much every aspect of forward play.

A solid platform not put to great use by a thrown together backline would have been unsurprising/palatable, what we saw was just a huge disappointment.


I hope the backs that were thrown into this situation get the opportunity to do themselves better justice with a week together come the Rebels match, it really was an incredibly difficult set of circumstances and I'd hate that to be their lingering memory of being a Lion.  Real shame Williams won't be around to make his last outing a more fitting send off as well.



On the question of the try, there were a number of errors that combined.  The defensive line coming up wasn't great, Hogg should have stayed on the wide man, Wade had to go low from the angle he was chasing him from given their comparitive size, and although Kearney was always going to struggle stopping a player of that size close to the line with a head of steam, I think he probably could have done a bit better.

I wouldn't mind seeing the try again, but Hogg was in a pretty awkward position. I know Barnes made a thing about him coming in and how he should've trusted Wade, but maybe Wade didn't tell him he had him? At least he did something and didn't get caught in no mans land (ie he tried to take man with ball.

Rory Best  Terrible, Terrible game to day. He should of been taken off earlier IMHO.

Ben Youngs did not have one of his best games today. Slow ball from the rucks and mauls, slow ball to the backs was that really his fault? Or the case of the back line not playing together before?

Rob Kearney had a great game today.

Shane Williams? Really? should he have played to day? The dancing feet have long gone. When he was taken off and Zebo brought on he looked like he was about too keal over.

I do think that the bench should of come on sooner rather than later.

A close game today, but i do feel a game that the Lions could of won.

Just watching the game now, the forwards did a poor job of laying a decent foundation. Combine that with a player in the 10 slot who's only ever played there once before, he's always going to struggle going backwards.

Didn't think Youngs was bad at all, not great but not as bad as some have said on here. When he did get quick ball at the rucks the players hadn't lined up behind him. Thought O'Brien had a bit of a brain fart at one point where just seem to lose it.

I do also wonder if some of todays players realise they won't be involved on Saturday and so felt a little jaded.

i was also expecting a bit more from Grant after so many people said on here they wasn't going to following the lions as Gatland made a mockery of it for selecting Corbs instead....

nathan wrote:Just watching the game now, the forwards did a poor job of laying a decent foundation. Combine that with a player in the 10 slot who's only ever played there once before, he's always going to struggle going backwards.

Didn't think Youngs was bad at all, not great but not as bad as some have said on here. When he did get quick ball at the rucks the players hadn't lined up behind him. Thought O'Brien had a bit of a brain fart at one point where just seem to lose it.

I do also wonder if some of todays players realise they won't be involved on Saturday and so felt a little jaded.

I wouldnt say Hogg is the issue at all, by all accounts Hogg had a good game again at ten. Not great goal kicking but he can certainly play ten well. Very impressed with Barritt, solid player does all the basics excellently... Twelvetrees was out of line a few times in attack, hitting wrong angles, didnt lve up to his reputation.

Wade looks great, pacy and quick thinking. Williams doesnt look much different to when he stopped playing two years ago.

Front row were awful. That let us down a lot and the big difference came when the sub front row entered.

1. Front row not good enough.
2. Rory Best Throwing -in just awful.
3. Hogg couldn't hit a barn door at 10 Yards.
4. Ben Youngs' passing has brought a new level to the 'too high and behind the receiver' pass. He literally stopped the attack going forward almost with every pass. Just awful.

The only comfort is that none of them will start on Saturday. I hope.

maestegmafia wrote:

nathan wrote:Just watching the game now, the forwards did a poor job of laying a decent foundation. Combine that with a player in the 10 slot who's only ever played there once before, he's always going to struggle going backwards.

Didn't think Youngs was bad at all, not great but not as bad as some have said on here. When he did get quick ball at the rucks the players hadn't lined up behind him. Thought O'Brien had a bit of a brain fart at one point where just seem to lose it.

I do also wonder if some of todays players realise they won't be involved on Saturday and so felt a little jaded.

I wouldnt say Hogg is the issue at all, by all accounts Hogg had a good game again at ten. Not great goal kicking but he can certainly play ten well. Very impressed with Barritt, solid player does all the basics excellently... Twelvetrees was out of line a few times in attack, hitting wrong angles, didnt lve up to his reputation.

