New Zealand Barbarians v British & Irish Lions, 3 June

First topic message reminder :

New Zealand Barbarians v British & Irish Lions
3 June 2017
KO: 19:35 NZST (8.35am BST)
Toll Stadium, Whangarei, North Island

Live on Sky Sports, Sky Sports HD and SkyGo

Referee: Angus Gardner (Australia)
Touch judges: [tbc]
TMO: [tbc]

A. FORM:

These teams have not played each other before.

B. TEAMS:

New Zealand Barbarians 
1. Aidan Ross (Bay of Plenty)
2. Sam Anderson-Heather - captain (Otago)
3. Oliver Jager (Canterbury)
4. Josh Goodhue (Northland)
5. Keepa Mewett (Bay of Plenty)
6. James Tucker (Waikato)
7. Lachlan Boshier (Taranaki)
8. Mitchell Dunshea (Canterbury)

9. Jack Stratton (Canterbury)
10. Bryn Gatland (North Harbour)
11. Sevu Reece (Waikato)
12. Dwayne Sweeney (Waikato)
13. Inga Finau (Canterbury)
14. Sam Vaka (Counties Manukau)
15. Luteru Laulala (Counties Manukau)

16. Andrew Makalio (Tasman)
17. Tolu Fahamokioa (Wellington)
18. Marcel Renata (Auckland)
19. Matt Matich (Northland)
20. Peter Rowe - vice captain (Wanganui)
21. Richard Judd (Bay of Plenty)
22. Jonah Lowe (Hawke's Bay)
23. Junior Ngaluafe (Southland)

British & Irish Lions
15. S Hogg (Scotland)
14. A Watson
13. J Joseph
12. B Te'o (all Eng)
11. T Seymour (Sco)
10. J Sexton (Ire)
09. G Laidlaw (Sco)

01. J Marler (Eng)
02. R Best (Ire)
03. K Sinckler (Eng)
04. A Jones (Wal)
05. I Henderson (Ire)
06. R Moriarty
07. S Warburton
08. T Faletau (all Wal)

16. J George
17. M Vunipola (both Eng)
18. T Furlong (Ire)
19. G Kruis (Eng)
20. J Tipuric
21. R Webb (both Wal)
22. O Farrell (Eng)
23. J Payne (Ire)


C. PREVIEW

I think there are two main excuses for the poor performance:
1. Jet lag. It does impact especially on such a physical sport.
2. Its the Lions and therefore brand new team with players who have never played together before (taking nothing away from the oppo who were also a scratch side). Don't underestimate how challenging that is in such a professional sport. We will continue to see this problem over the next 2 matches before it settles down. For this very reason Gats has to quickly allow his test team, or combos thereof, to have more match practice together.

No need to panic, but individuals did harm their test chances today especially Sexton, Laidlaw and Henderson, but even they will have the chance to bounce back. Lets give them all a proper chance!

Ozzy3213 wrote:

David-Douglas wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Faletau, for me was the best player on the field for the Lions. A quieter second half but was at the heart of all things good in the first half.

Moriarty, pushed Faletau for best Lions player, did not look out of his depth and made some very good runs.

Watson, thought he looked very lively when given a chance. The Lions have to get the wings into the game more.

Laidlaw, I did not think he was too bad in fairness. Few odd moments but thought his game management was strong. Had no help from Sexton in the first half.

Sinkler, I thought he was good in the loose but was not good in the scrum.

Farrall, missed a penalty but had a great kick from the touch line after the try. I thought he brought a lot more balance to the attack when he came on.

Not all doom and gloom but by god, there is a lot of work to do. Gatland does not have an easy job between now and Wednesday.

I'd pretty much agree with that.

Sexton is just not right at the moment, not sure what it is.

Laidlaw and Farrell combo looked good. I'd go so far as to say it got worse for the Lions when Laidlaw came off.

Seymour looked good. Hogg had a good game in defence making some important tackles. Not a good pass to Watson though.

Really worried about the pack, it should be dominant in a game like this but wasn't, even after subs came on. Faletau did have a great game that said.

Was impressed with Ickle Gatland today.

Anyway, got the win, early days. No need for doom and gloom just yet.....

Not sure I can agree that Hogg had a good game.  I thought he was very poor and looked as if he was trying to play himself out of test team contention.

Good in defence is what I wrote. Not so good in attack I thought. "Very poor" is probably a bit unfair.

