Blues v British & Irish Lions, 7 June

First topic message reminder :

Blues v British & Irish Lions
7 June 2017
KO: 19:35 NZST (8.35am BST)
Eden Park, Auckland

Live on Sky Sports, Sky Sports HD and SkyGo

Referee: Pascal Gaüzère (France)
Touch judges: [tbc]
TMO: [tbc]

A. FORM:

19 June 1993: Auckland 23 - 18 British & Irish Lions

18 May 1983: Auckland 13 - 12 British & Irish Lions

23 June 1977: Auckland 15 - 34 British & Irish Lions

B. TEAMS:

Blues 
15 Michael Collins
14 Matt Duffie
13 George Moala
12 Sonny Bill Williams
11 Rieko Ioane
10 Stephen Perofeta
09 Augustine Pulu

08 Steven Luatua
07 Blake Gibson
06 Akira Ioane
05 Scott Scrafton
04 Gerard Cowley-Tuioti
03 Charlie Faumuina
02 James Parson
01 Ofa Tu'ungafasi

16 Hame Faiva
17 Alex Hodgman
18 Sione Mafileo
19 Patrick Tuipulotu
20 Kara Pryor
21 Sam Nock
22 Ihaia West
23 TJ Faiane/Melani Nanai

British & Irish Lions

Halfpenny; Nowell, Payne, Henshaw, Daly; Biggar, Webb; McGrath, Owens (captain), Cole, Itoje, Lawes, Haskell, Tipuric, Stander

Replacements: Best, Marler, Sinckler, Henderson, O'Mahony, Laidlaw, Sexton, L Williams

C. PREVIEW

GeordieFalcon wrote:I was disappointed to here that Nowell had a "torrid" day .

Was that because he was struggling individually because the Blues were just attacking so well and consistently?

His positioning was not great - though at times this may have been a "system" issue as often the defence was very narrow or not flat (and was awfully simlar to Seymour's positioning on Saturday). However rushing out of the line as he did (twice I think) and then miss the tackle is very much his own error, and he was run through once. Overall our defensive organisation was poor, but Nowell did appear to be the weakest link. Ball in hand he showed some flashes and some half breaks, but the Blues always scragged him well before it could be a proper break.

He did himself no favours, and with the limited time available to create a team he may already be consigned to the midweek games.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I was disappointed to here that Nowell had a "torrid" day .

Was that because he was struggling individually because the Blues were just attacking so well and consistently?

Yeah I'm disappointed, really rate him. Was only listening though.

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I was disappointed to here that Nowell had a "torrid" day .

Was that because he was struggling individually because the Blues were just attacking so well and consistently?

His positioning was not great - though at times this may have been a "system" issue as often the defence was very narrow or not flat (and was awfully simlar to Seymour's positioning on Saturday). However rushing out of the line as he did (twice I think) and then miss the tackle is very much his own error, and he was run through once. Overall our defensive organisation was poor, but Nowell did appear to be the weakest link. Ball in hand he showed some flashes and some half breaks, but the Blues always scragged him well before it could be a proper break.

He did himself no favours, and with the limited time available to create a team he may already be consigned to the midweek games.

That midweek team is certainly going to have plenty players to pick from at this rate!

RDW_Scotland wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I was disappointed to here that Nowell had a "torrid" day .

Was that because he was struggling individually because the Blues were just attacking so well and consistently?

His positioning was not great - though at times this may have been a "system" issue as often the defence was very narrow or not flat (and was awfully simlar to Seymour's positioning on Saturday). However rushing out of the line as he did (twice I think) and then miss the tackle is very much his own error, and he was run through once. Overall our defensive organisation was poor, but Nowell did appear to be the weakest link. Ball in hand he showed some flashes and some half breaks, but the Blues always scragged him well before it could be a proper break.

He did himself no favours, and with the limited time available to create a team he may already be consigned to the midweek games.

That midweek team is certainly going to have plenty players to pick from at this rate!

Best way of getting a win perhaps. Lineup with extra men.

Seen a few people on here and Twitter saying things like "you need more than set piece and kicking in NZ".

I find that quite an odd comment (after today) given that in fact it was our set piece that let us down at the end. Had the set piece and kicking functioned like it had done for the rest of the 80 we would have actually won that game.

Given that the rest of our game was poor (defence, discipline, individual errors, attacking shape), on the strength of today I would say that ALL you need to win in NZ is set piece and kicking.

