Pete's Analysis for Test 2. (What do the Lions have to do to win)

Hi everyone,

I have just completed a relatively detailed but compact analysis of the how the Lions can win the game on Saturday. hope people find it interesting/useful. This is what I would change for the second test having watched the first test back and seen some pretty tasty analysis on it, which I have included just below.

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/wallabies-attack-opportunities-in-the-first-test/
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/wallabies-v-lions-set-piece-contest/

First of all it is hard to argue with that analysis at all, in particular the Wallabies attacking opportunities, JOC is a great player but as this piece demonstrates his vision and or decision making were not good on many an occasion. You can obviously forgive him taking different options at points and he did at times really excite, and create but the sheer number of opportunities he missed will stand against him.

The Lions did very well in many aspects of play last week but they will be weaker this week and also I think Deans and Co, will have seen a number of Lions weaknesses. On to my own analysis which I have summed up in 5 pretty simple points, here they are in short with the expanded and more detailed analysis below that.

1. Play Ben Youngs over Philips.
2. Play Sean O'Brien over Croft.
3. Vary/adapt our use of the lineout and our use of the scrum.
4. Using "blind back3" plays, create confusion in their inexperienced midfield on our ball.
5. Slow the rush defense to limit the space outside.


1) The pace at which we play
Why? Mainly for style reasons rather than Philips having a bad game. I thought Philips was ill-suited to playing the Aussies before the tour began but due to his serious form I didn't feel that he endangered us greatly as he was red-hot. However, he really messed us up on Saturday.

He is perfectly designed to tying in defenders and releasing others into what I call "confined space" (the defensive line is further up - therefore you are further from the gainline but there are a few less defenders to deal with - immediately.) On Saturday the Aussies didn't drift off Philips the way he needed them too. Not once. They came up as an entire line from fringe defense to the wing and were aggressive in it.

Add to that his service being slower and we saw Sexton sitting deeper and deeper and indeed having to create something further from the gainline or kicking (he kicked very well). There were times when the ball was available and Philips was not even present to pass it, frequently Sky cameramen waited looking at the ruck for Mike to trot up a few seconds later. Simply inexcusable in my opinion. I play 9 and every 10 I have played with say they would prefer a bad pass sent quickly than a good pass delayed.

Finally, how did Philips kick? Well, let's just say we were lucky that the Aussie counter was not very Aussie like, as Mike kicked far too far with little height, very few of his kicks were contestable.

Youngs on the other hand offers speed of thought, a bit of vision and most importantly speed to the breakdown. If he can get the ball away quickly that immediately means that it will be that bit easier for Sexton and the rest of the team to get on to and then over the gainline. He may not be perfect but he can get us going forward which is going to be more difficult without O'Connell (I'll get to this later). The main thing about Youngs is, that while he may not be in such excellent form as Philips is/was, his style is suited to playing Australia where as Mike's is not.

2) Re-balancing the power
O'Connell is gone. What did he offer? Oustanding leadership, confident lineout calling, power in the maul/ruck/pick and go. How do we combat this?
I would make one unenforced change. Parling has come in to the starting team (Jenkins let this one slip yesterday), he is a bit of a work-a-holic and is a good lineout operator, he was asked to captain the midweek team so overall I am not too worried about the lineout (more on this later) and while we are missing huge leadership Parling offers some (more than Gray/Evans). What Parling probably won't do is getting us moving forward. The Lions found getting over the advantage line pretty tricky on Saturday no two way about it, the gainline success rate was not too bad but it was how far they got over it which was the issue, the answer, not very far. We gained 100 less metres than they did with 10% more possession. Not good. The one unenforced change I would make is that I would put SOB in at blindside flanker. Croft had a very good game but unfortunately, outside of the lineout was relatively ineffective. SOB showed versus the rebels that he has the alround game to be involved in this test team from the start. He can

• get us on the front foot, both in the narrow channels and the wider ones, while sucking in defenders that few others can
  

• win lineout ball at the tail (he did this three times against the Rebels)
  

• he can win us ball on the floor and slow it up
  

If Manu Tuilagi was ready to come in to the test team (Rebels game showed he isn't quite there yet) or Roberts was fit (he won't be by all accounts) then I would start Lydiate as the 12 (Roberts/Manu) can get us over the gainline while Lydiate adds power to the tighter exchanges (mainly ruck).

So the loss of POC resulted in a loss of...