If a player has a bad game for your club side is he discarded as useless? Hopefully not - he will be given plenty of chances against different teams and circumstances to see if he can learn and improve enough to fit in with the team.
At Test level maybe a debutant has an indifferent game and he may not be tried again until he has worked on what the coach needs from him for the 'team' so that he doesn't lose too much self-belief. That's how teams grow.
The Lions are totally different - one bad game and you're on notice - two and you're out of consideration.
Woe Betide any player who tries the extraordinary and makes a mistake - he'll be a pariah for life.

It's really not enough that the Lions are away from home and coming off the back of a long season and playing with players under unfamiliar instruction, they need more pressure from the fans... rugby is such an easy game that they should beat the world champions once they've had a few beers and a pizza together.

The Lions were as Good as any team I've seen coached by Howley in attack.

The Great Aukster wrote:If a player has a bad game for your club side is he discarded as useless? Hopefully not - he will be given plenty of chances against different teams and circumstances to see if he can learn and improve enough to fit in with the team.
At Test level maybe a debutant has an indifferent game and he may not be tried again until he has worked on what the coach needs from him for the 'team' so that he doesn't lose too much self-belief. That's how teams grow.
The Lions are totally different - one bad game and you're on notice - two and you're out of consideration.
Woe Betide any player who tries the extraordinary and makes a mistake - he'll be a pariah for life.

It's really not enough that the Lions are away from home and coming off the back of a long season and playing with players under unfamiliar instruction, they need more pressure from the fans... rugby is such an easy game that they should beat the world champions once they've had a few beers and a pizza together.

This, really.

George Carlin wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:If a player has a bad game for your club side is he discarded as useless? Hopefully not - he will be given plenty of chances against different teams and circumstances to see if he can learn and improve enough to fit in with the team.
At Test level maybe a debutant has an indifferent game and he may not be tried again until he has worked on what the coach needs from him for the 'team' so that he doesn't lose too much self-belief. That's how teams grow.
The Lions are totally different - one bad game and you're on notice - two and you're out of consideration.
Woe Betide any player who tries the extraordinary and makes a mistake - he'll be a pariah for life.

It's really not enough that the Lions are away from home and coming off the back of a long season and playing with players under unfamiliar instruction, they need more pressure from the fans... rugby is such an easy game that they should beat the world champions once they've had a few beers and a pizza together.

This, really.

OK maybe a burger as well.

I thought Laidlaw and Sexton both had horrible games - poor passing and decision making from them, but you can of course attribute some of that to unfamiliarity and the short turnaround from the long flight. Sinckler and Faletau were the main plus points but Sinckler will obviously have to back that up against stronger front rows to put himself in contention.

I know Sam Warburton was made Lions captain for the tour. But with having played in the first game surely he will not play in the next game this week. 

So who will be captain for the next game. As some one been named? or is it to be decided nearer the day?

Will be named bases on the team selection - PoM most likely?

RDW_Scotland wrote:Will be named bases on the team selection - PoM most likely?

He would be a good choice.

thomh wrote:I thought Laidlaw and Sexton both had horrible games - poor passing and decision making from them, but you can of course attribute some of that to unfamiliarity and the short turnaround from the long flight. Sinckler and Faletau were the main plus points but Sinckler will obviously have to back that up against stronger front rows to put himself in contention.

I actually thought that Laidlaw was very solid (ok he did miss a great chance at a break) at 9. I think it was more Sexton who looked totally off and Laidlaw (nor anyone) could read what he was doing. The Lions looked so much better when Farrell came on for him and Farrell linked up well with Laidlaw whilst Laidlaw was on.

eirebilly wrote:

thomh wrote:I thought Laidlaw and Sexton both had horrible games - poor passing and decision making from them, but you can of course attribute some of that to unfamiliarity and the short turnaround from the long flight. Sinckler and Faletau were the main plus points but Sinckler will obviously have to back that up against stronger front rows to put himself in contention.

I actually thought that Laidlaw was very solid (ok he did miss a great chance at a break) at 9. I think it was more Sexton who looked totally off and Laidlaw (nor anyone) could read what he was doing. The Lions looked so much better when Farrell came on for him and Farrell linked up well with Laidlaw whilst Laidlaw was on.

Laidlaw showed all his usual strengths and failings. To me his slow service is too slow and the fact that he offers no running threat means that defences find it relatively easy to defend against him.

Just got around to watching this one. Not the worst performance I've seen but pretty rusty and not much cohesion. The backs outside of 9&10 were pretty good I thought. I also can't see why AWJ and Warburton were singled out - apart from being a bit rusty like everyone else they did their jobs pretty well. One can only assume they got criticism through being too Welsh. Moriarty, Faletau and Te'o were the best players for the Lions. Honourable mentions to Seymour, Joseph and Sinckler too.

