Where are the Vunipola apologists now?

First topic message reminder :

Absolutely useless. No other comment required

Injured yet again i am sick and tired of the victimisation of one player. Especially when he actually played well. The stats show this too. Most of the criticism happens to be from scots.

If I thought Vunipola had played badly I would say so like I have said of Farrell.

I feel like you were going to criticise Vunipola regardless.

Thank you to other posters for supporting me.

Leinsterfan that's awfully condescending towards Manu boxing coach. Manu makes very good points. So does Rory.

By the way I wouldn't disagree with the sentiments that grant should have had the last 20.

I just think for injuredyetagain to call Mako absolutely useless is ridiculous.

The Aussies are third best because in the 4n there isn't the same emphasis on scrummaging as there is in the NH. Their front row is competent enough to secure their own ball; it is their back line that gets them the 3rd rank.
You are wrong about Grant on the last 20, though. It is the other way round. As thevbetter scrummager, Grant should have started to weather whatever storm the Aussies scrum may have had and then Vunipola should have come in with 20/30 mins left where he would have been much more effective

Ive got to say Vunipola was worrying in the early scrums...but in the second half was part of some that utterly smashed the wallabies scrum.

Hibbert made a massive difference when he came on...

I also agree props are primary...but the second rows are a huge part of the scrum and i feel that second row pairing was just too lighweight. Id rather have seen a monster alongside Wynn Jones...(Im not a fan of Wynn Jones at the best of times...but as an Englishman im even less of a fan of Parling)

Whey aye, Geordie. Don't join in this thread, mate, it is spiralling out of control and I have already had to apologise to you once

Injuredyetagain you start your better player in my opinion. Vunipola showed what he offers as an all round player. The criticism of Vunipola is unwarranted.

Why must he shoulder all the criticism?

Your argument has been torn asunder.

Is he at fault for the lions loss or not? Do you think the deity called Grant would have won the lions the match?

beshocked wrote:Leinsterfan that's awfully condescending towards Manu boxing coach. Manu makes very good points. So does Rory.

By the way I wouldn't disagree with the sentiments that grant should have had the last 20.

I just think for injuredyetagain to call Mako absolutely useless is ridiculous.

It was obviously tongue in cheek. This thread shouldn't exactly be taken seriously. Mako gave it 100% out there, which is all you can ask.

InjuredYetAgain wrote:The Aussies are third best because in the 4n there isn't the same emphasis on scrummaging as there is in the NH. Their front row is competent enough to secure their own ball; it is their back line that gets them the 3rd rank.
You are wrong about Grant on the last 20, though. It is the other way round. As thevbetter scrummager, Grant should have started to weather whatever storm the Aussies scrum may have had and then Vunipola should have come in with 20/30 mins left where he would have been much more effective

While it's true that NZ doesn't think the game begins and ends with the tight 5 it doesn't mean that the SH don't like to scrum. How often do NH teams beat up the scrums of NZ, SA and Arg? I would imagine not that often. The Aussies are third best because they win lots of games and lose few games.Yes their scrum is not the best in the world but I really think many underrate their scrum.

My argument has been torn asunder because all Scots are whingers? You really should be an MP which oratory and persuasive powers like that
The Lions made plenty of mistakes but to most observers (outside England anyway), none of the could have been anticipated apart from the scrum being a shambles
I am not saying that Grant starting or getting on would definitely have made a difference but at least we could have been sure of winning our own scrum ball

InjuredYetAgain wrote:The Aussies are third best because in the 4n there isn't the same emphasis on scrummaging as there is in the NH. Their front row is competent enough to secure their own ball; it is their back line that gets them the 3rd rank.
You are wrong about Grant on the last 20, though. It is the other way round. As thevbetter scrummager, Grant should have started to weather whatever storm the Aussies scrum may have had and then Vunipola should have come in with 20/30 mins left where he would have been much more effective

South Africa? Really?

Well how do they consistently beat NH teams? They as I said are canny, and therefore manipulated the scrum to their advantage and gained a few penalties, like they do consistently.

Maybe Vunipola should have been an impact sub, but he did pull the scrum around and we overall did get the upper hand despite a few wobbly scrums. It also would have been pretty gutting for him to be not the test starter after seemingly being next in line and the inform loosehead on tour. Granted, Grant was unfortunate and I understand the Scots disappointment but Vunipola did play well.