1. lineout ability (Parling can cover this and SOB is an option at tail - check)
   

• leadership (Parling is a good leader albeit not the same ilk, also worth saying if POC was fit Faletau would be in line to start but Heaslip is another leader that the Lions need whereas Toby is not - check)
  

• power (SOB offers that immense physicality and can arguably get us going forward more than POC can, his choke tackles and technique on the floor also mean that we can stop/slow the Aussies - check)
  

3) Winning the ball on our set piece
This is about to get much harder. If as I expect we go with the same backline (hopefully with Youngs) as last week then we need to make some changes to our tactics in the set piece. Let's start with the lineout:
As can be seen in the link at the top of the page, the Wallabies effectively let us have front of the lineout ball. They hardly challenged that area of the throw, where Croft and Heaslip won some good easy ball. The Wallabies will start to challenge this area more, but still not as much as the back or the middle the reason for this is simple: when you win front of the lineout ball the 9 has to pass further to get the ball to the 10 meaning the defense has more time to push up and the tail of the defensive lineout can push into midfield too. Not ideal from an attacking perspective. While our lineout will be weaker without Croft and POC I don't anticipate it being that much weaker but I do expect the Wallabies to contest more. I do not think gambling to the back more than we did is a clever idea, however I think we should change what we are doing at the front of the lineout. Why don't we try some of these...?

1. Why not a quick ball back to the hooker and try to attack the 5metre channel, not sure if anyone noticed but Youngs was one of our best carriers in the tight and with Ben Youngs in there too, he is quick enough to get away down that small space (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E90-qleLMU)
   

• Why not set a dummy maul and set up another beside it, so the ball comes down and is transferred towards the middle of the lineout where the maul is set but the defense are expecting it where the actual catch was made, this is a Leinster favourite
  

• Why not drop the men at the back of the lineout have them receive the ball and then have our massive blindside winger powering on their inside and possibly Davies powering in on their outside, a three pronged attack as it were
  

• Why not try and get Ben Youngs (or another forward in to the line somewhere) look at this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13BCoGQUAMc) around 9minutes in.
  We have also seen Gray move to the back of the lineout all on his own so the defense think he is a dummy, catch the ball and then feed inside to a scrumhalf (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyEy7pbIW1s) at 44 seconds. This is done at the back but could be done in the middle too in a 5 man lineout.
  

What of the scrum? This is going to be messy IMO, I think the Wallabies will have a real advantage here in the second test. There was only one scrum really where the Lions embarrassed the Aussies and now missing Corbiserio and O'Connell we could lose out here. In terms of selection, do you trust Vunipola or keep his for impact and try Grant (who has not looked great on either of his Lions games). I am not sure to be honest. Is Parling going to give as much grunt to the scrum? I don't think so but who else will? Evans probably is the best bet for this maybe? I would suggest that the Lions forfeit this as an attacking weapon (for penalties) and try to get the ball in and out ASAP on the first few scrums to assess how they get on. I definitely would not wait around for the ball to see if we get a shove on, as I think it is more likely that they will. Heaslip and the 9 ( Youngs) will need to be on top form here as Genia will try to slow them down a fair bit.

4) Having the ball is fun, lets have fun
The Lions did not really get to execute many nice set plays apart from the Cuthbert try which was very tasty.
One thing to note, the Lions are certainly not faster than the Wallbies. Simple as, they have more pace than we do more a less straight across from 9-15 but what they don't have is experienced combinations. With this in mind I would target the defensive decision making of the Wallabies particularly in the 10-12, 12-13, 13-wing channels. Here are some examples I would use off early phase possession which are labelled as invisible back3 plays. The Lions have massive wingers who run good lines so the idea is to insert them in the line and have the midfield create diversions to put doubt in the oppositions minds as to who they are supposed to mark. These dummy runs create the space that should see North and Cuthbert/Bowe through the gaps.

1. 10 plays a dummy switch with 12, 13 has drifted very wide, blindside winger comes off the 10s outside shoulder through the 12/13 gap
   

• run a screen off 12. So, 10 straight to 12 who begins to drift, 13 drifts further and stays deep, openside winger comes from out to in flat.
  

• run a simple 10-12 wrap/loop, 13 comes from out to in off 12, the option is to hit 13, hit the 10 on the wrap or hit the blindside winger who is coming hard from the inside straight into the 10/12 channel.
  

• 10 plays a dummy switch with 12, 13 is coming hard from out to in while the blindside winger is coming around from deep, this leaves a 3 on 2 on the outside with our dangerous back3 in possession.
  

• an overload move. Best off left side scrum. 10 gets the ball and has the option of hitting 11 on switch, 15 outside him coming out to in, 12 outside 15 and slightly ahead of coming out to in, or the 13 who is flat and drifting. To exploit more space the 14 is a cross kick option.
  

5) How to defend against Gold dust?
As the analysis I posted at the top confirms, Andy Farrell is leaving a lot of space outwide in the Lions defense and is asking Halfpenny to do a lot of covering work. The Lions were excellent at getting off the line quickly and allowing the Wallabies as few gainline successes as possible, they were really effective in this regard. However (as cited in the analysis posted at the top of this piece) the Lions left huge spaces between their wingers and the touchline. Ok, this is using the touchline as an extra defender and forcing the Aussies to prove that they have the skills to pass it out wide (something JOC and Moore didn't appreciate at times). I imagine that this Saturday the Lions will be tested considerably more on this front. JOC did not recognise the space often enough or exploit it at all really, that will change this week.

