Crusaders v British & Irish Lions, 10 June

First topic message reminder :

Crusaders v British & Irish Lions
10 June 2017
KO: 19:35 NZST (8.35am BST)
Rugby League Park, Christchurch

Live on Sky Sports, Sky Sports HD and SkyGo

Referee: Mathieu Raynal (France)
Touch judges: [tbc]
TMO: [tbc]

A. FORM:

2 June 1993: Canterbury 10 - 28 British & Irish Lions

28 June 1983: Canterbury 22 - 20 British & Irish Lions

25 June 1977: Canterbury 13 - 14 British & Irish Lions

B. TEAMS:

Crusaders
I Dagg, S Tamanivalu, J Goodhue, D Havili, G Bridge, R Mo'unga, B Hall, J Moody, C Taylor, O Franks, L Romano, S Whitelock (capt), H Bedwell-Curtis, M Todd, J Taufua.

Replacements: B Funnell, W Crockett, M Alaalatoa, Q Strange, J Brown, M Drummond, M Hunt, T Bateman.

British & Irish Lions
S Hogg; G North, J Davies; B Te'o, L Williams; O Farrell; C Murray; M Vunipola, J George, T Furlong; AW Jones (capt), G Kruis; P O'Mahony, S O'Brien, T Faletau

Replacements: K Owens, J McGrath, D Cole, M Itoje, CJ Stander, R Webb, J Sexton, A Watson

C. PREVIEW

brennomac wrote:Super defense from Lions, but seriously disappointed with Crusaders. When choked by rush defence, didn't seem to have any plan b

You're kinda implying the Crusaders were the favourites, is that what you're implying? Because if that is so then that is very disappointing.

Hoggy tweating about his modelling career being over and there was a picture of him with a good old shiner with plenty stitches.

Hopefully all just cosmetic damage.

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The scrum was refereed very well today, engaging early and boring in doesn't mean domination it means you're cheating to get an advantage. The moment Furlong popped up you knew it was entirely legal but those in black do like to whinge, sore losers indeed.

Lol, you sound like an ungracious winner

Way to go champ

An area of expertise for a Kiwi

Beg to differ marty. We could be much worse except for our inherently humble nature.

I've heard two Kiwis today saying the exact opposite

Sure, in a display of humility

No one is denying the Lions were better

Soak up the win

Typical - even competitive over being the most humble....

A great game today from the Lions, better than the other day. they might not of scored any trys the the tempo of the game was test match level. 

AWJ had a great game so did George Kruis, will these two be the starting pair for the first test match? i guess it remains to be seen how Kruis and Itoje go together if they get a chance. Murry and Farrell surely must be the starting half backs based on todays performance.

Shame about Hogg and JD2 having to go off, but well played the Lions for beating a team that as not lost a game all season.

lostinwales wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The scrum was refereed very well today, engaging early and boring in doesn't mean domination it means you're cheating to get an advantage. The moment Furlong popped up you knew it was entirely legal but those in black do like to whinge, sore losers indeed.

Lol, you sound like an ungracious winner

Way to go champ

An area of expertise for a Kiwi

Beg to differ marty. We could be much worse except for our inherently humble nature.

I've heard two Kiwis today saying the exact opposite

Sure, in a display of humility

No one is denying the Lions were better

Soak up the win

Typical - even competitive over being the most humble....

Exactly, we will out-humble everyone in the universe 9 times out of 10. Seriously though. Good win, well deserved. Do you think a Lions win against a SR side deserves more plaudits?

New Zealand are so good at nearly every facet of the game but nobody is afraid of the Kiwi scrum. Nobody has been for years. They are usually clever in the way they play it but the ref had them sussed for not driving straight today. Fans may complain when the Lions win penalties but in terms of pure scrummaging I would have SA, France, Arg, Eng, Australia and the first choice Irish and Scottish props as head and shoulders above them. The NZ front rowers of course have other qualities of significance.

Just a thought if Farrell, Sexton, and Halfpenny, all make the starting 15 for the first Test match. which will be the Goal Kicker? A big headache for Gatland and the coaches to have.