I'll stop being flippant. Of course we didn't play well today, and we will need to keep improving. But there is more than one way to play Rugby. I personally am a bit tired of this notion that you need to try and play like the ABs to be considered a good team, as if that's the only way to play.

I thought that today, if we were just a little better in other facets of the game, then we could have comfortably strangled them with our set piece.

cascough wrote:Seen a few people on here and Twitter saying things like "you need more than set piece and kicking in NZ".

I find that quite an odd comment (after today) given that in fact it was our set piece that let us down at the end. Had the set piece and kicking functioned like it had done for the rest of the 80 we would have actually won that game.

Given that the rest of our game was poor (defence, discipline, individual errors, attacking shape), on the strength of today I would say that ALL you need to win in NZ is set piece and kicking.

I'll stop being flippant. Of course we didn't play well today, and we will need to keep improving. But there is more than one way to play Rugby. I personally am a bit tired of this notion that you need to try and play like the ABs to be considered a good team, as if that's the only way to play.

I thought that today, if we were just a little better in other facets of the game, then we could have comfortably strangled them with our set piece.

That's actually a very fair point - despite being lacking in so many areas we were only a few mistakes (and potentially one lineout) away from winning that game, which would have been a great achivement at this stage of the tour (they may be NZs worse SR team but all of NZs teams are better than most of the other ones!).

That notion only helps me a little bit though - it was still very disappointing to lose.

Any team that plays with each other week in week out is going to cause any scratch built team a hard time, especially if they home team has nothing to lose.

We just need to click before one of the bigger games.

The All Blacks and the Springboks have has some really good ding dongs over the years (SA unfortunately now have slipped down from their previous lofty heights). They've done this while being quite different teams with different styles of play. NZ are...... NZ and play the way we know they do. SA over the years have perhaps been a bit more direct and less 'throw it about'. My point being to agree with casgough that just because SA don't play the same as NZ doesn't make them a poor team (in the past, when they were good). And they've beaten the All Blacks a number of times while not playing like a 7s team. So to try to play like NZ is perhaps not necessary to be able to give them a good game. But it's got to be much better than what we've seen so far, obviously!

munkian wrote:
We just need to click before one of the bigger games.

That sounds like its out of Gatlands book on team talks.

TightHEAD wrote:

munkian wrote:
We just need to click before one of the bigger games.

That sounds like its out of Gatlands book on team talks.

And you sound like the same boring little troll. Off you pop.

munkian wrote:Any team that plays with each other week in week out is going to cause any scratch built team a hard time, especially if they home team has nothing to lose.

We just need to click before one of the bigger games.

I said something the other day about feeling that the Lions would lose to all of the NZ club sides - just due to their familiarity with each other, knowing the plays and moves for years, etc. vs a team thrown together (although the first game against another thrown together team put a spanner in that theory!).  But I've always felt that club sides stand a better chance than they're often given credit for due to the above factors.  It's why you sometimes see historically club sides doing well against International teams: Wales losing to Bridgend; Munster nearly beating the All Blacks; a number of Wales' club sides beating the All Blacks over the years when the Wales international team cannot get close (Cardiff, Newport, Swansea, Llanelli - is that right?); Ospreys beating Australia.  I'm sure there are plenty more examples!  

That's not excuse making, honestly.  But there is something about club sides that makes them a big challenge for a touring team like the Lions, especially club sides from the best rugby nation on the planet.

Things have definitely got to improve. Defense and discipline are going to be key, and those two things were especially poor today, which worries me. However, its way too early to get carried away and start writing the tour off IMO.

munkian wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

munkian wrote:
We just need to click before one of the bigger games.

That sounds like its out of Gatlands book on team talks.

And you sound like the same boring little troll. Off you pop.

He doesn't hit the same heights as Cyril but I think he's quite funny.

Some match stats in here (note, they don't bother reporting possession & territory stats in the NZ summaries - it's about how you use the ball)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/93446421/marc-hinton-chaos-rules-as-lions-hopes-go-west-on-eden-park

Takeouts from the stats:
Attack - Blues made 3.8m per carry vs 2.4 Lions, 60% better, probably because their advantage in defenders beaten. 9 clean breaks to 4 Lions says a lot too. And the difference in offloads isn't a surprise. The Blues did cough up a lot more turnovers though. Lastly, a lot more passes for the Lions - reflects a lot of lateral play.