In a nut shell we are big and they are fast. If you did it man for man you would get the Lions being stronger and the Aussies faster in most positions. So my question is: why is Farrell having us blitz off the line? We are big enough and good enough to defend their direct plays easily enough without having to fly off the line, exposing us further wide. The Aussies are quicker than us so while we are using the touchline as our friend, I don't think we are getting close enough to it. If we come up a little less quickly we will be able to stop their direct plays effectively still but we will also be able to drift and close down the space left on our outside for their very dangerous back 3.

Sexton-Davies-BOD were close to rock solid when it came to midfield attack but BOD (like Halfpenny) was being asked to cover a lot of ground and saved our bacon a few times, if the whole team drifts together after the Wallabies pass it then we will find considerably easier to stop the likes of Folau, Beale and JOC getting in to those very dangerous spaces.


6) So all in all...
....I think the Aussies will win on Saturday. I think the loss of Corbs and POC are going to really tell. There is not much we can do about these losses other than put in our next best guys and try to balance the things we lose in the pack.

There are ways to beat this Aussie team and I would say discipline is the main one. If we can keep coming around the corner (Gatland) and get Youngs feeding guys like O'Brien, Heaslip, Tom Youngs and Grant quickly then I would say we have a good chance. If Sexton can vary the play and exploit the inexperienced guys he is up against while kicking like he did in Test1 then I'd say we are nearly there.

The issue is going to be the scrum and the breakdown. POC does so much work at the breakdown and I'm not sure Parling will be the influence there that we need (another reason for SOB over Croft) so all in all I think the Aussies will dominate that aspect a little more than they did in Test 1. Also in the lineout, the loss of POC (and Croft to a lesser extent) is a blow, POC calls lineouts which is what we will miss him for most rather than the actual catching and jumping. But more importantly, I think that the Wallabies have us pretty sussed in that area. I think they will be competing a lot more and will have a defensive system in place for when we try to play front of the lineout ball. I can see both set pieces being a bad place for the Lions on Saturday.

I hope you enjoyed the analysis and I am sure many people disagree with it and I'm really looking forward to hearing the differing opinions. Have a great day folks.

Buachaill

Great read mate. Only one quibble:

3) Winning the ball on our set piece
This is about to get much harder. If as I expect we go with the same backline (hopefully with Philips) as last week then we need to make some changes to our tactics in the set piece. Let's start with the lineout:

Typo?

haha yes. Fixing now. Merci

Good one, Pete. Might be worth noting that the breakdown will be a very different prospect with a new referee and SOB probably offers more there than Croft. I also expect Jones to test Joubert's interpretation of the scrum- he is not adverse to cheating there and if we can look like we are ascendant (regardless of whether we actually are) and then collapse it then we can still win penalties with a weakened scrum. However, the risk there is that if Joubert spots it and pings us he will ping us all day as he will perceive us to be the weaker side. Warburton and Jones need to keep him onside.

SOB, or whoever starts at 6 also needs to really pressurise Genia like Mowen pressurised Phillips. Genia won't be playing 10 like he effectively was last week but the less time and space he has the better

Not much to add, but I would like to say this was an excellent read.

Good read, while I agree with a lot of what you say it won't happen this is Gatland we're talking about. Our lineout on Saturday was usccessful but at a cost to the backs. We took maybe one ball off the top, most of it was mauled and taken at 2 or 4, that doesn't provide an attacking platform for the backs in any shape or form. I would disagree that Croft ha a good game, he was the least spectacular of the backrows. One thing I noticed on watching back, Warburton was a lot better then I thought he was initially, his support play was superb and when the team were on the attack he was crucial to clearing out or sealing off rucks.


Vunipola had 3/4 scrums on Saturday, he popped in 2 of them gave away the final penalty. If Corbisiero is not fit then trouble is abrewing.

Our scrum is weakened with Corbisiero and O'Connell gone... taking out Croft too will just weaken our lineout also. Its a very risky move.

Had O'Connell been fit it may have been worth it as O'Brien punching holes in AUS defence would give our backs a lot of front foot ball to attack from.

If Youngs doesn't start I think he will for the 3rd test. I can't see anything but Genia giving Phillips another spanking and the tide turning to their benefit.

Vuni will be fine with Adam at three, however I think Gats will play this one very conservitively with Phillips at 9 Lydiate in to pick up some of the slack from POC's loss and a very tight attacking game. If Vuni starts then a lot of short carries POC makes will be more than compensated for.
I expect the Wallabies to come flying out of the traps and Lydiate, Warburton and Fallatou could start.

Gatland isn't going to make wholesale changes.... outside of injuries and the return of Bowe I can't see any actual changes.

I'd be even surprised if Bowe walked into the starting lineup given he's been off for 2+ weeks. Bench certainly, starting lineup not so sure.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Good one, Pete. Might be worth noting that the breakdown will be a very different prospect with a new referee and SOB probably offers more there than Croft. I also expect Jones to test Joubert's interpretation of the scrum- he is not adverse to cheating there and if we can look like we are ascendant (regardless of whether we actually are) and then collapse it then we can still win penalties with a weakened scrum. However, the risk there is that if Joubert spots it and pings us he will ping us all day as he will perceive us to be the weaker side. Warburton and Jones need to keep him onside.