Goal kicking is the only thing Halfpenny offers so would have to be him

Come now Engine#4. I know it hurts the Lions scrum was average but don't overcook it.

majesticimperialman wrote:Just a thought if Farrell, Sexton, and Halfpenny, all make the starting 15 for the first Test match. which will be the Goal Kicker? A big headache for Gatland and the coaches to have.

Farrell seems the most composed

Cracking performance cracking night. #livingthedream. Lion Lions Lions.............on to the next game.

Night all.

ebop wrote:Come now Engine#4. I know it hurts the Lions scrum was average but don't overcook it.

Would it be fairer to say the ABs just don't prioritise it. It's just there to get the ball in and out, as a platform to attack from. If they have time to get it right, I'd expect a Lions pack to be head and shoulders better than the ABs come scrum time.

Hood83 wrote:

ebop wrote:Come now Engine#4. I know it hurts the Lions scrum was average but don't overcook it.

Would it be fairer to say the ABs just don't prioritise it. It's just there to get the ball in and out, as a platform to attack from. If they have time to get it right, I'd expect a Lions pack to be head and shoulders better than the ABs come scrum time.

Yes that's more accurate. It's no point having a totally dominant scrum over the ABs if you're never winning, never did get that. There's a reason they win 90% of their matches and scrum time isn't high up there but some make it sound like the ABs pack gets shovelled all around the park, not quite the image I recall. The AB scrum is fit for its purpose, no more, no less.

Dominating the ABs scrum is also made much harder by the simple fact their handling errors are very low. If you have put in less then you can't dominate as frequently. The ABs game plan of picking where they play expansive rugby from very cleverly helps too. A dominate scrum can build scoreboard pressure, attacking platforms from first phase and field position, but if you very rarely have put in at a scrum in the opposition half then scoreboard pressure is nullified and first phase attacking platform isn't as potent.

It makes sense for the ABs to look at route 1 ball (i.e. in, quick strike, out) given that they more usually have put in. Read coming of the back of a scrum and that backline does also encourage taking the ball out a scrum as well to be fair...

I thought that the Wig interview prior to the Crusaders game summed up the scrum situation. A reporter asked Rowntree something along the lines of, "the Crusaders have been dominated in the scrum a couple of times this season, are you looking to target that?" Wig swiftly interrupted with a skeptical, "have they?" Then followed it with a joking, "where's that footage? You've got me all excited now".

It was an amusing exchange between the press and a guy who knows as much about scrums as just about anyone on Earth!

Taylorman wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

ebop wrote:Come now Engine#4. I know it hurts the Lions scrum was average but don't overcook it.

Would it be fairer to say the ABs just don't prioritise it. It's just there to get the ball in and out, as a platform to attack from. If they have time to get it right, I'd expect a Lions pack to be head and shoulders better than the ABs come scrum time.

Yes that's more accurate. It's no point having a totally dominant scrum over the ABs if you're never winning, never did get that. There's a reason they win 90% of their matches and scrum time isn't high up there but some make it sound like the ABs pack gets shovelled all around the park, not quite the image I recall. The AB scrum is fit for its purpose, no more, no less.

I agree there is no point having a dominant scrum. You want your front row to be good enough in the scrum but offer lots around the park. Mako, George and Furlong did. I thought the Crusaders front row were pretty anonymous.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

ebop wrote:Come now Engine#4. I know it hurts the Lions scrum was average but don't overcook it.

Would it be fairer to say the ABs just don't prioritise it. It's just there to get the ball in and out, as a platform to attack from. If they have time to get it right, I'd expect a Lions pack to be head and shoulders better than the ABs come scrum time.

Yes that's more accurate. It's no point having a totally dominant scrum over the ABs if you're never winning, never did get that. There's a reason they win 90% of their matches and scrum time isn't high up there but some make it sound like the ABs pack gets shovelled all around the park, not quite the image I recall. The AB scrum is fit for its purpose, no more, no less.