What concerned me about Warburton was how low his workrate was. I was trying to follow him whenever he was in shot and he was standing off rucks and generally doing much less than either Faletau or Moriarty, both of whom had a good game.

I thought the Barbarians largely won the breakdown, especially in the first half, and that's something the Lions can't afford. Gatland has gambled on Warburton getting back to match fitness quickly but on this evidence he has much further to go than is ideal.

I also can't see why AWJ and Warburton were singled out - apart from being a bit rusty like everyone else they did their jobs pretty well. One can only assume they got criticism through being too Welsh.

Possibly because they were selected without form and a lot, including the man who matters, would have them pencilled into that test team. Henderson and Laidlaw have also taken a lot of stick on this thread.

I'd imagine Jones and Warburton will start next Saturday and if they go well they'll still win test shirts, but neither were at the level required to lead the Lions to victory against NZ.

Don Alfonso wrote:https://twitter.com/RugbyInsideLine/status/870922574124986368

That actually made my jaw drop. He's physically through the gap and then passes back to someone else who can be lined up and tackled.

Shocking wasn't it ? Some seriously one eyed posters around ignoring just how bad certain players were because they play for a certain team back home...

Disappointing curtain raiser. It was kind of lose-lose. If we spanked them, so what?

I suppose the best scenario would have been to have got it together and put them to the sword in the second half but that was only slightly better than the first half. At the very least the game provided a relatively low pressure opportunity to knock the rust off. I've no doubt Wednesday will be better.

We really struggled for continuity, but given the amount of individual mistakes that was always going to be a challenge. Everytime we started to look cohesive an individual error would bring a halt to proceedings.

I was pleased with Falateu, Moriarty, Sinckler and Te'o. I thought Sexton, Laidlaw and Hogg were poor. I don't think there is much point running individuals down at this stage now, a mistake is a mistake and the next time they play I'm sure they will all be better.
That being said, the one I'm most concerned about is Laidlaw. Of the three I mentioned he probably made the least individual mistakes (in terms of execution). However I thought his passing was very slow, and his kick/pass/run decision making was pretty poor. Just not convinced he is what we need but lets see what he does on Wednesday.

Laidlaw dividing opinion, as per usual.

I actually thought he was pretty solid, and aisde from the clip above, made few individual errors. Of the two half-backs, I thought Sexton was much poorer than Laidlaw.

The person who I think has done themselves most harm is Hogg. Gatland has publicly mentioned Hogg's defence, and although that was pretty solid, he made two high-profile errors, which were again mentioned by Gats after the game....I personally think he will jump on any excuse not to pick him and fully expect to see Halfpenny line up for the first test.

EST wrote:Laidlaw dividing opinion, as per usual.

I actually thought he was pretty solid, and aisde from the clip above, made few individual errors.  Of the two half-backs, I thought Sexton was much poorer than Laidlaw.

The person who I think has done themselves most harm is Hogg.  Gatland has publicly mentioned Hogg's defence, and although that was pretty solid, he made two high-profile errors, which were again mentioned by Gats after the game....I personally think he will jump on any excuse not to pick him and fully expect to see Halfpenny line up for the first test.

I agree that Sexton was poorer. It's just that of the types of mistakes they made, I reckon Sextons were down to execution and I'd back him to come good. With Laidlaw, given the way he plays, I'm not convinced that he will be able to make a difference against the ABs. I still have my favourites of course, but I genuinely want everyone to go well on tour so I hope he proves me wrong.

EST wrote:Laidlaw dividing opinion, as per usual.

I actually thought he was pretty solid, and aisde from the clip above, made few individual errors.  Of the two half-backs, I thought Sexton was much poorer than Laidlaw.

I agree with you, but also with the poster that followed. Sexton can be better than that, but for Laidlaw that is pretty much the best we will ever get.

Even the most die hard Scotsman probably doesn't expect Laidlaw to start a test - bar injury - but what he does bring is great leadership and professionalism to the group and calming presence on the pitch. He strikes me as the kind of player who would do all he can in training and in meetings to enable the test players to perform at their best - i.e. the Jason Leonard type. He is hugely respected and trusted by the likes of Vern Cotter who is also a hugely respected coach.

So yes he may not make many breaks, yes his passing is sometimes slow but his contribution to the tour and to the group will certainly be valuable IMO.

cascough wrote:

EST wrote:Laidlaw dividing opinion, as per usual.