Defence - 20 missed tackles for the Lions, 13 for the Blues. Lions' defence will improve with time in camp. They need to be doing more to force more errors from the oppo's D though. A couple more turnovers forced at the breakdown for the Lions, but not many overall in general (6 vs 4) for the match.

Kicking - the Blues left 5 points out on the field, margin could have been bigger. Lions kicked away a lot more ball.

Breakdown - per above, both sides were pretty good at holding onto ruck ball. Some good mauling by the Lions, definitely an area it's worth targeting NZ with

Set Plays - Scrum good, Line out less so for the Lions. Given that the Blues were missing Tuipolotu (dropped for being late to practice on Monday) you'd have expected them to put more pressure on the Blues' throw ins. And the 2 lost line outs were crucial.

Discipline - slightly high penalty count for the Lions (given that some of the Blues' pens were for being toffee in the scrums in the 2nd half). And the yellow for Bandy-Legs was stupid.

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I was disappointed to here that Nowell had a "torrid" day .

Was that because he was struggling individually because the Blues were just attacking so well and consistently?

His positioning was not great - though at times this may have been a "system" issue as often the defence was very narrow or not flat (and was awfully simlar to Seymour's positioning on Saturday). However rushing out of the line as he did (twice I think) and then miss the tackle is very much his own error, and he was run through once. Overall our defensive organisation was poor, but Nowell did appear to be the weakest link. Ball in hand he showed some flashes and some half breaks, but the Blues always scragged him well before it could be a proper break.

He did himself no favours, and with the limited time available to create a team he may already be consigned to the midweek games.

Farrell's England always seemed to line up narrow in defence and looked to push up and out.

robbo277 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I was disappointed to here that Nowell had a "torrid" day .

Was that because he was struggling individually because the Blues were just attacking so well and consistently?

His positioning was not great - though at times this may have been a "system" issue as often the defence was very narrow or not flat (and was awfully simlar to Seymour's positioning on Saturday). However rushing out of the line as he did (twice I think) and then miss the tackle is very much his own error, and he was run through once. Overall our defensive organisation was poor, but Nowell did appear to be the weakest link. Ball in hand he showed some flashes and some half breaks, but the Blues always scragged him well before it could be a proper break.

He did himself no favours, and with the limited time available to create a team he may already be consigned to the midweek games.

Farrell's England always seemed to line up narrow in defence and looked to push up and out.

Ireland tend to defend narrow these days too. So presumably it's a Farrell thing

Just watched the last lineout not Best fault.

Itoje made the call and the props failed to lift him.

Big screw up by Marler and Sinklar

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:Some match stats in here (note, they don't bother reporting possession & territory stats in the NZ summaries - it's about how you use the ball)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/93446421/marc-hinton-chaos-rules-as-lions-hopes-go-west-on-eden-park

Takeouts from the stats:
Attack - Blues made 3.8m per carry vs 2.4 Lions, 60% better, probably because their advantage in defenders beaten. 9 clean breaks to 4 Lions says a lot too. And the difference in offloads isn't a surprise. The Blues did cough up a lot more turnovers though. Lastly, a lot more passes for the Lions - reflects a lot of lateral play.

Defence - 20 missed tackles for the Lions, 13 for the Blues. Lions' defence will improve with time in camp. They need to be doing more to force more errors from the oppo's D though. A couple more turnovers forced at the breakdown for the Lions, but not many overall in general (6 vs 4) for the match.

Kicking - the Blues left 5 points out on the field, margin could have been bigger. Lions kicked away a lot more ball.

Breakdown - per above, both sides were pretty good at holding onto ruck ball. Some good mauling by the Lions, definitely an area it's worth targeting NZ with

Set Plays - Scrum good, Line out less so for the Lions. Given that the Blues were missing Tuipolotu (dropped for being late to practice on Monday) you'd have expected them to put more pressure on the Blues' throw ins. And the 2 lost line outs were crucial.

Discipline - slightly high penalty count for the Lions (given that some of the Blues' pens were for being toffee in the scrums in the 2nd half). And the yellow for Bandy-Legs was stupid.

Didn't 3 of those missed points directly result in 7?

EST wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:Some match stats in here (note, they don't bother reporting possession & territory stats in the NZ summaries - it's about how you use the ball)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/93446421/marc-hinton-chaos-rules-as-lions-hopes-go-west-on-eden-park

Takeouts from the stats:
Attack - Blues made 3.8m per carry vs 2.4 Lions, 60% better, probably because their advantage in defenders beaten. 9 clean breaks to 4 Lions says a lot too. And the difference in offloads isn't a surprise. The Blues did cough up a lot more turnovers though. Lastly, a lot more passes for the Lions - reflects a lot of lateral play.