Wade looks great, pacy and quick thinking. Williams doesnt look much different to when he stopped playing two years ago.

Front row were awful. That let us down a lot and the big difference came when the sub front row entered.

Twelvetrees is not a 13, so I'm not surprised to here that his positioning wasn't great.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

nathan wrote:Just watching the game now, the forwards did a poor job of laying a decent foundation. Combine that with a player in the 10 slot who's only ever played there once before, he's always going to struggle going backwards.

Didn't think Youngs was bad at all, not great but not as bad as some have said on here. When he did get quick ball at the rucks the players hadn't lined up behind him. Thought O'Brien had a bit of a brain fart at one point where just seem to lose it.

I do also wonder if some of todays players realise they won't be involved on Saturday and so felt a little jaded.

I wouldnt say Hogg is the issue at all, by all accounts Hogg had a good game again at ten. Not great goal kicking but he can certainly play ten well. Very impressed with Barritt, solid player does all the basics excellently... Twelvetrees was out of line a few times in attack, hitting wrong angles, didnt lve up to his reputation.

Wade looks great, pacy and quick thinking. Williams doesnt look much different to when he stopped playing two years ago.

Front row were awful. That let us down a lot and the big difference came when the sub front row entered.

Twelvetrees is not a 13, so I'm not surprised to here that his positioning wasn't great.

But he was playing 12

hogg did not have a good game .
 
hogg did not have any sort of game.
 
i'm not blaming the guy, he is not a 10.
 
when your forwards  and  set pieces are not functioning, thats when a 10 can earn his place.
 
at least a 10 would have attempted to put us in the right areas, would have tried to put some control on the game, even with the limited performace from the front 5, there were things to salvage.
 
you posters know me well enough, biggar should have gone as 3rd choice ( second choice for me)
 
everything that has come to pass over the whole tour so far has been down to no 3rd real 10, and poor defence, players forced out of position, papering over others mistakes and getting injured through over stretching and body twisting the opposite way to your feet , sounds basic, but true. some of our defence has been a horror story......even though we've won the games, bar one.
 
should andy farrell have gone over shaun edwards ? now i have real doubts.

wales606 wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

nathan wrote:Just watching the game now, the forwards did a poor job of laying a decent foundation. Combine that with a player in the 10 slot who's only ever played there once before, he's always going to struggle going backwards.

Didn't think Youngs was bad at all, not great but not as bad as some have said on here. When he did get quick ball at the rucks the players hadn't lined up behind him. Thought O'Brien had a bit of a brain fart at one point where just seem to lose it.

I do also wonder if some of todays players realise they won't be involved on Saturday and so felt a little jaded.

I wouldnt say Hogg is the issue at all, by all accounts Hogg had a good game again at ten. Not great goal kicking but he can certainly play ten well. Very impressed with Barritt, solid player does all the basics excellently... Twelvetrees was out of line a few times in attack, hitting wrong angles, didnt lve up to his reputation.

Wade looks great, pacy and quick thinking. Williams doesnt look much different to when he stopped playing two years ago.

Front row were awful. That let us down a lot and the big difference came when the sub front row entered.

Twelvetrees is not a 13, so I'm not surprised to here that his positioning wasn't great.

But he was playing 12

I thought Barritt was 12 and he was 13?

Philips   jd   bod  will get the ball out wide . really looking forward to Saturday . can't see Roberts being fit hopefully north is be ok

nathan wrote:i was also expecting a bit more from Grant after so many people said on here they wasn't going to following the lions as Gatland made a mockery of it for selecting Corbs instead....

I think its unfair to focus on Grant for the scrum problems. Whole front row were rubbish, if we'd selected a decent 3rd choice TH instead of Stevens then that would have been a different scrum that would have put some pressure on. Also with 2 non Scrumming locks the LH can't do it all on his own. His work in the loose was OK, but could be better, again the pack did not work as a unit. Personally blame Rowntree.

Ian Evans has really dis-appointed me, on the back of a great 6 Nations he was my dark horse for a test spot and fancied seeing him and POC partnered but its just not happened for Evans

justified sinner wrote:

nathan wrote:i was also expecting a bit more from Grant after so many people said on here they wasn't going to following the lions as Gatland made a mockery of it for selecting Corbs instead....