The facts - Vunipola had a torrid first 25mins, and was out on his feet for the last 10 - for the remaining 45 mins (just over a half), he went well, the idiotic elbow aside. Again, it is not the player's fault that he found himself in this position

He played well in the loose but his scrummaging cost the Lions points and position in the first half.

The Lions ended up losing by a tiny margin, that was one area where they could have made a change that a lot of pundits had been calling for during the week. Ohh he made 14 tackles today, so what?? Grant was 5th top tackler in 6 Nations and a better scrummager.

And I think the Scots have a right to be angry, we won't have any involvement in the Test Series now so why exactly should we care?

The scrum improved when Adam Jones went off. Is he living on reputation alone?

Manu's Boxing Coach wrote:Vunipola wasnt bad. Yes a wobbly 15 minutes but after that the scrum was good apart from Joubert allowing the Aussies to push early.

Are you serious?

We have known for most of the series that his scrum is not good enough, to be fair to him there was an argument that he was pinged unfairly in the first 20 mins, but if it wasn't for Adam Jones working himself to a standstill then Mako would have been mullered for the rest of the match. Only once did he directly win a scrum head on. As for your query would Grant have made any difference IMHO yes he would have...... both as a better technician in the set piece and in the loose play

GloriousEmpire wrote:The scrum improved when Adam Jones went off. Is he living on reputation alone?

Silly Boy

GloriousEmpire wrote:The scrum improved when Adam Jones went off. Is he living on reputation alone?

Bollox, the scrum improved when Hibbard came on.

Mako's stats definitely helped by his being at first receiver a lot today - clearly a tactic of the FatMan

Great in the loose shoite in the scrums, I have no idea how Joubert didn't notice him boring in a lot of the time.

No not because all scots are whingers. It's because you are talking a load of rubbish basically. You call Vunipola useless yet being top tackler with 15 and 3 turnovers proves you quite clearly wrong. In the scrum it was 9-3 in kick able penalties to the lions.

He struggled in some scrums sure but he was also part of some strong scrum efforts.

Reallybored Lydiate cost lions points in the first half too. I am not going to hold him in account for the lions loss!

Aslongasbut100 you say torrid in the 1st half... Really?

Look I understand you are bitter but no need to take it out on Mako.

I don't believe grant would have done better. It's not as if grant is a more experienced player.

flyhalffactory wrote:

Manu's Boxing Coach wrote:Vunipola wasnt bad. Yes a wobbly 15 minutes but after that the scrum was good apart from Joubert allowing the Aussies to push early.

Are you serious?

We have known for most of the series that his scrum is not good enough, to be fair to him there was an argument that he was pinged unfairly in the first 20 mins, but if it wasn't for Adam Jones working himself to a standstill then Mako would have been mullered for the rest of the match. Only once did he directly win a scrum head on. As for your query would Grant have made any difference IMHO yes he would have...... both as a better technician in the set piece and in the loose play

I know Adam Jones is the messiah of front row rugby in wales and a very good player but you can't say he pretty much by himself scrummed against 8 other men and was the only reason the Lions scrum went forward. All front rows would have been mullered without a tighthead, also when Cole came on the scrum did equally as well. I am not denying that A.Jones had a greater impact at scrum time as he is a superior scrummager but surely Vunipola must get some credit as well?

And I dont think Grant is better in the loose than Vunipola, I can't think of too many looseheads who have made that great a contribution in the loose apart from Jenkins.

beshocked wrote:Injuredyetagain you start your better player in my opinion. Vunipola showed what he offers as an all round player.  The criticism of Vunipola is unwarranted.

Why must he shoulder all the criticism?

Your argument has been torn asunder.

Is he at fault for the lions loss or not? Do you think the deity called Grant would have won the lions the match?

He is not shouldering all the blame, and Grant alone wouldn't have won the match, but you can bet your bottom dollar he would have made more of a contribution to the result.

What does Mako offer as an all round (PROP) player?........... I mean we all kinda know what a front row should primarily offer

Yes, " torrid" - all of the different commentators, from TV, radio & on twa-tter, were calling for him to be subbed at 25 mins - I checked my watch  I haven't criticised the player, I have criticised the coach that put him in that situation

My problem isn't because a Scot didn't get on, it's because mako had put in such a shift that he was blowing out his erse and gatland was too stubborn to bring someone on.

Yes it probably won't have changed the result but really can't fathom it.

RDW_Scotland wrote:My problem isn't because a Scot didn't get on, it's because mako had put in such a shift that he was blowing out his erse and gatland was too stubborn to bring someone on.