I agree there is no point having a dominant scrum. You want your front row to be good enough in the scrum but offer lots around the park. Mako, George and Furlong did. I thought the Crusaders front row were pretty anonymous.

Really? Geez some have varying views of what makes a good scrum, I thought the Lions front row were getting dealt to, to the point of not wanting to engage.

Amazing how some see different things.

Whitelock a disgrace, 'our mistakes let them win' Beaten soundly by the better team

A lack of versatility when faced with an epic defence and inability to go toe to toe with a more physical team is what lost you the game. No Plan B when Plan A consistently shut down. Instead of genetically having to go wide at every opportunity - playing straight into North's hands why not narrow attack and truck it up the middle first....showed real naivety from a side that clearly rates itself. But maybe Whitelock was right, when all you have is an attack that feeds off mistakes and can't create its own chances, it just isn't much on a rugby pitch. 3 Points, from the much vaunted NZ super rugby team with 8 All Blacks. Shocker.

Taylorman wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

ebop wrote:Come now Engine#4. I know it hurts the Lions scrum was average but don't overcook it.

Would it be fairer to say the ABs just don't prioritise it. It's just there to get the ball in and out, as a platform to attack from. If they have time to get it right, I'd expect a Lions pack to be head and shoulders better than the ABs come scrum time.

Yes that's more accurate. It's no point having a totally dominant scrum over the ABs if you're never winning, never did get that. There's a reason they win 90% of their matches and scrum time isn't high up there but some make it sound like the ABs pack gets shovelled all around the park, not quite the image I recall. The AB scrum is fit for its purpose, no more, no less.

I agree there is no point having a dominant scrum. You want your front row to be good enough in the scrum but offer lots around the park. Mako, George and Furlong did. I thought the Crusaders front row were pretty anonymous.

Really? Geez some have varying views of what makes a good scrum, I thought the Lions front row were getting dealt to, to the point of not wanting to engage.

Amazing how some see different things.

Hardly matters but I understand why you are desperately seeking a positive, beaten everywhere on the park so I guess feeling you dominated the scrum has to be some quantum of solace.

Anyone else think we need another captain for the first test. Warburton isnt good enough to make the backrow

Gwlad wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

ebop wrote:Come now Engine#4. I know it hurts the Lions scrum was average but don't overcook it.

Would it be fairer to say the ABs just don't prioritise it. It's just there to get the ball in and out, as a platform to attack from. If they have time to get it right, I'd expect a Lions pack to be head and shoulders better than the ABs come scrum time.

Yes that's more accurate. It's no point having a totally dominant scrum over the ABs if you're never winning, never did get that. There's a reason they win 90% of their matches and scrum time isn't high up there but some make it sound like the ABs pack gets shovelled all around the park, not quite the image I recall. The AB scrum is fit for its purpose, no more, no less.

I agree there is no point having a dominant scrum. You want your front row to be good enough in the scrum but offer lots around the park. Mako, George and Furlong did. I thought the Crusaders front row were pretty anonymous.

Really? Geez some have varying views of what makes a good scrum, I thought the Lions front row were getting dealt to, to the point of not wanting to engage.

Amazing how some see different things.

Hardly matters but I understand why you are desperately seeking a positive, beaten everywhere on the park so I guess feeling you dominated the scrum has to be some quantum of solace.

I'm not desperately seeking anything Gwlad, just relaying what I saw. You need to stop being so emotive, so uppity.

It was a tight game, no tries were scored, the Saders went close a couple of times and generally both sides made poor use of the ball on attack due to the huge focus on defence.

The Lions kicked their goals, the Saders a couple of times chose not to and paid.

Beaten all over the park is not an apt description for such a close game. I could show you some test matches perhaps where sides are beaten all over the park and I can assure you the highest of the two scores...would not be 12 from four penalties.

It was a good win, a tight win, one where the Lions upped their intensity and strangled the Saders attack. But the Lions still have their own issues, what is it one try in three games or something?

They need to find ways to attack more because four penalties won't be winning any test matches I wouldn't think.