I think its unfair to focus on Grant for the scrum problems. Whole front row were rubbish, if we'd selected a decent 3rd choice TH instead of Stevens then that would have been a different scrum that would have put some pressure on. Also with 2 non Scrumming locks the LH can't do it all on his own. His work in the loose was OK, but could be better, again the pack did not work as a unit. Personally blame Rowntree.

I don't think you can blame Rowntree for players not bringing any intensity to the game, its the Lions for Gods sake, they should bring the fire with them not have to have a coach instill it in them. There were also plenty of individual errors that are not the fault of a coach.

Think 36 was really exposed in this game, not his fault though. He was used as 2nd receiver standing deeper in the playmaker role, which is fine if we had good front foot ball, but we had none and the players still persisted in sending it out his way with the defensive line all set and ready to blitz, the 13 read it every time and yet Hogg would keep sending it his way, presumably because thats what they'd done in training?

All in all it was a very poor forwards performance, which had a knock on effect of Youngs getting awful ball (phillips is better with poor ball) which gave Hogg awful ball, and due to his lack of experience, he shipped that on down the line for someone to get tackled behind the gain line.

belovedfrosties wrote:

justified sinner wrote:

nathan wrote:i was also expecting a bit more from Grant after so many people said on here they wasn't going to following the lions as Gatland made a mockery of it for selecting Corbs instead....

I think its unfair to focus on Grant for the scrum problems. Whole front row were rubbish, if we'd selected a decent 3rd choice TH instead of Stevens then that would have been a different scrum that would have put some pressure on. Also with 2 non Scrumming locks the LH can't do it all on his own. His work in the loose was OK, but could be better, again the pack did not work as a unit. Personally blame Rowntree.

I don't think you can blame Rowntree for players not bringing any intensity to the game, its the Lions for Gods sake, they should bring the fire with them not have to have a coach instill it in them.  There were also plenty of individual errors that are not the fault of a coach.

Think 36 was really exposed in this game, not his fault though.  He was used as 2nd receiver standing deeper in the playmaker role, which is fine if we had good front foot ball, but we had none and the players still persisted in sending it out his way with the defensive line all set and ready to blitz, the 13 read it every time and yet Hogg would keep sending it his way, presumably because thats what they'd done in training?  

All in all  it was a very poor forwards performance, which had a knock on effect of Youngs getting awful ball (phillips is better with poor ball) which gave Hogg awful ball, and due to his lack of experience, he shipped that on down the line for someone to get tackled behind the gain line.

Either the coaches are to blame for not giving the team one or two more foundation stones to be competitive or the players are all responsible for not trying hard enough.  It isn't both.  You can only work to the framework that's on the field and it wasn't there.

Gatland and his coaches didn't give the team a real 10 against a real team.  Blame the players selectively all you want - the coaches had a 10 sitting on a bench, who they had to use eventually anyway.  They also had a hooker sitting on the bench who wasn't suffering from the well published lack of confidence in throwing.  So an already weakened team (new players coming in cold) had to try and get going with less than they could have been given to make life easier for them.  Coaching issue.

A poor performance from the Lions but also a good one by the Brumbies. It does put some of Gatland's selection decisions, especially taking only two 10s, into sharp relief.

1.Grant
2.Best
3.Murray
4.Gray
5.Evans
6.O'Brien
7.Tipuric
8.Faletau

9.Youngs
10.Biggar/Hook/Madigan

11.Hogg
12.Twelvetrees
13.Scott
14.Wade
15.Kearney

You only have to make 3 changes to the squad that many people wanted to see and suddenly the side looks a hell of a lot better!

HammerofThunor wrote:So a Lions pack always has the excuse at being a scratch side? And pretty much all international sides.

Yes to the first and no to the second.

There is a significant difference between teams who have players accumulating dozens of caps together as a unit and the Lions who have players with dozens of caps playing together (as a unit) for the first time.

You only have to look at the French league to see how long it takes some "fantasy" teams to perform - generally years not days.

My view of a scratch side is twofold.  

