What was Sexton thinking?

First topic message reminder :

The Lions won by such an overwhelming margin that largely, thoughts of the judgement failure riddled performance has been forgotten.

My first question on this topic is in the title.

19-3 up, with the lions dominant in all aspects Sexton elected to try a drop goal.

Now the Lions had front foot ball approaching the Wallaby 22. The biggest threat was loss of ball control, a knock on, a scrum and a 95% chance that halfpenny wood get an easy shot at goal.

Why the dodgy half witted pot at goal? It just have the ball back to Australia who proceeded to score shortly after and call the result back into question.

When you have found the weakness : keep plugging it.

Ah, I see SectreFly, it was somebody elses fault that Sexton didn't impress me. Thanks for clarifying, I've got it now!

Not that it matters as he had no part in the try, but I thought Farrell came on before North's try not after?

I'm pretty sure that the score was 26-16 when Farrell came on, so would have been before North's try. I could be worng though.

What was Sexton thinking - ''Crickey, if they don't get a move on here, I'm going to miss my wedding on Friday. Better try something to 'surprise' the Aussies with a drop goal.''

Sexton is getting married tomorrow (down in Limerick strangely enough!)  

Biltong - Sexton probably the only key player that didn't play with a scrumhalf that he had played a few games with previously even when that scrumhalf was playing well Gatland still insisted on starting him with an out of form Phillips or Ben Youngs.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Ah, I see SectreFly, it was somebody elses fault that Sexton didn't impress me.  Thanks for clarifying, I've got it now!

Think what you think Ozzy - with my blessing.
I'm not going to be fretting too much about Ozzy3213's lack of faith in a Irish chancer who thinks he's the second coming to Dan Carter.
The chancer is our worry now. Nobody else has to worry about how disappointing he is as a 10 for the next four years.

SecretFly wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:Ah, I see SectreFly, it was somebody elses fault that Sexton didn't impress me.  Thanks for clarifying, I've got it now!

Think what you think Ozzy - with my blessing.    
I'm not going to be fretting too much about Ozzy3213's lack of faith in a Irish chancer who thinks he's the second coming to Dan Carter.  
The chancer is our worry now.  Nobody else has to worry about how disappointing he is as a 10 for the next four years.  

...and Racing Metro.

 

Ozzy3213 wrote:Ah, I see SectreFly, it was somebody elses fault that Sexton didn't impress me.  Thanks for clarifying, I've got it now!

Ozzy, Conor Murray had the most try assists of anyone on tour (5). When you have a scrumhalf who is a real threat as well lets others play better (like Sexton & Farrell), although Farrell seems to have gained the most kudos from this arrangement since he got more chances to play with Murray.

Even Mogg looked like a world beating 10 with Murray as his scrumhalf.

So Sexton can now only play with Murray, yet when I read the Irish team selection threads on here over the past year the excuse for sub par Sexton perfomances has been that he does not gel with Murray who is too slow for him and he would benefit from having Reddan or Boss in the Ireland number 9 jersey.

Ozzy3213 wrote:So Sexton can now only play with Murray, yet when I read the Irish team selection threads on here over the past year the excuse for sub par Sexton perfomances has been that he does not gel with Murray who is too slow for him and he would benefit from having Reddan or Boss in the Ireland number 9 jersey.

Sexton can play with a scrumhalf who plays well... whatever his name. Playing well is principle here, Ozzy, not Christian names and Surnames.

Im not criticising sexton per se, just that decision and his constant up and unders; he needs to distribute and take the line more, he looks better when he does. His reading of the changing situation was poor and I feel he didnt provide the impetus to put Australia away early enough. That's why he was subbed out.

SecretFly wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:So Sexton can now only play with Murray, yet when I read the Irish team selection threads on here over the past year the excuse for sub par Sexton perfomances has been that he does not gel with Murray who is too slow for him and he would benefit from having Reddan or Boss in the Ireland number 9 jersey.

Sexton can play with a scrumhalf who plays well... whatever his name.  Playing well is principle here, Ozzy, not Christian names and Surnames.

So essentially what you are saying is that if Sexton does not play well it is somebody else's fault?!  

Ozzy3213 wrote:So Sexton can now only play with Murray, yet when I read the Irish team selection threads on here over the past year the excuse for sub par Sexton perfomances has been that he does not gel with Murray who is too slow for him and he would benefit from having Reddan or Boss in the Ireland number 9 jersey.

You wouldn't have heard that from me Ozzy, though in fairness to Sexton his performances in a green jersey has improved a lot over the last year or so.

Sexton was called off because there was a risk of him losing the game for the Lions?  

My God, history revision starts early on these boards.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:So Sexton can now only play with Murray, yet when I read the Irish team selection threads on here over the past year the excuse for sub par Sexton perfomances has been that he does not gel with Murray who is too slow for him and he would benefit from having Reddan or Boss in the Ireland number 9 jersey.

Sexton can play with a scrumhalf who plays well... whatever his name.  Playing well is principle here, Ozzy, not Christian names and Surnames.

So essentially what you are saying is that if Sexton does not play well it is somebody else's fault?!  

Why not Ozzy?