SOB, or whoever starts at 6 also needs to really pressurise Genia like Mowen pressurised Phillips. Genia won't be playing 10 like he effectively was last week but the less time and space he has the better

Excellent point on the scrum. I can imagine the ref will be looking at our Loosehead side on the first few scrums because I can see that being where he will think the primary issue will be.

Agree that if we pressure Genia a la Mowen did we'll be halfway to winning the game, I'd love to start Lydiate for that reason but he just offers so little elsewhere. If POC was fit I'd probably start him if I am honest and I am not a Lydiate fan.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Not much to add, but I would like to say this was an excellent read.

Thanks Rugger

Thomond wrote:Good read, while I agree with a lot of what you say it won't happen this is Gatland we're talking about. Our lineout on Saturday was usccessful but at a cost to the backs. We took maybe one ball off the top, most of it was mauled and taken at 2 or 4, that doesn't provide an attacking platform for the backs in any shape or form. I would disagree that Croft ha a good game, he was the least spectacular of the backrows. One thing I noticed on watching back, Warburton was a lot better then I thought he was initially, his support play was superb and when the team were on the attack he was crucial to clearing out or sealing off rucks.


Vunipola had 3/4 scrums on Saturday, he popped in 2 of them gave away the final penalty. If Corbisiero is not fit then trouble is abrewing.

Yeah man, Corbs sounds like he out by most accounts, this could really scupper us tbh.

I also agree that Gatland won't make all the changes that I think need to be made which is a shame IMO. I thought Croft was good but yes the least effective of the three, despite all the stick Heaslip is getting. It seems that if Jamie isn't beating 6 defenders a game and carrying for 70metres he is playing badly

fa0019 wrote:Our scrum is weakened with Corbisiero and O'Connell gone... taking out Croft too will just weaken our lineout also. Its a very risky move.

Had O'Connell been fit it may have been worth it as O'Brien punching holes in AUS defence would give our backs a lot of front foot ball to attack from.

If Youngs doesn't start I think he will for the 3rd test. I can't see anything but Genia giving Phillips another spanking and the tide turning to their benefit.

1) Our scrum will be weaker without POC. O'Brien did win 3 lineouts at the tail on Tuesday so he is relatively skillful here perhaps underrated. I also think that without POC our biggest worry should be the gainline and the power he applys in the close, for obvious reasons I think Croft will not be able to fill these holes so I think SOB is a must, which is unfortunate for Lydiate too.

Agreed re: Genia. It could be a rough night for Mike and well I guess all the Lions really.

Submachine wrote:Vuni will be fine with Adam at three, however I think Gats will play this one very conservitively with Phillips at 9 Lydiate in to pick up some of the slack from POC's loss and a very tight attacking game. If Vuni starts then a lot of short carries POC makes will be more than compensated for.
I expect the Wallabies to come flying out of the traps and Lydiate, Warburton and Fallatou could start.

Hmm yes and no, Vuni carries further out and he does it more off 3rd/4th phase when there are some spaces. Paul is really good for when the ball is tortoise slow (MIKE?!) he gets us going not through making much ground but he sets it up well to draw the defenders, get the ball back safely and begin creating momentum. This is not what Vuni does at all.

Also Vuni would be mince meat I'd say in the scrum from the start, especially considering the engine room is slightly weaker without POC too.

Lydiate, Warbs, Toby also means you don't really have a good lineout backrow. They are all 'ok' but you'd be losing Croft AND Heaslip in there, they took twice as many lineouts as AWJ and POC on Saturday. AND Heaslip is another leader which Toby most certainly is not, so you'd be losing some leadership there which you already have lost in the form of O'Connell.

Losing Croft will weaken the lineout in theory but it's still a strong lineout and Youngs is used to working with Parling. I think the lineout will be OK

I think the lineout will be ok too, as long as we keep it conservative and simple. The more five and four man lineouts we do the better.

I do think we need to vary what we do with the lineout ball we receive from the front. I've gone and listed a few examples of this in section 3 above. We can not keep playing off the top from the front or going for a standard maul. If anything one of the defenders at the tail of the lineout is going to step up and block the pass from 9 to 10. That would severely limit us and could really put us under huge pressure considering POC is a massive figure in the maul.

ps: Youngs was so impressive on Saturday. He was easily my man of the match

Winning a lineout does not mean you are a good lineout operator necessarily. Heaslip won the same number of lineouts that Croft won last weekend but no one is suggesting Heaslip is as good as Croft.

Croft is the best lineout operator in the world IMO, second to none. Teams will mark Croft like a hawk and therefore its good to have a decent decoy jumper like Heaslip... but take Croft out and then its open season on everyone else.

When Matfield was around he didn't always take the ball... Smith, Spies and Russouw were just as succesful but it was Matfield who made the lineout click.... its the same with Croft.