Yes it probably won't have changed the result but really can't fathom it.

But Mako is such a fit young thing. Don't be misled because he wobbles when he runs.  

We've had a few times when Cole has stayed on from pretty much the whole game because Lancaster doesn't trust Wilson (wrongly IMO).

Flyhalffactory did you actually watch the match? I have already told you what Mako did. If you can't read that you can't be helped. He made the most tackles. Equal turnovers with Warburton.

I disagree. I don't think grant would have done more.


Most commentators are idiots anyway, especially Barnes.

The coach saw what the armchair pundits didn't. A player actually doing a lot - stats back it up.

Lions were generally strong defensively and at the breakdown - mako contributed strongly to this.

Yep, Jason Leonard, Paul Wallace, David Sole - complete idiots that wouldn't know a thing about front row play

Paul Wallace was saying that Vunipola didn't do anything wrong for the penalties that he gave away and they should have gone to the Lions...didn't he? Or did I make up the half time discussion I remember?

Stats... If it was all about stats, Wood, Brown, Robshaw and others would be tourists.

Vinapola played ok in places, but he was lucky to stay on for the 1st 30 nevermind the whole 80.

beshocked wrote: Flyhalffactory did you actually watch the match? I have already told you what Mako did. If you can't read that you can't be helped. He made the most tackles. Equal turnovers with Warburton.

I disagree. I don't think grant would have done more.


Most commentators are idiots anyway, especially Barnes.

The coach saw what the armchair pundits didn't. A player actually doing a lot - stats back it up.

Lions were generally strong defensively and at the breakdown - mako contributed strongly to this.

Beshocked.......... what you have done (as usual) is take stats from espn (as if we know they are really accurate) to justify your stance. The guy was mildly shocking in the scrum, only once did the scrum not turn inwards. This clearly revealed Adam Jones and Lydiate pushing hard and the only thing Mako did as a contribution from the 20 min onward was keep his side from collapsing. Once in the whole match did he directly win the scrum head to head, I have never seen Adam Jones put so much effort into turning the scrum, the guy was absolutely knackered by 55 mins.

He didn't have as poor a game as some are making out but he should have been subbed well before halftime

As long as what did they say exactly?

Hammerofthunor he must of......

Ruggerradge they should be tourists....

Next time watch mako closely? Look at his work rate.

Flyffactory I watched mako closely. He did a hell of a lot. Always in the thick of it.

He gave away 1 kick able penalty. Contributed to 3 lion penalties. +6

Of course mako wasn't part of lions scrums when they smashed the Aussies......

InjuredYetAgain wrote:Calling people (mainly Scots by your own admission) "Numbskulls" and "ignoramuses" in the one thread, be shocked
Bordering on racism there?

Pulling out the old racism card there so early?

Quality.

Mako certainly had a poor start in the scrum (though Paul Wallace said the ref got some of those calls wrong), but he came back after that, the ref whistles against him dried up and the Lions scrum was dominant.  What he added elsewhere in terms of defence and breakdown work (particularly turnovers, where he equaled the rightly applauded Warburton) meant that on the whole he had more of a positive effect than negative.

I would have had Grant on at the very least in the last quarter.  I can only think that Grant is carrying a bit of a niggle, Gatland wanted Vunipola to stay on for carrying work given the lack of carriers in the backrow and 2nd, or just that Gatland had been underwhelmed by Grant in the warmup matches.

Sod off with work-rate.

Gray has been one of the hardest working forwards on tour, as the STATS indicate, but he's still an average show pony for most fans.

Vunipola was regarded as a liability in the tight before this match and gave away 4 scrum penalties, regardless if they led directly to points it isn't good enough. How often have you seen Australia opt to scrum on a free-kick?

And he was good in the loose but hardly great, if Grant had posted that performance he'd have been harpooned for his scrummaging.

Not to bring on fresh legs in the last 15/10 minutes is criminal. What motivation is there for Grant next week in training?

I do sympathise with the Scots, as I kind of suffer the same sort of thing with the Dragons and Wales, but this type of thread is in such bad taste. There's examples on twitter as well from Scottish sources stating poor things like what has Grant done to Gatland, going on about Joubert in the Scotland v Wales match (why that still gets brought up I don't know?) and we need a Scottish loosehead to win the series next week. I'd love for that to be true, but then who's to say that Grant would have made a difference today if he had started?