Defence - 20 missed tackles for the Lions, 13 for the Blues. Lions' defence will improve with time in camp. They need to be doing more to force more errors from the oppo's D though. A couple more turnovers forced at the breakdown for the Lions, but not many overall in general (6 vs 4) for the match.

Kicking - the Blues left 5 points out on the field, margin could have been bigger. Lions kicked away a lot more ball.

Breakdown - per above, both sides were pretty good at holding onto ruck ball. Some good mauling by the Lions, definitely an area it's worth targeting NZ with

Set Plays - Scrum good, Line out less so for the Lions. Given that the Blues were missing Tuipolotu (dropped for being late to practice on Monday) you'd have expected them to put more pressure on the Blues' throw ins. And the 2 lost line outs were crucial.

Discipline - slightly high penalty count for the Lions (given that some of the Blues' pens were for being toffee in the scrums in the 2nd half). And the yellow for Bandy-Legs was stupid.

Didn't 3 of those missed points directly result in 7?

Good point ...

So the Blues left -2 points out on the field

Only saw bits and pieces of the game. looked like the Lions were much improved from the last game but still far from good enough. Not giving up hope yet.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Only saw bits and pieces of the game. looked like the Lions were much improved from the last game but still far from good enough. Not giving up hope yet.

You sound like a Welsh fan after enduring Warrenball for the 500th+ time

geoff999rugby wrote:Just watched the last lineout not Best fault.

Itoje made the call and the props failed to lift him.

Big screw up by Marler and Sinklar

I had a feeling that was coming

Looked like an overthrow from Best to me. He throws like a drunken shot-putter under pressure.

TightHEAD wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Only saw bits and pieces of the game. looked like the Lions were much improved from the last game but still far from good enough. Not giving up hope yet.

You sound like a Welsh fan after enduring Warrenball for the 500th+ time

Well they cant change the team nor the management now. The only hope is that the team gets stronger the more they play together which isnt an unreasonable expectation.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Only saw bits and pieces of the game. looked like the Lions were much improved from the last game but still far from good enough. Not giving up hope yet.

I think 'much improved' is stretching it a bit.

Scrum was generally good, line-out decent (until just before and just after Best came on). Defence was under-par and disorganised. Attack lateral and stodgy.

Blues could easily have scored 3/4 more tries (Lions possibly should have had another in the corner when Payne was put in touch). The final score definitely flattered the Lions.

'IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED, TRY, TRY AGAIN.'

Warren Gatland on Warrenball, 2017

TightHEAD wrote:'IF AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED, TRY, TRY AGAIN.'

Warren Gatland on Warrenball, 2017

I'd take two tries a game at this rate too!

geoff999rugby wrote:Just watched the last lineout not Best fault.

Itoje made the call and the props failed to lift him.

Big screw up by Marler and Sinklar

4th different spelling of the day.

Sinckler.

Scottrf wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:Just watched the last lineout not Best fault.

Itoje made the call and the props failed to lift him.

Big screw up by Marler and Sinklar

4th different spelling of the day.

Sinckler.

Synchlur.

Stinker

Well his non lifting certainly was !

That wa sin't klear to me at the time.

Club sides can beat touring 'Test' teams because in those games it is not the regular 1st team that lines out and therefore they are scratch sides just like the Lions. The 'Test' v club fixtures are usually rotational affairs to give the squad players a run out, and more often than not those players have never played together en masse.
It's why when so-called A teams like the Saxons and Wolfhounds play the games are disappointing disjointed games.
Has there ever been a club side that has beaten a first choice (tier 1) Test side?

Would the Blues have beaten the All Blacks? No, because they are not a collection of individuals expected to play like a veteran team - they actually are a veteran team.

Would the Blues have beaten the Junior All Blacks? Maybe, because they are a collection of individuals without the experience of playing regularly together just like the Lions.

The only miniscule chance that Gatland now has is to play his Test 23 every Saturday from now on and hope that they learn how to play together. Chopping and changing just keeps sending him back to Old Kent Road without passing GO.

I though Sickler made a positive impact as did Marlar.