It worked for JD2!

 

 

Ozzy3213 wrote:

So essentially what you are saying is that if Sexton does not play well it is somebody else's fault?!  

It's you who are saying he didn't play well, Ozzy.  I'm saying he played quite well with a sub-form scrumhalf.  He over-achieved under the conditions not under-achieved.  He played well.  

In short, I think (and we're all thinking today aren't we) - I think Ozzy is completely wrong.   You won't be fretting about what Fly thinks either, will you ?

He had a mixed bag, Australia scored four tries over the series by my count he was at fault for 2 of them (Folay's second and JOCs), when we showed creative backplay he was usually at the heart of it, for his try he showed superb vision and support play to stay with the play as it developed. He also kickstarted the attack for his own try, chipping out of defence in his own 22 for North to gather and after Davies was in support the Lions had a lineout in the Oz 22. The chip was a tactic used very effectively by the Lions in the first and third test in particular He executed it well and was key to other good attacking opportunities.

I don't think he was average at all Ozzy, in fact his performances were some of the best and most dominant from a NH fly half in living memory.

On current form I believe he is better than Carter as an attacking 10 and Australia simply couldn't live with him at times during the series.

As I said previous Australia did a good job disrupting him at source - the set piece was not great in tests 1 and 2 and Genia and Hooper really got at Phillips and Youngs. Even with this, when the big plays were needed he delivered.

The guy failed to read the game.

He might have been sent out to play territory, and that may have been sensible given the tight nature of the first two games. But at 19-3 up and with a suddenly dominant scrum the entire context had changed. At that point he needed to take stock: Australia needed the ball and they wanted to counter attack. Smart move was to deprive them if the ball and get them frustrated. By continually handing the ball back to them (along with 1/2p) they were playing to Australia's hand. Cue the mini-come back.

If he was smart he would have switched to kick for the corners and keep ball in hand. He didnt and it took almost 65 minutes until the Lions worked that out and implemented it. I have to say, led by NH the much maligned welsh fellow in the centers.

Whether it not he tracked play well to score a try is not a measure if his "clever" rugby. At 10 its about reading and controlling the game. He failed. The DG us just one example of his failure.

No Glorious...he won.  Check the score.  You're on another thread saying the Aussies showed the NH how it's done.

One loss
One nearly loss
One disaster.

Thanks for the guidance Australia but the NH are only too aware of those tactics.  We're trying to leave them behind us now.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Im not criticising sexton per se, just that decision and his constant up and unders; he needs to distribute and take the line more, he looks better when he does. His reading of the changing situation was poor and I feel he didnt provide the impetus to put Australia away early enough. That's why he was subbed out.

This is exactly the type of way Sexton likes to play the game though, so it is clear to me that you have seen little of him playing. If you want something different out of him (i.e. playing a defensive, territorial game and having him sit deeper) then he isn't as good. Sexton is known for being the orchestrator of the Leinster attack, and this is what Schmidt allows him to do, which is why I cannot wait to watch him improve in the green shirt.

Give Sexton the reigns, and he will produce the magic.

rodders wrote:I don't think he was average at all Ozzy, in fact his performances were some of the best and most dominant from a NH fly half in living memory.

On current form I believe he is better than Carter as an attacking 10 and Australia simply couldn't live with him at times during the series.

As I said previous Australia did a good job disrupting him at source - the set piece was not great in tests 1 and 2 and Genia and Hooper really got at Phillips and Youngs. Even with this, when the big plays were needed he delivered.

Mate, without wanting to sound disrespectful, this made me spit out my pint and almost fall on the floor laughing. 

I'm out in this debate. 

You're not Sexton's dad are you rodders? Do you think there is any part of Sextons play that he could improve on?

Sexton is the best 10 in the NH.he has played better than he did on the Lions Tour.We won.Sexton did fine.Move on.

I still think Australia are the better team.

 

GloriousEmpire wrote:I still think Australia are the better team.

41-16  
 
And don't Forget - BOD is still the best centre in the world !!!

GloriousEmpire wrote:I still think Australia are the better team.

 

No I really do. Man for man they are a better side. However rugby can be a game if small margins. Often the better side will get on the wrong side of that margin, repeatedly.

In this case I can point to 20 to 30 instances where a very small factor went against the Wallabies that tipped the balance from the more talented side in favour of the more fortunate.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I still think Australia are the better team.

When Rugby is scored by a panel of judges like Ice Dancing your view may be relevant. Until then points on the board and series wins are all that matters.

GloriousEmpire wrote:No I really do. Man for man they are a better side. However rugby can be a game if small margins. Often the better side will get on the wrong side of that margin, repeatedly.

In this case I can point to 20 to 30 instances where a very small factor went against the Wallabies that tipped the balance from the more talented side in favour of the more fortunate.

20 or 30 small instances! that adds up to one hell of a lot. You are sir, truly amusing. You remind me of my nephew, though I suspect once he is out of nappies he may change a little.

Again the Ad Hominem response suggests you cannot fault the logic in the argument.

GloriousEmpire wrote:In this case I can point to 20 to 30 instances where a very small factor went against the Wallabies that tipped the balance from the more talented side in favour of the more fortunate.

