Video analysis of the Lions

I know we're well past it and everything but I'm just going to throw some links up of some games I did for another website (another poster wanted to see some of it and also I forgot to link them) So feel free to view any of them if you want


First test: http://balls.ie/rugby/tale-of-the-tape-the-lions-defence-in-the-first-test/
http://balls.ie/rugby/tale-of-the-tape-lions-kicking-and-set-piece-in-the-first-test/


Second test: http://balls.ie/rugby/tale-of-the-tape-breaking-down-adam-ashley-coopers-second-test-try/
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mWHJFgf2WcqkGTAY-CvjDs_Z3BxZ_C9Vomme4xBypBE/edit
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vj0EVOUMBTGdYcBQG6XBOcu3YBfsNwZ8NqDoPG4LVXA/edit


Third Test: http://harpin2.blogspot.ie/2013/07/3rd-test-film-breakdownpart-1.html
http://harpin2.blogspot.ie/2013/07/3rd-test-film-breakdownpart-2.html

Third test link is clearly a fake, the Lions winning convincingly without BOD ? Pull the other one

munkian wrote:Third test link is clearly a fake, the Lions winning convincingly without BOD ? Pull the other one

Ever heard of photoshop?

Good work Thormond...! Be good to see you around here more often...?

Well good on Connor Philpott for congratulating Warren on a successful tour, even if in the third test "BOD may have been as effective (as the players who were selected) had he played".

He MAY have been injured in the 1st 40 seconds of the game. It a ridiculous arguement.

If the Lions lost then it was because Gatland didn;t pick BOD.

Lions win by a huge amount BUT if BOD played he would've helped them win by more....

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Well good on Connor Philpott for congratulating Warren on a successful tour, even if in the third test "BOD may have been as effective (as the players who were selected) had he played".

Who is to say he wouldnt. The main issue I had, that you love to completly ignore is that Davies his replacement didnt exactly stand out in any test including the third test. He was also IMO to blame for missing the tackle on AAC in the crucial moment of the second test loss.

Dont let that get in the way of your obvious BOD prejudices.

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Well good on Connor Philpott for congratulating Warren on a successful tour, even if in the third test "BOD may have been as effective (as the players who were selected) had he played".

Who is to say he wouldnt. The main issue I had, that you love to completly ignore is that Davies his replacement didnt exactly stand out in any test including the third test. He was also IMO to blame for missing the tackle on AAC in the crucial moment of the second test loss.

Dont let that get in the way of your obvious BOD prejudices.

Davies had a great game in the third test.

Submachine wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Well good on Connor Philpott for congratulating Warren on a successful tour, even if in the third test "BOD may have been as effective (as the players who were selected) had he played".

Who is to say he wouldnt. The main issue I had, that you love to completly ignore is that Davies his replacement didnt exactly stand out in any test including the third test. He was also IMO to blame for missing the tackle on AAC in the crucial moment of the second test loss.

Dont let that get in the way of your obvious BOD prejudices.

Davies had a great game in the third test.

I agree, Davies was absolutely superb...!

In the 3rd test he was grand. Everyone played well. Davies did not particularly stand out though. I can remember him making one good touch finder. Thats about it.

maestegmafia wrote:I agree, Davies was absolutely superb...!

Thats certainly stretching the truth.

GunsGerms wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:I agree, Davies was absolutely superb...!

Thats certainly stretching the truth.

Not in the slightest. You should try to watch the game again and you will clearly see how instrumental Davies is. He is a sublime player that has now surpassed BOD in the Rankings. BOD had a great tour, but was second fiddle to Davies ever since the Warratahs match where even BOD himself stated that he thought Davies performance was incredible.

Davies was amazing in the Waratahs match (probably the stand out performance of the whole tour for me) but he didn't perform to that level in the tests. He was quite lucky to play in the 3rd after his performance the previous week, albeit it at 12, though. BODs clearly on his last stand but I think most people expected him to start the 3rd test.