This was an'about time too' response from the Lions. A top effort and a good sign, no more, no less. Read anymore than that into it if you want to.

NZ are frankly the worst losers I have ever seen in any sport, even the commentary team had to have a dig at the lions for maybe celebrating too much on the touchlines. This from the most self congratulatory rugby nation on earth. Thankfully Marshall acknowledged the reason that a touring side might want to enjoy the atmosphere in from of their traveling fans after a torrid week of being told they enjoy the game too far too much.

ebop wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:Just a thought if Farrell, Sexton, and Halfpenny, all make the starting 15 for the first Test match. which will be the Goal Kicker? A big headache for Gatland and the coaches to have.

Farrell seems the most composed

Yes for me Farrell is the 'Equaliser' for the Lions. He steadies the ship, kicks the goals. Nothing flash but solid and dependable while chaos erupts around him. Was the key to this match and will be in the series. Sexton looked good as well so Gats may be tempted to go 10,12 test time.

Wonder how Hogg and Davies fared, both took fairly heavy head knocks.

ebop wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:Just a thought if Farrell, Sexton, and Halfpenny, all make the starting 15 for the first Test match. which will be the Goal Kicker? A big headache for Gatland and the coaches to have.

Farrell seems the most composed

That explains the missed kick in front of the posts

Gwlad wrote:NZ are frankly the worst losers I have ever seen in any sport, even the commentary team had to have a dig at the lions for maybe celebrating too much on the touchlines. This from the most self congratulatory rugby nation on earth. Thankfully Marshall acknowledged the reason that a touring side might want to enjoy the atmosphere in from of their traveling fans after a torrid week of being told they enjoy the game too far too much.

Geez, take a pill pal.

Emotions getting a bit high on here.

It was a good win and I have to say that I felt the Crusaders maybe underestimated the Lions and perhaps approached this game with a little complacency (not taking kicks for points).

That said, a much improved performance from the Lions in which chances were created. They were not clinical enough in finishing but the chances were created. Maybe certain posters can actually get off Gatlands back now as that was a far more assured performance from the team.

Same fan/press reaction, different game.

It varies from dismissing the ref (apparently SH refs coach the players ) to dismissing the set piece which they are struggling to do this time as they are claiming it was an area of dominance despite the fact that the lions won more pens and free kicks at the scrum than NZ. This was the New Zealand tight 5 and it was defeated.
Total dominance in the lineout and forced the 1 dimensional 'attack' - which is actually only a counterattack to go wide so quickly that they coughed up time and again. Didnt have a clue how to turn the kicking game in their favor because that is how they counter, totally defeated in the aerial battle.
Best side in NZ v a scratch Lions team which lost two starters early on.
Perhaps NZ will try some Warrenball before they go wide...anyone watching could see that is all that was required.

Must say that game couldnt have come at a better time for the Lions (both coaching staff and players a) but also for the tour itself. Many of the British and irish players played far better last night.

 From a New Zealand POV. maybe the Blues arent as bad as the press suggests, the last time the Blues played the Crusaders the Blues scored 3 tries.

 I was more impressed today by the performances of Vunipola and a gaggle of Irishmen.

eirebilly wrote:Emotions getting a bit high on here.

It was a good win and I have to say that I felt the Crusaders maybe underestimated the Lions and perhaps approached this game with a little complacency (not taking kicks for points).

That said, a much improved performance from the Lions in which chances were created. They were not clinical enough in finishing but the chances were created. Maybe certain posters can actually get off Gatlands back now as that was a far more assured performance from the team.

Only one being emotional here Billy, as he continues with his one sided view of the world.

Agree about the complacency, and part of that will be due to the Lions form so far. This was a significant increase in intensity from the two previous games so the Saders have copped it in that respect.

Gats certainly gets a breather here but still has the lack of any effective attack to deal with. That perhaps will come in the next two matches as that's generally the most difficult to get right for a side put together so recently, defence the best way to start getting things moving forward.

Good result and the first real promising sign of a great series to come.