I remember watching the Toulon vs. Leicester QF in the HC this year. In the first half Croft ruled the roost and Leicester were matching Toulon in all departments. He was running the lineout and Parling was a mere spectactor.
Croft went off injured mid 2nd half and then Leicester fell apart. Parling was unable to keep up the lineout ascendancy.

If Croft goes the Lineout strength drops significantly.

I do see the benefits of O'Brien though. Its a weigh up of the two. For me Croft wins, just (but more so with O'Connell out).... had Warburton not been captain I'd have been inclined to throw O'Brien at openside... its not like Warburton is stealing ball like no tomorrow.

If we start actually using the lineout as a platform for moves then I agree about keeping it as a strength, but we didn't really use it dangerously last week, and if we keep on using 12 ball primarily off the lineout, we can easily still secure front ball

Fa0019-

I can't agree that it is Croft who made the lineout tick, that was undoubtedly POC he made the calls, he decided we were playing to the front a lot, Sexton decided when to do the 5 man lineouts too. Croft is an outstanding lineout "jumper" (best in the world?? Bonnaire maybe?)

I do get what you mean that maybe the opposition paying so much attention to Croft will free up others elsewhere. With 4 options in the lineout though we should be able to vary it significantly no?

ChequeredJersey wrote:If we start actually using the lineout as a platform for moves then I agree about keeping it as a strength, but we didn't really use it dangerously last week, and if we keep on using 12 ball primarily off the lineout, we can easily still secure front ball

Exactly.

With our lineout we should almost be looking for parity. Like last week was parity and it was a success for us while they probably were disappointed with the lineout. Let's just get the ball and vary our attacks in the 15metre channel and see how we get on there.

Also, the whole "they were marking on Croft so much that it opened up our other options" thing works better if they'd actually been marking Croft. They competed on very few lineouts, clearing they weren't bothering to mark anyone!

A couple of thoughts:

Plan for the ref and work with them.

They have week and are probably behind the eightball.

The penalty count usually favours the home side (9/10 games for SANZAR countries in Europe last November favoured the home side - the same trend is occurring down here). Don't slag them off, you have the same three guys for all three matches and your media and fans have already called each of them the most incompetent, inconsistent referees in the world at various times in the recent past.

Push your issues pre match and plan for the issues during the match.

1: Lineout: Youngs threw down his own side in almost every match. The referees are aware as you could see them getting frustrated during the match. No point in trying again, but be prepared to change if you get penalised.

2: Maul: Ironically complaints about illegal sacking of the maul, off side etc in the first test also highlighted illegalities in the Lions maul. It's a potentially lethal weapon against the Wallabies, ensure it's done correctly.

3: Ruck: get independent advice from a Kiwi or South African referee or coach. It doesn't matter what you say to your press or fans (or what they think), it's the referee opinion that counts. If the referee calls you up re the tackle release and supporting yourself in the ruck look for the counter ruck on defence instead or strengthen your defensive line. If they pull you up on going off your feet and sealing the ball (there's no doubt the Wallabies coaches will use there time with the refs to bring it up), adjust. Subtly bring up the Australian offside entry to the ruck.

4. Scrum. Practice makes perfect. Look at how the referee manages these scrums. I understand that Ireland and Scotland have both failed in this regard with the next two referees.

The thing with Croft is his height and weight. He's barely 100kg and only needs 1 lifter. Most chaps of his height need 2. It makes him a lot more deceptive and means that he is also more dangerous stealing in  opposition lineouts.

If O'Brien plays I won't have a big issue. You gain in one department you lose in another. Its the gamble.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Also, the whole "they were marking on Croft so much that it opened up our other options" thing works better if they'd actually been marking Croft. They competed on very few lineouts, clearing they weren't bothering to mark anyone!

I think that's mainly because of where the Lions were throwing it to, and how they were using it, they knew that at best the ball wasn't going past the centre. They were happy to concede a little ground from the maul when it occurred.

ChequeredJersey wrote:Also, the whole "they were marking on Croft so much that it opened up our other options" thing works better if they'd actually been marking Croft. They competed on very few lineouts, clearing they weren't bothering to mark anyone!

Anytime we threw to the middle or the back they contested. It was a tactic of theirs to let us throw to the front to limit our off the top options and leave us closer to the touchline for the maul.

Check the video out on this site
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/wallabies-v-lions-set-piece-contest/

fa0019 wrote:The thing with Croft is his height and weight. He's barely 100kg and only needs 1 lifter. Most chaps of his height need 2. It makes him a lot more deceptive and means that he is also more dangerous stealing in  opposition lineouts.

If O'Brien plays I won't have a big issue. You gain in one department you lose in another. Its the gamble.

But we didn't really try to do that either

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Also, the whole "they were marking on Croft so much that it opened up our other options" thing works better if they'd actually been marking Croft. They competed on very few lineouts, clearing they weren't bothering to mark anyone!