Classic twaddle

sh teams are better then nh i grant u that . its always been the case but the gap is closing . anyone with half a brain can see this . there was a nh side in the world cup 2011 and there was two nh teams in jwc this year .

There has been a NH team in all but one WC final...

Glas a du wrote:There has been a NH team in all but one WC final...

                 

What?

87 Fra NZ
91 Eng Aus
95 SA NZ
99 Aus Fra
03 Aus Eng
07 Eng SA
11 NZ Fra

GloriousEmpire wrote:No I really do. Man for man they are a better side. However rugby can be a game if small margins. Often the better side will get on the wrong side of that margin, repeatedly.

In this case I can point to 20 to 30 instances where a very small factor went against the Wallabies that tipped the balance from the more talented side in favour of the more fortunate.

I get you, Glorious.  Heads - you win.  Tails - you win.   Take that coin with you to Las Vegas, it's a lucky one.

Yep its 6 finalists to 8.

the problem stat is 1 win against 6.

mystiroakey wrote:Yep its 6 finalists to 8.

the problem stat is 1 win against 6.

All one of us needs next time is a loan of Glorious's coin.

Forgetting Sexton, I though it was the lowest'-level Lions Tour I've seen in my time. And that's saying something. Both squads were mediocre and were massively over-hyped by Sky and HSBC. Fact. Don't discuss.

The opposition put out against them in the midweek games was scandalous. And when they did meet someone even half-decent - they lost.

We need to wake up and stop glorifying nowt much to talk about here. It was a nice heavily-sponsored Summertime jolly. No more no less.

Not sorry for bursting the hype-bubble.

On a side note, If Wales had Sexton, they'd be half-decent.

Glas a du wrote:What?

87 Fra NZ
91 Eng Aus
95 SA NZ
99 Aus Fra
03 Aus Eng
07 Eng SA
11 NZ Fra

  yes  i believe you the   was for me not realising that

its just England and France then been in the finals . prob a England and France final 2015 worth a Tenner

When France drop goaled early in the match in one of the tests it got booed here and I'm glad that Kiwi's still instinctively boo them, despite continuously being told off for not dropping in 07. Like depending on penalties its about not having to take on defences directly and I hope that instinct never leaves these shores. the day I start seeing the AB's going for droppies at the beginning of the match, throwing away an early opporurtunity to put the opposition under the hammer is the day I stop watching tthem.

Having said that, the two times I would expect drop goals would be the end of he match when everything else has been tried to get over the line and time is running out, or, in Sextons position. At 19-3 up a drop goal at that point in the match would have had the effect of putting the score into the 20's, a restart and the Ozzies further on the backfoot.

As it was, he missed and the Ozzies came back, the point being, that on both occasions, you must nail them.

DC did that last year at about the same time to Ireland and it basically said- we'll run through you, kick our penalties and now we'll drop the goals. From there the Irish well and truly were out of it.

Had Sextons goal gone over, its less likely the Ozzies would have come back the way they did. My opinion...but there are real times for a droppie, and that was one of em.

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:

Glas a du wrote:What?

87 Fra NZ
91 Eng Aus
95 SA NZ
99 Aus Fra
03 Aus Eng
07 Eng SA
11 NZ Fra

               yes  i believe you   the    was for me not realising that  

Only one win though apparently, although *cough* I can't seem to remember which  

 It's a self-explanatory question really, after a number of phases and with a healthy lead he was looking to keep the score board ticking over; he usually slots those - Right decision; just the wrong execution

Grey Ghost, has very quickly established Sexton as one of the primary targets for his wumming under his latest identity on the board. He's been attacking various facets of Sexton's game, personality and more in the hope that it will get a rise out of Irish fans more than anybody else.

What I find most worrying is the fact that this guy is a middle aged man, most internet trolls tend to be young men, the guy has very serious issues, potentially a personality disorder and I hope he seeks psychiatric help sooner rather than later.

 There's very little we can do for the personality disorders I'm afraid Artful D. DBT has a lot of empirical support but it fails miserably in practice. At least he's reasonably functional and harmless whilst on 606. Think of it as OT for him

I was thinking more along the lines of antipsychotic drugs to treat his mania rather than DBT Ruby  

 Now what is it AD - PD, Mania or Psychosis - What i think you're after is a trip to the ECT suite for him as opposed to the anti psychotics - I'll let you switch on the voltage

RubyGuby wrote: Now what is it AD -  PD, Mania or Psychosis - What i think you're after is a trip to the ECT suite for him as opposed to the anti psychotics - I'll let you switch on the voltage

Personality disorder, mania and psychosis could all fall under one roof with a condition such as paranoid schizophrenia, in which case I would suggest an antipsychotic such as olanzapine at about 20mg a day.  As for ECT, completely ineffective and did nothing other than incapacitate the sufferer in a not too unsimilar way to lobotomies.  Also disgustingly unethical and should never have happened.

 You might have a point there AD - Personally I prefer a bottle in front of me as opposed to a frontal lobotomy- That was the best advice Ive ever heard from an eminent scottish Psychiatrist