To suggest things like Grant shouldn't/won't try as hard in training this week is daft, as if that was the case then his professionalism is non existant. Seeing as McGeechan has been mentioned on here, it's worth keeping in mind how highly he rated Jason Leonard from 97, for his role in helping out the test team.

I think there is a little bit too much harsh critisum here.

However those quoting his tackle counts, is that really what he was brought for.

We have lidiatte for that and vinopolan was brought for open running.

It was gatland tactics that were wrong (again)

There is no critisium from me in his effort

reallybored wrote:Sod off with work-rate.

Gray has been one of the hardest working forwards on tour, as the STATS indicate, but he's still an average show pony for most fans.

Vunipola was regarded as a liability in the tight before this match and gave away 4 scrum penalties, regardless if they led directly to points it isn't good enough.  How often have you seen Australia opt to scrum on a free-kick?

And he was good in the loose but hardly great, if Grant had posted that performance he'd have been harpooned for his scrummaging.

Not to bring on fresh legs in the last 15/10 minutes is criminal.  What motivation is there for Grant next week in training?

I'm pretty sure he was only penalised twice at the scrum, though think there might also have been a FK.  One penalty came from open play, can't recall a fourth, and the Aussie stats site have him down for 3 penalties rather than 4 like on ESPN.

I think Grant should definitely have come on at some point, but like others have questioned, maybe he wasn't 100% after playing midweek.  He might well have done better than Vunipola did in the opening stages, but I'm not sure how much guarantee there is of that, he hasn't played particularly well or as well as he can on tour and gave 2 penalties away himself against the Brumbies.  Also, most coaches usually give players till half time to right things if they're having problems and to be fair to Gatland the scrums were going our way by that stage.  That doesn't excuse Grant not coming on towards the end of the match if he was 100% though.

What's certainly true is that Healy, Jenkins & Corbisiero have been big losses.

Rev, you say it's daft but Grant sat and watched Vunipola struggle in the scrum for 50 minutes and then proceed to blow out his xxxx for 20.

How often does a front-row not get replaced?

Gatland said in no uncertain terms to Grant today, I don't rate you and don't want you in this team.

InjuredYetAgain.

Are you actually Sam Warburton by any chance?

Because he went off "INJURED,YET ,AGAIN".

Vinapola really wasn't that bad as some are making out but I agree a change was needed around the 50mins at the latest, Gatland seems to have lost his nerve as have the players.

Doesn't look good imo 2001 all over again!

majesticimperialman wrote:InjuredYetAgain.

Are you actually Sam Warburton by any chance?

Because he went off "INJURED,YET ,AGAIN".

Very poor form from you. At least he justified his selection YET AGAIN, when you wouldn't have selected him and would've sent him home after one week.

reallybored wrote:Rev, you say it's daft but Grant sat and watched Vunipola struggle in the scrum for 50 minutes and then proceed to blow out his xxxx for 20.

How often does a front-row not get replaced?

Gatland said in no uncertain terms to Grant today, I don't rate you and don't want you in this team.

I don't think it's daft for people to question it, I just think in some instances people are going the wrong way about it.

Gatland's selection was at fault, picking MV was a high risk in the scrum I believe failed, he should have gone with Hibbard and Gray/Evans to add some grunt. MV did well in parts but he cost the Lions with messy scrums and gave penalties away, A Jones carried the front row. I wanted MV off after 10 mins, the problem is what happens if Grant was as bad or worse?

glamorganalun wrote:Gatland's selection was at fault, picking MV was a high risk in the scrum I believe failed, he should have gone with Hibbard and Gray/Evans to add some grunt. MV did well in parts but he cost the Lions with messy scrums and gave penalties away, A Jones carried the front row. I wanted MV off after 10 mins, the problem is what happens if Grant was as bad or worse?

Well we'll simply never know, alun

Glamorganlun Vunipola made more tackles than the one dimensional Lydiate who also gave away a kick able penalty.. As many turnovers as the very much praised Warburton. The scrum battle was a ding dong battle with the Lions getting more points from it than Australia.

Vunipola was at fault at times but he was also involved in a few powerful Lions scrums too. Why is it always Vunipola singled out?

Adam Jones wasn't part of latter lions scrums when Vunipola,Hibbard and Cole were doing well.

You criticise Vunipola for not doing his job. I could criticise many others for not too.

You have your scapegoat though even if it was the lacklustre attack and decision making which were more to blame.

beshocked wrote:Glamorganlun Vunipola made more tackles than the one dimensional Lydiate who also gave away a kick able penalty.. As many turnovers as the very much praised Warburton. The scrum battle was a ding dong battle with the Lions getting more points from it than Australia.