Anytime we threw to the middle or the back they contested. It was a tactic of theirs to let us throw to the front to limit our off the top options and leave us closer to the touchline for the maul.

Check the video out on this site
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/wallabies-v-lions-set-piece-contest/

I already posted that video on Thomond's thread!

blackcanelion wrote:A couple of thoughts:

Plan for the ref and work with them.

They have week and are probably behind the eightball.

The penalty count usually favours the home side (9/10 games for SANZAR countries in Europe last November favoured the home side - the same trend is occurring down here). Don't slag them off, you have the same three guys for all three matches and your media and fans have already called each of them the most incompetent, inconsistent referees in the world at various times in the recent past.

Push your issues pre match and plan for the issues during the match.

1: Lineout: Youngs threw down his own side in almost every match. The referees are aware as you could see them getting frustrated during the match. No point in trying again, but be prepared to change if you get penalised.

2: Maul: Ironically complaints about illegal sacking of the maul, off side etc in the first test also highlighted illegalities in the Lions maul. It's a potentially lethal weapon against the Wallabies, ensure it's done correctly.

3: Ruck: get independent advice from a Kiwi or South African referee or coach. It doesn't matter what you say to your press or fans (or what they think), it's the referee opinion that counts. If the referee calls you up re the tackle release and supporting yourself in the ruck look for the counter ruck on defence instead or strengthen your defensive line. If they pull you up on going off your feet and sealing the ball (there's no doubt the Wallabies coaches will use there time with the refs to bring it up), adjust. Subtly bring up the Australian offside entry to the ruck.

4. Scrum. Practice makes perfect. Look at how the referee manages these scrums. I understand that Ireland and Scotland have both failed in this regard with the next two referees.

1) Completely agree on this. If Youngs gets called early on this, it will be interesting to see if the Wallabies begin to start competing more. I am sure Deans has mentioned this to the ref over the week.

2) I didn't think our maul looked that great if I am honest and losing Corbs and POC won't make it any stronger IMO.

3) I am sure they have, Gatland knows a lot of people down there I think.

4) I think this really depends on what loosehead we go for, we need to go for Grant IMO as he is a better scrummager and with POC out I think we will be de-stabalised at this area as well.

An excellent read, thank Pete. I'm big into stats and tactics, etc. so this is right up my street.

I too think Youngs over Phillips would be good, and I've called for a 'nippier' 9 for wales for some time. However, reading a few posts over the last week has got me thinking, in the interest of fairness and all that: a number of posters have, maybe rightly, said when defending Croft and his 'wing hanging' that he would surely only do that if the coach has told him and/or allowed him to do it, i.e. part of the game plan. Corft wouldn't say "Nah, sorry Warren I'm going to stay out here". Does this logic not therefore extend to Phillips? Is he attacking the fringes, taking people on, etc. as he has been told too? Let's not forget that Gatland is not a 'heads up and play what you see' sort of coach - he's renowned for a rather rigid and inflexible game plan (see Priestland's comments after being accused of negativity when not running from Wales' own half with overlaps - "it's the game plan, Warren told us to run everything in their half and kick everything in our half".

What I'm saying is that Phillips gets a lot of stick, and rightly so, but is he just doing what he's told? Should the coaches cop the flack too? If that's the way they think they can beat the Ozzies then will they ask the same of Youngs or Murray?

fa0019 wrote:The thing with Croft is his height and weight. He's barely 100kg and only needs 1 lifter. Most chaps of his height need 2. It makes him a lot more deceptive and means that he is also more dangerous stealing in  opposition lineouts.

If O'Brien plays I won't have a big issue. You gain in one department you lose in another. Its the gamble.

Lions website lists him as 6'5'' and 104kg (gotta love mixed units) although there was talk of him having bulked up during his recovery time

Griff- Great to hear thanks bud. Yeah there are a lot of selection threads on here but very few for in-depth tactics etc. Had a day off so figured I'd go and sprout some of the ideas I'd had.

For what it is worth I think a nippier 9 would be amazing for Wales. If you guys had Peter Stringer for instance, you guys would get over the gainline at every play because with that pace of ball, that lack of time to organise the defense and that size of 3/4 coming out you off a 10 that can distribute......jeez that would be a nightmare to defend.

Yeah I am sure there is an element of that, I for one don't think Croft was out on the wing as much as people say he was but still he was not that effective in anything other than the lineout. He made some middle of the road tackles and middle of the road carries. Perhaps Philips was told to slow the ball down too, perhaps he was told to run it a lot.

If so....then the coaches are not all that great IMO (even though they got the win-funny that)

Either way with POC and Corbs out the tactics will change. We can no longer rely on our scrum and we can no longer rely on our power at the gainline. That is why I think Croft has to go so that we can balance that out somewhat. I'd put in SOB as he will get us over the gainline more than Lydiate, slow down their ball more and is a better 4th lineout option.