Unfamiliarity.  Yes, you could say the entire Lions outfit is a scratch side, given how short in real terms they've been together (weeks not years).  BUT - some combinations are more scratch than others...and Wade, Williams, Barritt joined to Hogg at 10 was always more ambitious hope than reason against the top Aussie Super 15 side.

The second part about a scratch side is that Hogg point.  A scratch with players in unfamiliar roles is more scratchy than one where players at least are comfortable in the position the inhabit.

Is Hogg in line to be the flyhalf against the Rebels?

One of the biggest issues for the backline was Ben Youngs. He has been superb on this tour but was blwdi awful today.

The centres struggled, I thought Barritt did well in defence. Hogg was good too, with what he got.

I would rather see Hogg in the match day 23 than Farrell, Hogg inspires hope.

We're there just not enough Welsh players out there? Or does Gatland not know how to coach and get the best from the English, Scots and Irish?

No excuses for this game & Gatland was right to say the team had no intensity in the first half. 
Maybe they had in the back of their minds they were the 'dirt trackers'
but I can't accept that for the apparent lack of leadership & effort.

The pack should have done a lot better but we were beaten up front all over the place set piece & breakdown especially.

If the Lions really wanted to win this game they would have changed the front 3 at half time if not before.

A game like this was inevitable with a small squad lacking cover in critical positions because injuries were always going to feature.

Are you suggesting they lost because they just didnt want to win? That sounds a bit patronising.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Are you suggesting they lost because they just didnt want to win? That sounds a bit patronising.

It was obvious that the gamble of that front row was not working & it was a mistake to have kept them on for 60 odd minutes.
It wasn't meant to sound patronising but Best at least should have been hauled off way before he was. I don't like this strict 60 min sub routine. Particularly when players are clearly struggling.

Disaster? No. Disappointing? Yes. Affect on the tour? Minimal. I remember seeing Swansea,Llanelli and Ospreys beating touring Australian teams who then went on to win their test matches.

That's how I see it, Scarpia. It's hardly a calamity. It's not as if it was a hiding, either

Hard for me to slate the backs too severely because the forwards were poor.  No excuse for this group of forwards not to dominate at the scrums, lineouts and breakdowns.  None.  Then, of course, playing someone at 10 who clearly should not be there combined with mostly new players in the backs..... 

I just saw the stats and realised the Lions had a 60/40 edge in possession and territory.  Would not have thought that based upon that game.

Its very hard to judge the back when the starting forwards were very poor - the backs had no space or ball to work with. The starting back row did well but were pretty much defending the breakdown on their own.

Kerarney and Wade really should have defended better for that try - but as they have had barely any training time together the defensive system wasn't there I guess. Wade should have gone lower though, would've slowed him down for Kearney to help out too.

No platform = No hope - Rugby's a simple game and Gatland just put out what remined of his squad plus a few add ons. No surprises with the result, it happens on these types of tours. It sorted a few men out from the boys but in a strange way it probably did the selection process more favours than anything else and has given the squad an "edge" that was lacking as they now venture out with a point to prove. You gotta hand it to Gatland, he's a clever so and so

Yes - he should have taken Hook or another 10 and Yes he should have not taken Matt Stephens - But how many on here were also baying for his blood for ommitting Rory Best. Just judge him after the tour as it's likely to blow up in your face otherwise.

With reference to Wade - not making excuses for him - but wouldn't he have been suffering jet lag?

He was called up on Saturday 15th. According to Expedia it's 21-24 hours at the weekend to Sydney, with 1 or 2 stops, which means he'd have arrived Monday am at best, more likely Monday pm local time. On Tuesday, Wade would have been playing at, according to his body clock, at about 3am. 

Not sure how alert you all are at 3am. Some people can adapt well to jet lag, others take a few days to recover.

Alex_Germany wrote:With reference to Wade - not making excuses for him - but wouldn't he have been suffering jet lag?

He was called up on Saturday 15th. According to Expedia it's 21-24 hours at the weekend to Sydney, with 1 or 2 stops, which means he'd have arrived Monday am at best, more likely Monday pm local time. On Tuesday, Wade would have been playing at, according to his body clock, at about 3am. 

Not sure how alert you all are at 3am. Some people can adapt well to jet lag, others take a few days to recover.

He was called from Argentina. Those timings etc look like they are calculated from the UK?