Vunipola was at fault at times but he was also involved in a few powerful Lions scrums too. Why is it always Vunipola singled out?

Adam Jones wasn't part of latter lions scrums when Vunipola,Hibbard and Cole were doing well.

You criticise Vunipola for not doing his job. I could criticise many others for not too.

You have your scapegoat though even if it was the lacklustre attack and decision making which were more to blame.

beshocked, perhaps he was set up by the Lions esteemed coach who (paraphrasing) basically described his initial inclusion in the touring party on the basis of his being an impact player given that his scrummaging was highly suspect - roost, home, hens - reorder at your leisure

Aslongas such a shame to see your fall from grace. From reasonable poster to part of the big chip brigade.

I am sick of all the bile that is being thrown at Mako.

He is not as hopeless as made out by the big chip brigade. It's not as if their beloved deity has more experience.

Plus Mako has done far more on tour. He earned his starting spot. Even in this game his contribution has been trashed by the big chip brigade.

Stats mean nothing supposedly.

Actually Mako was picked for his all round game. As the stats show his tackling and turnovers were big strengths. His work rate is huge.

Nice of you to consider my posts as a 'fall from grace' - that'll be because you don't agree with me then? Excellent, cleared that up. I have deliberately gone out of my way to not heap blame on Vunipola, because as previously stated, I don't think he is to blame. If that makes me part of the 'big chip brigade', so be it - I have an opinion, and until you convince me otherwise or something causes me to review it, I'll stick with it, thanks.

I'll leave you with a view from another forum: "It does increasingly feel that someone (Rowntree) has it in for Grant. Is it some sort of tantrum cos another prop got hurt and Grant ended up being brought in despite the Rowntree-originating snub when Healy went home. The more I think about it the more it feels like leaving Mako on had the air of a ‘Frak you’ about it. I mean, Rowntree and Gatland were there in 2009 when Vickery was getting his head folded into his arse in the first test by the SA cheating and they saw first hand that Geech hesitated too long in bringing on Adam Jones and the consequences that followed. And yet they just went and left Mako on all 80 today. Why? But for Joubert stopping to penalise Mako today he could have ended up binned. If it had been Poite today I dare say he would have been.

Just baffled by it all."

Most of us are not blaming Vino

We blame Gatland

Squarely on his shoulders

I like Vino and think he is going to be a special player for years to come

He early a place in the squad, but as most rational posters stated, they thought it better to have him an impact player coming on - even if it was for a fullhalf

There is ZERO excuse for not bringing Grant on at some point - ZERO

Either after 20 mins, or in the last quarter when Vino was out on his feet

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Nice of you to consider my posts as a 'fall from grace' - that'll be because you don't agree with me then?  Excellent, cleared that up.  I have deliberately gone out of my way to not heap blame on Vunipola, because as previously stated, I don't think he is to blame.  If that makes me part of the 'big chip brigade', so be it - I have an opinion, and until you convince me otherwise or something causes me to review it, I'll stick with it, thanks.

I'll leave you with a view from another forum: "It does increasingly feel that someone (Rowntree) has it in for Grant. Is it some sort of tantrum cos another prop got hurt and Grant ended up being brought in despite the Rowntree-originating snub when Healy went home. The more I think about it the more it feels like leaving Mako on had the air of a ‘Frak you’ about it. I mean, Rowntree and Gatland were there in 2009 when Vickery was getting his head folded into his arse in the first test by the SA cheating and they saw first hand that Geech hesitated too long in bringing on Adam Jones and the consequences that followed. And yet they just went and left Mako on all 80 today. Why? But for Joubert stopping to penalise Mako today he could have ended up binned. If it had been Poite today I dare say he would have been.

Just baffled by it all."

That quote is summed up by

But for Joubert stopping to penalise Mako today he could have ended up binned.

 

No your fall in grace is because you don't seem to be any more rational than your Scottish colleagues when it comes to Grant. He seems to have produced a strong following. I believe a temple in Glasgow has been built in his honour. His followers are fanatics who never fail to shout his name from the rooftops.

Of course I don't agree with the bile being thrown around no. Especially when mako hasn't actually done badly. Mako does way he does.

I will agree that grant should have come on with perhaps 20 mins to go but I don't believe all the rubbish about grant winning the 2nd test for the lions.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.