Just a pity some...no names mind you.... tend to get a little carried away with the occasion.

Look forward to the next one

Taylorman wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Emotions getting a bit high on here.

It was a good win and I have to say that I felt the Crusaders maybe underestimated the Lions and perhaps approached this game with a little complacency (not taking kicks for points).

That said, a much improved performance from the Lions in which chances were created. They were not clinical enough in finishing but the chances were created. Maybe certain posters can actually get off Gatlands back now as that was a far more assured performance from the team.

Only one being emotional here Billy, as he continues with his one sided view of the world.

Agree about the complacency, and part of that will be due to the Lions form so far. This was a significant increase in intensity from the two previous games so the Saders have copped it in that respect.

Gats certainly gets a breather here but still has the lack of any effective attack to deal with. That perhaps will come in the next two matches as that's generally the most difficult to get right for a side put together so recently, defence the best way to start getting things moving forward.

Good result and the first real promising sign of a great series to come.

Just a pity some...no names mind you.... tend to get a little carried away with the occasion.

Look forward to the next one

 Are you talking about Gwlad Taylorman?

aucklandlaurie wrote:Must say that game couldnt have come at a better time for the Lions (both coaching staff and players a) but also for the tour itself. Many of the British and irish players played far better last night.

 From a New Zealand POV. maybe the Blues arent as bad as the press suggests, the last time the Blues played the Crusaders the Blues scored 3 tries.

 I was more impressed today by the performances of Vunipola and a gaggle of Irishmen.

Good timing for a Hansen Id say as well Laurie as it looks like he's looking at the test team template. We may have to take an Ulster like approach to the start of the series but based on the lack of attacking prowess from the Lions so far on tour if the ABs get a couple of tries up, hard to see the Lions coming back.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

eirebilly wrote:Emotions getting a bit high on here.

It was a good win and I have to say that I felt the Crusaders maybe underestimated the Lions and perhaps approached this game with a little complacency (not taking kicks for points).

That said, a much improved performance from the Lions in which chances were created. They were not clinical enough in finishing but the chances were created. Maybe certain posters can actually get off Gatlands back now as that was a far more assured performance from the team.

Only one being emotional here Billy, as he continues with his one sided view of the world.

Agree about the complacency, and part of that will be due to the Lions form so far. This was a significant increase in intensity from the two previous games so the Saders have copped it in that respect.

Gats certainly gets a breather here but still has the lack of any effective attack to deal with. That perhaps will come in the next two matches as that's generally the most difficult to get right for a side put together so recently, defence the best way to start getting things moving forward.

Good result and the first real promising sign of a great series to come.

Just a pity some...no names mind you.... tend to get a little carried away with the occasion.

Look forward to the next one

 Are you talking about Gwlad Taylorman?

Who me?

Taylorman wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Must say that game couldnt have come at a better time for the Lions (both coaching staff and players a) but also for the tour itself. Many of the British and irish players played far better last night.

 From a New Zealand POV. maybe the Blues arent as bad as the press suggests, the last time the Blues played the Crusaders the Blues scored 3 tries.

 I was more impressed today by the performances of Vunipola and a gaggle of Irishmen.

Good timing for a Hansen Id say as well Laurie as it looks like he's looking at the test team template. We may have to take an Ulster like approach to the start of the series but based on the lack of attacking prowess from the Lions so far on tour if the ABs get a couple of tries up, hard to see the Lions coming back.

 Yes, in fact it came a week earlier than I expected, I thought Gatland had to play his top team in Rotorua next week. Now its going to be three Saturdays in a row.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Must say that game couldnt have come at a better time for the Lions (both coaching staff and players a) but also for the tour itself. Many of the British and irish players played far better last night.

 From a New Zealand POV. maybe the Blues arent as bad as the press suggests, the last time the Blues played the Crusaders the Blues scored 3 tries.

 I was more impressed today by the performances of Vunipola and a gaggle of Irishmen.