The Great Aukster wrote:Club sides can beat touring 'Test' teams because in those games it is not the regular 1st team that lines out and therefore they are scratch sides just like the Lions. The 'Test' v club fixtures are usually rotational affairs to give the squad players a run out, and more often than not those players have never played together en masse.
It's why when so-called A teams like the Saxons and Wolfhounds play the games are disappointing disjointed games.
Has there ever been a club side that has beaten a first choice (tier 1) Test side?

Would the Blues have beaten the All Blacks? No, because they are not a collection of individuals expected to play like a veteran team - they actually are a veteran team.

Would the Blues have beaten the Junior All Blacks? Maybe, because they are a collection of individuals without the experience of playing regularly together just like the Lions.

The only miniscule chance that Gatland now has is to play his Test 23 every Saturday from now on and hope that they learn how to play together. Chopping and changing just keeps sending him back to Old Kent Road without passing GO.

Munster beat the AB's back in 78

It looked to me as if Best threw too early and then Itoje tried to jump but his pod weren't ready. Equally it's possible that Itoje jumped too early and Best panicked and threw it in. It's all split second.

I hope JSinckler (silent J) get's the benefit of the doubt though. He's seems to have an infectious love for the Lions and has made such a promising contribution so far.

Unfortunately for Best, he has previous with similar situations so I can see him struggling to shake this one off.

geoff999rugby wrote:Just watched the last lineout not Best fault.

Itoje made the call and the props failed to lift him.

Big screw up by Marler and Sinklar

Was Owens howler also a timing issue?

eirebilly wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Club sides can beat touring 'Test' teams because in those games it is not the regular 1st team that lines out and therefore they are scratch sides just like the Lions. The 'Test' v club fixtures are usually rotational affairs to give the squad players a run out, and more often than not those players have never played together en masse.
It's why when so-called A teams like the Saxons and Wolfhounds play the games are disappointing disjointed games.
Has there ever been a club side that has beaten a first choice (tier 1) Test side?

Would the Blues have beaten the All Blacks? No, because they are not a collection of individuals expected to play like a veteran team - they actually are a veteran team.

Would the Blues have beaten the Junior All Blacks? Maybe, because they are a collection of individuals without the experience of playing regularly together just like the Lions.

The only miniscule chance that Gatland now has is to play his Test 23 every Saturday from now on and hope that they learn how to play together. Chopping and changing just keeps sending him back to Old Kent Road without passing GO.

Munster beat the AB's back in 78

Wasn't their full Test side though Billy

eirebilly wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Club sides can beat touring 'Test' teams because in those games it is not the regular 1st team that lines out and therefore they are scratch sides just like the Lions. The 'Test' v club fixtures are usually rotational affairs to give the squad players a run out, and more often than not those players have never played together en masse.
It's why when so-called A teams like the Saxons and Wolfhounds play the games are disappointing disjointed games.
Has there ever been a club side that has beaten a first choice (tier 1) Test side?

Would the Blues have beaten the All Blacks? No, because they are not a collection of individuals expected to play like a veteran team - they actually are a veteran team.

Would the Blues have beaten the Junior All Blacks? Maybe, because they are a collection of individuals without the experience of playing regularly together just like the Lions.

The only miniscule chance that Gatland now has is to play his Test 23 every Saturday from now on and hope that they learn how to play together. Chopping and changing just keeps sending him back to Old Kent Road without passing GO.

Munster beat the AB's back in 78

Tigers beat SA in 2009. SA were absolutely chock full of experience that day and many players had played against the Lions. Tigers had Ben Youngs kicking that day, and Tuilagi made his debut at IC. Tigers scrummaged them off the park. Parling (who I think might have been playing in the back row that day) had an absolute stormer.

The Great Aukster wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Club sides can beat touring 'Test' teams because in those games it is not the regular 1st team that lines out and therefore they are scratch sides just like the Lions. The 'Test' v club fixtures are usually rotational affairs to give the squad players a run out, and more often than not those players have never played together en masse.
It's why when so-called A teams like the Saxons and Wolfhounds play the games are disappointing disjointed games.
Has there ever been a club side that has beaten a first choice (tier 1) Test side?

Would the Blues have beaten the All Blacks? No, because they are not a collection of individuals expected to play like a veteran team - they actually are a veteran team.

Would the Blues have beaten the Junior All Blacks? Maybe, because they are a collection of individuals without the experience of playing regularly together just like the Lions.