I actually thought he was pretty solid, and aisde from the clip above, made few individual errors.  Of the two half-backs, I thought Sexton was much poorer than Laidlaw.

The person who I think has done themselves most harm is Hogg.  Gatland has publicly mentioned Hogg's defence, and although that was pretty solid, he made two high-profile errors, which were again mentioned by Gats after the game....I personally think he will jump on any excuse not to pick him and fully expect to see Halfpenny line up for the first test.

I agree that Sexton was poorer. It's just that of the types of mistakes they made, I reckon Sextons were down to execution and I'd back him to come good. With Laidlaw, given the way he plays, I'm not convinced that he will be able to make a difference against the ABs. I still have my favourites of course, but I genuinely want everyone to go well on tour so I hope he proves me wrong.

I actually agree about Laidlaw to an extent, he is a great organiser and he provides so much leadership and control to a young Scotland team, but he isn't in the same class as Webb or Murray and this Lions team will need to be very direct, something that isn't really in his game.

I wouldn't count him out just yet though, he is a fighter and mentally strong (look at his international kicking %) - he could well end up with a test cap at the end of the tour.

Problematic performances for the Lions in a way.

Players who could /should be first choice and arguably the best pedigree in their positions having bad days (Hogg, Sexton and Joseph). With Sexton there is a good number 2 in Farreell so not so much of a problem, but theres a lack of depth at fullback and center...certainly from a flair attacking player perspective anyway.

Fringe players like Sinckler, Moriarty and Teo putting in big performances will really muddle the test selection.
On the plus side Faletau has shown hes number one and enables Gatland to keep up Welsh number sin the first choice test side. Wrap him in cotton wool now.

Overall though its a pretty depressing scoreline and the Lions know they have a lot to work on in attack, yet could get pushed into not picking some of their best attacking threats if they dont start showing some form.

I think JD2 was always first choice at 13 (rather than JJ) - and his form in the Pro12 playoffs will certainly help his case. It will be interesting to see how he goes against the Crusaders.

Unfortunately for Joseph his dip in form has come at the wrong time for a test start. He hasn't looked at his best this year.

I think Teo/Davies at centre should be in the lead for the betting.

Davies has come into some good form of late, and would be my choice to start at 13.

Murray
Farrell
Henshaw
Davies

That would be my inside back selection as it stands.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Even the most die hard Scotsman probably doesn't expect Laidlaw to start a test - bar injury - but what he does bring is great leadership and professionalism to the group and calming presence on the pitch. He strikes me as the kind of player who would do all he can in training and in meetings to enable the test players to perform at their best - i.e. the Jason Leonard type. He is hugely respected and trusted by the likes of Vern Cotter who is also a hugely respected coach.

So yes he may not make many breaks, yes his passing is sometimes slow but his contribution to the tour and to the group will certainly be valuable IMO.

Fair point. And there is no point anyone griping about his (or anyone elses for that matter) selection. He's on tour now, so got to get behind the guy. Like I say, I'll be willing him on on Wednesday.

cascough wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:Even the most die hard Scotsman probably doesn't expect Laidlaw to start a test - bar injury - but what he does bring is great leadership and professionalism to the group and calming presence on the pitch. He strikes me as the kind of player who would do all he can in training and in meetings to enable the test players to perform at their best - i.e. the Jason Leonard type. He is hugely respected and trusted by the likes of Vern Cotter who is also a hugely respected coach.

So yes he may not make many breaks, yes his passing is sometimes slow but his contribution to the tour and to the group will certainly be valuable IMO.

Fair point. And there is no point anyone griping about his (or anyone elses for that matter) selection. He's on tour now, so got to get behind the guy. Like I say, I'll be willing him on on Wednesday.

I think everyone needs to remember that it's the first game and it was played only a few days after the team landed in Kiwiland. Jet lag is a funny thing and not only are you tired, but your muscles just bugger off on holiday too after being sat on a plane for 24 hours!

Gooseberry wrote:Problematic performances for the Lions in a way.

Players who could /should be first choice and arguably the best pedigree in their positions having bad days (Hogg, Sexton and Joseph). With Sexton there is a good number 2 in Farreell so not so much of a problem, but theres a lack of depth at fullback and center...certainly from a flair attacking player perspective anyway.

Fringe players like Sinckler, Moriarty and Teo putting in big performances will really muddle the test selection.
On the plus side Faletau has shown hes number one and enables Gatland to keep up Welsh number sin the first choice test side. Wrap him in cotton wool now.