Good timing for a Hansen Id say as well Laurie as it looks like he's looking at the test team template. We may have to take an Ulster like approach to the start of the series but based on the lack of attacking prowess from the Lions so far on tour if the ABs get a couple of tries up, hard to see the Lions coming back.

 Yes, in fact it came a week earlier than I expected, I thought Gatland had to play his top team in Rotorua next week. Now its going to be three Saturdays in a row.

Gotta go with Aaron Smith after that surely, his pass is needed to clear what will be a very tight D from the Lions.

A Smith/ Perenara Barrett combos gotta be an improvement on Mouaga/ Hall which really cost the Saders badly.

So now that everyone has had a run, where do we think we're standing before the tests? Here's how I think the squad is looking:

Loosehead: McGrath and Vunipola probably came in as the favourites for the 1 shirt, and although he's shown up well, I don't think Marler has done enough to jump ahead of them.

Hooker: I initially had Owens down as the third choice, but I think he's surpassed Best on tour. George has been my stand-out.

Tight-head: Furlong is looking like he might have the three shirt sewn up, but Sinckler has impressed as well. Cole is a relaible player, but doesn't offer as much in the loose as the other two. I think we'll need more than a set-piece to beat the All Blacks.

Lock: Henderson might have played his way out of contention with that first game - he wasn't a favourite to start anyway and he probably needed someone else to fail. The other 4 should all start the next two games, it's just about getting combinations right.

Back row: Faletau will almost definitely start at 8. Haskell is probably down the order at flanker. Warburton needs another run soon, and a performance to quieten down speculation over his place.

Scrum half: Murray, Webb, Laidlaw in that order for me. I think that's pretty much set.

Fly half: Farrell is probably the first choice 10, unless he gets shifted to 12. Biggar looked decent, but Sexton's return to form is timely.

Inside centre: Farrell? Te'o and Henshaw have both looked decent, but their form might become moot if Gatland changes his shape.

Outside centre: Davies didn't really get much of a shot today because of injury, but his club form was strong at the start of the season. Joseph has been the best 13 from the Lions nations since the World Cup, so I'd want to see him again in a more cohesive team.

Wings: North needs another run but is probably good for a test spot. Watson looked good coming on at full back today, while Williams and Nowell have both had their negative moments. As with Joseph, I'd want to see Seymour in a more cohesive team.

Full back: Hogg hasn't hit the ground running yet, but was the form 15 coming into the tournament. Halfpenny did fine in his run out.

My team for Highlanders:
Vunipola, Owens, Sinckler, Lawes, Jones, O'Mahony, Warburton, Stander.
Webb, Biggar, Daly, Te'o, Davies, Seymour, Halfpenny.
George, McGrath, Furlong, Henderson, Haskell, Laidlaw, Payne, Nowell.

My team for Maori:
McGrath, George, Furlong, Itoje, Kruis, O'Brien, Tipuric, Faletau.
Murray, Sexton, North, Farrell, Joseph, Watson, Hogg.
Best, Marler, Cole, Lawes, Moriarty, Laidlaw, Henshaw, Williams.

The 11 players who didn't start either game (Marler, Best, Cole, Henderson, Moriarty, Haskell, Laidlaw, Henshaw, Payne, Williams, Nowell) would start against the Chiefs if not selected for the tests (and all 11 would be down the order for me). All 18 squad players not in the test side would be in the squad for the Chiefs game, along with 5 players off the test bench.

On pure form?

Marler best Furlong
Lawes Itoje
Tbc no one really stood out at 6 for me yet. Sob or Tipuric both very good.
Faletau
Murray Farrell
No one te'o no one maybe seymour
Watson.

Probably a reflection that the 9 s and 10 haven't really got fully up to speed to allow the backs to do their thing.

Taylorman wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Must say that game couldnt have come at a better time for the Lions (both coaching staff and players a) but also for the tour itself. Many of the British and irish players played far better last night.

 From a New Zealand POV. maybe the Blues arent as bad as the press suggests, the last time the Blues played the Crusaders the Blues scored 3 tries.