The only miniscule chance that Gatland now has is to play his Test 23 every Saturday from now on and hope that they learn how to play together. Chopping and changing just keeps sending him back to Old Kent Road without passing GO.

Munster beat the AB's back in 78

Wasn't their full Test side though Billy

It was a full test side bud. They were unbeatable that tour but fell to Munster.

Just admit that ye have been proven wrong this time

Scottrf wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:Just watched the last lineout not Best fault.

Itoje made the call and the props failed to lift him.

Big screw up by Marler and Sinklar

4th different spelling of the day.

Sinckler.

There's no excuse for it. If you're posting on here, you're online, and if you're online, you can check the spelling.

How is Danny Bigger?

GeordieFalcon wrote:I was disappointed to here that Nowell had a "torrid" day .

Was that because he was struggling individually because the Blues were just attacking so well and consistently?

Nowell made an early defensive mistake that cost a try, being too narrow and giving the Blues the outside too early. He was carrying into heavy traffic the rest of the match, so didn't do anything spectacular, but I thought he played OK bar that one mistake.

Poorfour wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I was disappointed to here that Nowell had a "torrid" day .

Was that because he was struggling individually because the Blues were just attacking so well and consistently?

Nowell made an early defensive mistake that cost a try, being too narrow and giving the Blues the outside too early. He was carrying into heavy traffic the rest of the match, so didn't do anything spectacular, but I thought he played OK bar that one mistake.

Arguably the early mistake was Haskell's fault inside him too (Haskell went in, dragging in those outside him). Granted Nowell would've been disappointed at not having the gas to turn and cut off Ioane - but Ioane has serious wheels.

Poorfour wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I was disappointed to here that Nowell had a "torrid" day .

Was that because he was struggling individually because the Blues were just attacking so well and consistently?

Nowell made an early defensive mistake that cost a try, being too narrow and giving the Blues the outside too early. He was carrying into heavy traffic the rest of the match, so didn't do anything spectacular, but I thought he played OK bar that one mistake.

I say again, I do not feel that Nowell was at fault for the first try. Haskell clearly runs up out of the defensive line for no reason leaving Nowell to have to come inside and cover Haskell's man and as such an overlap was created and Ioane just had too much pace.

Nowell was tight before Haskell rushed up and as such was always going to be at risk of being done on the outside. Possibly more of a system issue, but the rushing out of the line in second half and missing the tackle was a personal error, as was being run through on another occasion.

As always we perhaps over-exaggerate the bad, but sadly the Cornish lad did not have a good day.

Are we saying this was a defensive error then ?

If so, can somebody educate Tighthead on here as to who the defence coach is on this tour as he is leveling everything at Gatland at the moment when perhaps his chip should be at others.

He nearly got to Ioane though LT and had Haskell not have rushed out of his defensive line, Nowell would have stayed in position and have covered Ioane. Haskell at fault there in my mind.

He did make a couple of errors which were not great but on the whole, I actually thought he had a decent game. Offered himself up for work more than any other winger in the first two matches and hit plenty of rucks.

Not really the defence coaches fault that Haskell ran out of position. Both Haskell and Nowell were at fault for the try, Nowell's a fantastic player, but lacks out and out gas at the highest level.

His work rate is exceptional though and the amount of time he goes looking for the ball, or carries at first receiver to get an attacking team on the front foot is excellent. What happened with Liam Williams though? I had him down as a Lion test starter before that performance.

couldnt watch it this morning and just watched it in full after avoiding the result. havent had time to read through all comments on here but few of my thoughts:

thought it was a good game, despite the result thought it was a better performance than the other day against a much better side. positives were up front mainly, the two locks, cj, tips and owen played well and showed the only advantages we may have in the tests will be upfront. thought webb started well but then kicked a little too much after that which suited the blues.

thought sexton was extremely poor again coming on for biggar, pretty much kicked the ball away at all opportunity's, thought we went worse when he came on. im sure nowell will have been highlighted also. backs in general were out played but against likes of sunny bill\iaone  its wasnt exactly easy. other poor performers were haskell and liam williams (for the short time he was on)

number of penalties was disappointing, although wasnt overly impressed with the ref. missed some of the easiest decisions you could see and needed the tmo to bail him out more often than not.

Just watching the match now. Nowell and halfpenny were shown up for pace on that first try. How did we butcher that attempt by Payne? ! Good tackle but just shipped down the line by a succession of backs none of which committed any defender!