Overall though its a pretty depressing scoreline and the Lions know they have a lot to work on in attack, yet could get pushed into not picking some of their best attacking threats if they dont start showing some form.

I disagree "fringe" players putting in big performances muddle test selection. That would imply a test selection has been made before a game was played. In theory we've got the best of the best here. In terms of ability the difference between the perceived favourite for the test shirt and the perceived backups should not be that great. Those perceptions are also hugely subjective so it could be reasoned that certainly in some positions, there's no such thing as a likely starter and a fringe player.

IC I'd argue is one of them. We've only got Te'o and Henshaw. Is there that much between them? You could make a reasonable case either way I'm sure. Options beyond that are move Farrell across (which Gatland said he wont do) or move JD in (when was the last time he played there for any length of time. I'm not convinced Moriarty is an outsider either. Gatland has said Stander is competing for 8 with TF. That leaves RM, PoM, JH and possibly SoB and SW (although I suspect Gatland sees them both as options at 7). Is there really that much between the 6s?

There are some positions where a consensus as to who the standout option is might be easier to reach. Falateu for example (especially now BV has dropped out). On the whole though, although people have their preferences, I don't see there being a big drop off from one man to the next. For that reason, ANYONE putting in a good performance can only be a good thing IMO. It will put pressure on the other guy to go out and perform, whoever they are.

In reality cascough will that be true?

No 7&1/2 wrote:In reality cascough will that be true?

You'll have to help me out.

What?

tigertattie wrote:I think everyone needs to remember that it's the first game and it was played only a few days after the team landed in Kiwiland. Jet lag is a funny thing and not only are you tired, but your muscles just bugger off on holiday too after being sat on a plane for 24 hours!

Yet they managed to win their first game 59-8 last time (albeit arguably weaker opposition).
The side was selected with players who hadnt played the previous weekend, some for longer. SANZAR sides reguallry travel up here ins imilar circumstances and smash the hell out of full tests sides. And indeed the Kiwis travel around the world for their domestic and international tournaments, but still keep winning.

So yeah I accept that its largely a scratch side (playing a scratch side) and that travel will have affected them, but it was still a worringly poor performance in attack. A better organised and higher quality NZ test side would laugh them off, and Gatland himslef has openly stated that they will need to score big to win games regardless of how welel they defend.

Its not total panic yet abnd individuals as well as the collective group have the chance to rediscover their potential but as things stand I see nothing to revise my opinion that the All Blacks will win the tests comfortably.

The players aren't starting with a clean slate. Form will get you a little way but not have that big a bearing; if it's the same as 4 years ago.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The players aren't starting with a clean slate. Form will get you a little way but not have that big a bearing; if it's the same as 4 years ago.

I still don't know what it is you're getting at?

I'm saying I think people playing well is a good thing for the Lions, regardless of who they are. Do you disagree with that?  

Sorry for the confusion, but I'm not sure how "In reality do you think that is true" relates to my point.

Unless you mean broadly. In which case, yes, I do think people playing well is good for the lions, regardless of who they are - is true!

No I agree that performance from.anyone is good but I don't think it has bearing on the tests which I think could be dispiriting. I hope I'm wrong. I hope it won't matter anyway as every one will have found their form.

I haven't read this thread, so apologies if my comments are repeating those before, but two players who really impressed me are two players I wouldn't personally have chosen for the touring party: Moriarty and Teo. Both looked really up for it and stood out in the general rusty malaise.

Faletau also impressed.

I was disappointed with Laidlaw and Hogg. Laidlaw's passing was all over the place and Hogg can play so much better. In a Glasgow or Scotland jersey he puts Watson over the line 10 out of 10 times.

Grim game, but I still loved every minute of it.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Grim game, but I still loved every minute of it.

I'm all over this.

I don't get the panic that has engulfed certain posters. If Hogg has done his test chances harm then so too has Sexton and AWJ who both had games to forget.

Aside from the fumble between the legs and a poor pass to Watson,  Hogg looked pretty good, sure he didn't get his hands on the ball as much as he would have wanted but as far as I could tell his defence was pretty tight. Sure he needed Faletau and Seymour to cover the two 2on1s he had to defend, but he did his job and brought his men down when asked.

Same goes for AWJ and I suppose Warburton, both back from injury so again the looked very rusty.

Sexton is another, possibly carrying a niggle?

Even Farrell despite making the Sky media mess up their underpants, he didn't do all that much either. Passed the ball for a try and his only other notable action was to scud the post from an easy kick, by his standards anyway.