In terms of Philips, firstly I believe that the coaches will have seen that Philips' approach was ineffective. Very little good came from Philips IMO and the coaches will either say get the ball out quick or we'll give the jersey to someone who can. Add to that he actually performed badly in the things that he did well.
-His carrying was really poor, how many times was he shut down easily?
-His defense was average.
-His box kicking was far too long.

Add that to his sterotypical weaknesses aka: slick passing, getting the ball out quickly and you can see he had a very poor game.

It is also worth concentrating on the fact that when Sexton had quicker ball he caused the Wallabies problems be it with kicks or from releasing others. When the ball was run off Philips the Aussies were very comfortable in defense.

True.  I'd go for SOB too: the best compliment I could give him is that you wouldn't lose much of the Croft and would gain a bit of the Lydiate, yet he's not a poor man's version of either of them, if that makes sense?!

In terms of Phillips, he can pass quickly as we saw from the Cuthbert try.  If memory serves it was ball off the top of the lineout, down to Phillips, out straight away to Sexton, a few smoke screens in midfield and Cuthbert was in.  But this was from first phase I suppose.  So not sure if it was just planned that way or instinctive from Phillips - looked a planned move to me.  However, in the past I've seen Phillips take the ball off the top, dummy pass and take it on himself by trying to run close to the lineout!  Sometimes there are gaps and he's through, other times it ends in a big pile of bodies.  Let's go for a nippy 9 in Youngs - what's the worst that can happen?!  At least he'll have a chance of catching Genia in a flat out race!

My issue with Phillips is not as much his lack of speed with the ball or his kicking from the ruck.... its that he lacks an organisation rugby brain which all good scrumhalves should have.

Scrumhalves are not just there to pass the ball to the backs... its to give them the ball in the ideal situation. Genia is the best because he organises his pack well. He gets chaps smashing holes up front and dragging in defenders.... then once they’re over the gain line and he sees a mismatch he distributes and bang, AUS make a break. Its not just 10s who do this work.

Good scrumhalves anticipate and manipulate plays.

Phillips doesn’t do this. Saturday was a clear example. He forwards were taking ball flat, standing still.... schoolchildren could have dealt with this type of play. You could blame the forwards but the scrumhalf should be directing his forwards... he’s the platoon leader so to speak.

When the backs got the ball it was slow yes but most importantly the AUS defence were still in line, guys like Ashley-Cooper were in place rather than a prop filling in. They hadn’t punched holes in the defence... when did North, Cuthbert come in on the crash ball in Roberts and Manu’s absence??? No wonder there were hardly any breaks from the backs from possession play.

At times, Saturdays match reminded me of the Martin Johnson/Steve Borthwick era... take out North's kodak moment and we played poorly.

The thing that bugged me about Phillips was that (especially with the interpretations of the ruck rules used) the ball was coming out of rucks very quickly, and then there was a really long pause, then Phillips would turn up, run 3 yards and give someone a hospital pass.

He can perform brilliantly. He didnt. I would be interested to see what a really fired up Phillips would do coming on as a substitute late on

lostinwales wrote:The thing that bugged me about Phillips was that (especially with the interpretations of the ruck rules used) the ball was coming out of rucks very quickly, and then there was a really long pause, then Phillips would turn up, run 3 yards and give someone a hospital pass.

He can perform brilliantly. He didnt. I would be interested to see what a really fired up Phillips would do coming on as a substitute late on

I agree. He can be absolutly brilliant. Unfortunatly he wasnt. not sure if Id drop him but he needs a kick in the hole.

Hmm philips as an impact replacement....? Not sure how I feel abou this just now. Would be interesting.

I think in a way:
philips and Farrell suit each other
youngs and sexton suit each other

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:Hmm philips as an impact replacement....? Not sure how I feel abou this just now. Would be interesting.

I think in a way:
philips and Farrell suit each other
youngs and sexton suit each other

I think exactly the opposite, Sexton can operate with a more robust abrasive 9 who pulls the opposition back-row leaving a hole in the half-back channel where an equally abrasive Sexton can run into and off-load.

Farrell operates at top of his game with a rapid distribution off the scrum so that he can makes seamless passes to the I/C or the miss-pass to the 13

To operate Phillips as a bench impact would be a waste, he needs to be on from the start getting under the Aussies skin, Youngs will be much better coming on for the last 25 when the opposition is tiring and the gaps are beginning to open up

Phillips was pretty woeful on Saturday but there were two moments where he showed what he is capable of. One was the try from Cuthbert the other the penalty before the half which Halfpenney unfortunately missed, I think he will start and I'm not too concerned with it.


While he won't feature in a test, Murray has improved a fair bit on the tour and played quite well.

Thomond wrote:Phillips was pretty woeful on Saturday but there were two moments where he showed what he is capable of. One was the try from Cuthbert the other the penalty before the half which Halfpenney unfortunately missed, I think he will start and I'm not too concerned with it.


While he won't feature in a test, Murray has improved a fair bit on the tour and played quite well.

He might. Worrying news-

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/british-lions-ben-youngs-conor-4710506

Murray is more of a like for like replacement with Phillips, I felt at the beginning of the tour that Youngs would be the bench guy but were Mike to get crocked Murray might step in. That's changed mainly because Youngs has been superb in my opinion.