He wasnt instrumental at all really in any test. Not because he isnt a good player but because 2nd centre didnt really feature in Gatland's game plan much at all. It wasnt a key position. The third test win centered around the front row, Sexton and Halfpenny. Faletau, AWJ and O'Brien also stood out. It annoys me that the press love to report that Gatland was vindicated for dropping Drico because the Lions won when all the evidence suggests it wouldnt have made much difference either way.

What do you mean it made no difference either way? of course Gatland was vindicated, and so was UK rugby , he was the first successful Lions coach in years.

I think Davies is becoming the most over-hyped player in rugby (maybe just behind Dan 'Invisible Workrate' Lydiate).

We won. All that matters. It wasn't the BOD fanboy tour.

aucklandlaurie wrote:What do you mean it made no difference either way? of course Gatland was vindicated, and so was UK rugby , he was the first successful Lions coach in years.

For an Aussie you seem to like gatland a lot?

Liking has little to do with facts.

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:What do you mean it made no difference either way? of course Gatland was vindicated, and so was UK rugby , he was the first successful Lions coach in years.

For an Aussie you seem to like gatland a lot?

Or is it because I can recognise excellance and achievement.

Cyril wrote:I think Davies is becoming the most over-hyped player in rugby (maybe just behind Dan 'Invisible Workrate' Lydiate).

I concur. There's something Kaizer Soscesque about him alright....

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Well good on Connor Philpott for congratulating Warren on a successful tour, even if in the third test "BOD may have been as effective (as the players who were selected) had he played".

Who is to say he wouldnt. The main issue I had, that you love to completly ignore is that Davies his replacement didnt exactly stand out in any test including the third test. He was also IMO to blame for missing the tackle on AAC in the crucial moment of the second test loss.

Dont let that get in the way of your obvious BOD prejudices.

Two things. I would've liked to see BOD make that tackle from that range and with that momentum running through the Aussie backline. I don't think many would've managed it under these circumstances and even if they had it would likely have delayed the try rather than prevent it. The Aussies were pounding the Lions' defence which was due to the Lions as a team sitting back and giving themselves more defensive work than they could handle.

Secondly, I see very little genuine prejudice. I myself have nothing against BOD as a player or a person. In fact I believe him to be exceptional under both categories. What I do perceive is response to what has been a glaringly biased disposition of many posters towards their cult hero. As has been mentioned above, most are allowing their personal sentiments to shape their views rather than the reality of it. The fact that they're still arguing for BOD's inclusion in a test that was won comfortably nearly a month ago just reflects how people came to watch their own guys than the Lions as a team. No single player is bigger than the side but by people's reactions following BOD's omission you'd find that hard to believe.

 

Don't think there was/is as much bias around that choice but appears so as the people who shouted loudest happened to be Irish. BOD was better than JD in the 2nd test so may have expected to start but Gatland went with a national partnership. As people have mentioned we won so it doesn't matter a great deal. Don't think Gatland was vindicated as I don't think the decision was all that important as it turned out

No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't think there was/is as much bias around that choice but appears so as the people who shouted loudest happened to be Irish. BOD was better than JD in the 2nd test so may have expected to start but Gatland went with a national partnership. As people have mentioned we won so it doesn't matter a great deal. Don't think Gatland was vindicated as I don't think the decision was all that important as it turned out

Thanks that was more or less the point I was making.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:What do you mean it made no difference either way? of course Gatland was vindicated, and so was UK rugby , he was the first successful Lions coach in years.

For an Aussie you seem to like gatland a lot?

Or is it because I can recognise excellance and achievement.

You can when it suits your agenda alright.

Australians have an agenda to praise the new zealand coach of the Lions team that just beat them ?  

munkian wrote:Australians have an agenda to praise the new zealand coach of the Lions team that just beat them ?  

Obviously he isnt Australian but of course you know that.