The only players to emerge with credit in the bank IMO were Faletau, Seymour, Moriarty and Teo. Everyone else looked bang ordinary. We aren't going to cast that collective team onto the test scrap heap at least we shouldn't. There were and are some quality players in that side.

The guys made some errors, but it will have certainly been a wake up call for most.

Bang on Radge.

The other player to emerge with credit for me was Kruis, who came of the bench to make a real impact at the lineout.

Yeah Kruis did well - in the whole time AWJ and Henderson were on we didn't get close to any of their lineouts. Kruis came on and stole 2!

To be fair the reserve hooker they brought on was terrible at throwing.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The players aren't starting with a clean slate. Form will get you a little way but not have that big a bearing; if it's the same as 4 years ago.

I think Gatland will have some of his test team in mind and will want to see "enough" from his test players. You have to think mainly of the guys who were selected with injuries or who weren't in great form; Alun Wyn Jones, Kruis, Warburton, Murray, Davies, North, Halfpenny, etc. If these guys can put to bed any doubts about fitness and match sharpness, then Gatland will more likely go with them.

The "understudies" to those places would have to show completely undeniable form on tour, or hope for poor performances from the "incumbents". Basically they would have to be such a level above the "incumbent" it would take 2005 Woodward to still ignore them.

In other places, there a genuine battle. I'd say the front row, 6/8 (especially before Vunipola's injury*), 10 and 12 and possibly the final back three place. In these spots your form will count for more, as there's less in between players (in the eyes of the head coach).

*before Vunipola's injury, I would have thought Stander and O'Mahony were battling for 6, Warburton would be your test 7, and Tipuric the understudy, Vunipola and Faletau fighting for 8 with Moriarty and O'Brien covering across the back row - so two shirts were open.

Given Vunipola's injury and Faletau's form, I'd say that he's the choice at 8. If Stander starts tearing up trees in the games he's given at 8, his form is more likely to earn him consideration at 6 alongside Faletau. Stander, Warburton and Faletau is a balanced back-row, and although it would leave Moriarty, Haskell or O'Brien covering midweek 8 (none of whom would be ideal), if it was the price to get the best test back row together it would be worth it.

I think therefore there is only really one further spot in the back row, alongside Warburton and Faletau.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Yeah Kruis did well - in the whole time AWJ and Henderson were on we didn't get close to any of their lineouts. Kruis came on and stole 2!

To be fair the reserve hooker they brought on was terrible at throwing.

Henderson and AWJ were pretty underwhelming, and lock is a fiercely competitive position. I'm sure Launchbury and J Gray will have been watching that at home with interest.

It's early days of course, but there are a few players from Saturday who will be very keen to make a positive impression in the next game.

There was a lot of underwhelming stuff.

However to be slightly controversial the most underwhelming for me was the Maori greeting just before kickoff. Seemed to go on for ever but looked like a couple of fat blokes doing an impression of Olympic Dressage!!

LondonTiger wrote:There was a lot of underwhelming stuff.

However to be slightly controversial the most underwhelming for me was the Maori greeting just before kickoff. Seemed to go on for ever but looked like a couple of fat blokes doing an impression of Olympic Dressage!!

Weird mood music too, most of our players looked bemused rather than intimidated.

munkian wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:There was a lot of underwhelming stuff.

However to be slightly controversial the most underwhelming for me was the Maori greeting just before kickoff. Seemed to go on for ever but looked like a couple of fat blokes doing an impression of Olympic Dressage!!

Weird mood music too, most of our players looked bemused rather than intimidated.

Yet the actual most underwhelming aspect of the night were the Lions. They were underwhelming to be fair. Amost took underwhelming to a new level. 2005 levels of underwhelminglyness.

Crikey that was grim even by Gatland's standards.

The Lions will do well to win any of the remaining tour games let alone one of the tests.

Seriously rodders, if you guys lose a game you will not hear the end of it

ebop wrote:Seriously rodders, if you guys lose a game you will not hear the end of it

This will be the first time the Lions have played NZ Super Rugby Franchises. You have to go back to 1971 to find a tour (only one?) where, excluding tests, the Lions beat all NZ opponents.

2005 - Won all midweek games, but lost to Maoris
1993 - Lost to Otago, Auckland, Hawkes Bay and Waikato
1983 - Lost to Auckland and Canterbury
1977 - Lost to NZ Universities
1971 - Beat all Kiwi non test opponents, but lost to Queensland