Any scrumhalves on holiday in Oz?

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Thomond wrote:Phillips was pretty woeful on Saturday but there were two moments where he showed what he is capable of. One was the try from Cuthbert the other the penalty before the half which Halfpenney unfortunately missed, I think he will start and I'm not too concerned with it.


While he won't feature in a test, Murray has improved a fair bit on the tour and played quite well.

He might. Worrying news-

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/british-lions-ben-youngs-conor-4710506

That would partly explain him getting so burned by Genia last Sat. I'd start with Youngs bringing Murray on at 60 to add some physical bite, assuming phillips will not make the 23

Thomond wrote:Murray is more of a like for like replacement with Phillips, I felt at the beginning of the tour that Youngs would be the bench guy but were Mike to get crocked Murray might step in. That's changed mainly because Youngs has been superb in my opinion.


Any scrumhalves on holiday in Oz?

Shane (WHO?) Williams used to be a dapper scrummie

I'd start Croft, secure the lineout and use his big work rate around the park in the early part of the game and towards the end of the game (55 to 60 min mark) bring SOB to bring the big carries and secure go forward ball and kill the pace of the game. Remove Croft from the lineout and we only have Parling as an international level operator, Jones is good but exactly reknown in that department and a backrow of Warburton, SOB, Heaslip doesn't offer much jumping prowess. The Wallabied have Horwill who is a good operator, Mowan leading the lineout from 6 and the other lock who does ok at the front. Don't see that depowering the lineout when we are doing well but not dominating there is a clever idea.

In a similar vein Youngs to start and given licence to attack. Murray to come off the bench and organise things, use his physicality to get on top of the tiring Genia.

If Phillips is injured I would start with Youngs and not bring Murray on unless there's an injury to Youngs

Great read!

formerly known as Sam wrote:I'd start Croft, secure the lineout and use his big work rate around the park in the early part of the game and towards the end of the game (55 to 60 min mark) bring SOB to bring the big carries and secure go forward ball and kill the pace of the game. Remove Croft from the lineout and we only have Parling as an international level operator, Jones is good but exactly reknown in that department and a backrow of Warburton, SOB, Heaslip doesn't offer much jumping prowess. The Wallabied have Horwill who is a good operator, Mowan leading the lineout from 6 and the other lock who does ok at the front. Don't see that depowering the lineout when we are doing well but not dominating there is a clever idea.

In a similar vein Youngs to start and given licence to attack. Murray to come off the bench and organise things, use his physicality to get on top of the tiring Genia.

Funny you should state that AWJ and Heaslip are not as good as Croft in the lineout. This is the Lions website stats on the lineout

13 - Ian Evans  

12 - Jamie Heaslip

9 - Alun Wyn Jones

9 - Richie Gray

7 - Tom Croft

7 - Geoff Parling

4 - Paul O'Connell

There you go Sam - for your eyes only.

Very detailed article, but it is very simple really, if Gats starts with Mako Lions lose. May seem oversimplified but it really is that simple.

Some like to underplay the role of the scrum, but it is one of the core pillars of the game. Aus came back into the game when ascendancy in the scrum went their way as the game wore on. Its not rocket science but it is an inescapable truth, Mako is just not up to it yet. I am sure that as he matures and if he ignores those who tell him his play in the loose makes up for his glaring lack of technique and core strength in the scrum, he will be No1 in four years time.

Right now. Car crash

dragonbreath wrote:Very detailed article, but it is very simple really, if Gats starts with Mako Lions lose. May seem oversimplified but it really is that simple.

Some like to underplay the role of the scrum, but it is one of the core pillars of the game. Aus came back into the game when ascendancy in the scrum went their way as the game wore on. Its not rocket science but it is an inescapable truth, Mako is just not up to it yet. I am sure that as he matures and if he ignores those who tell him his play in the loose makes up for his glaring lack of technique and core strength in the scrum, he will be No1 in four years time.

Right now. Car crash

Oh Yes! Oh Yes! Oh Yes!

Truer words have never been spoken.

We will win (or lose) Saturdays test on the set piece....... Scrum, Line Out, then the Ruck, Maul.

The forwards are there to win those areas not to be show ponies in the loose.

I cannae believe how many people advocated Mako to start the first test, Corbs and Grant are better technicians. I would start Grant and Youngs on Saturday, the Wallabies will be strong in the pack come the 2nd test.

Excellent post Pete, thanks for your time and effort... having a good read, the contributions are very good too... Glad to see so many people share opinions.

Grant is a much more assured scrummager and given that mako was brought on tour as the impact loosehead, the fact that Grant is the fifth choice player for the shirt shouldnt alter this reality. He isnt ready to start a Lions test whereas Grant is.
If the Aussies face Mako from the start they will be able to earn field position, from penalties, and assuming their kickers have proper boots on, a fair few points as well!
It must be Grant to start.