 I was more impressed today by the performances of Vunipola and a gaggle of Irishmen.

Good timing for a Hansen Id say as well Laurie as it looks like he's looking at the test team template. We may have to take an Ulster like approach to the start of the series but based on the lack of attacking prowess from the Lions so far on tour if the ABs get a couple of tries up, hard to see the Lions coming back.

 Yes, in fact it came a week earlier than I expected, I thought Gatland had to play his top team in Rotorua next week. Now its going to be three Saturdays in a row.

Gotta go with Aaron Smith after that surely, his pass is needed to clear what will be a very tight D from the Lions.

A Smith/ Perenara Barrett combos gotta be an improvement on Mouaga/ Hall which really cost the Saders badly.

 true, i dont think you could put Bryn Hall in the same sentence as Smith and Perenara.

Solid and unspectacular win. The game plan worked and guys like Murray executed it perfectly. I think both teams left tries out there as the amount of dropped balls was unbelievable. The ABs won't drop the ball and I expect that they'll finish the try-scoring opportunities that they create.

I thought AWJ was average... I can see what he brought to the team but he doesn't seem to be trying that hard. Itoje and Kruis to start the tests for me. Farrell at 10 with Sexton at 12 too, but I expect they'll continue to interchange. Now we certainly need to call up a 10. Teo'o was pretty erratic and his passing wasn't good so I'd drop him to the bench. Davies didn't really get a chance to show anything but it'll either be him or JJ outside Sexton. Hogg didn't really have a crack but Watson looked better than Hogg did before this tour, so AJ to start at 15 for me.

When the Crusaders managed to scrum, both their starters and reps managed to push the Lions backwards. I'm not sure if Mako or Furlong was the weak link there, possibly Mako, but his impact from the bench will be good. Assuming Warburton makes it:

Watson
Seymour
JJ
Sexton
North
Farrell
Murray

Faletau
Warburton
O'Mahony
Kruis
Itoje
Sinckler
Owens
McGrath

Mako, Furlong, George, Stander and Te'o among the substitutions. On Tuesday it's likely Webb and Biggar to start so not sure if they'll also make the bench yet.

I really am against the proposed Farrell / Sexton 10 / 12 combination. I know Sexton came into this came well and put in a performance but I believe that Farrell should stay 10 (Sexton on bench) with Henshaw 12 and JJ / Davies (depending on his fitness) at 13.

Sexton is not a 12...suprised it is even a debate

Te'o is the 12. He is the only player so far who has looked like he could break the defence ball in hand one on one.

The first 5 or so minutes before the Lions lost possession proves we MUST have that capability somewhere in the inside backs. We steadily went backwards in possession. Only Te'o with his excellent footwork looks capable of beating defenses off first phase and quick ball.

The risk of playing Farrell at 10 is that while he creates opportunities playing so damn flat he also invites handling mistakes in backline with what appear to be rusty handling skills. The CC rush defence tried to exploit that but were unable to do to the Lions what the Lions did to them i.e. force untold unforced errors.

North appeared irrelevant for most of the first half but clearly Gatland told him to rush up 2nd half and he took the outside attack to pieces.

We need Bigger fit asap or Russell to be brought in.

Hogg is done IMO and I think we'll see Half at 15 though I thought Watson put his hand up for inclusion in the back 3 so I expect a Watson, Half, north back 3 with Williams on the bench.

Up front I am loving all the chat is about the one area that the CC competed in, but they did nothing with it because they dont know how to. So the scrum creaked a few times, fact is the Lions won more pens and free kicks from the scrum than CC with their NZ tight 5 being suckered in.

The Lions showed a blueprint to choke the NZ team, defend for your lives by pressuring the opposition in possession and forcing them to panic. What surprised me is that instead of thinking their plan wasn't working the CC just kept doing the same thing when what they should have done was narrow their attack first and gain ground before going wide, which they were so desperate to do at every chance. But genetically they can't do that because its too much like Warrenball.

Murray is nailed on at 9; his management was fantastic and his kicking game superlative.

Let the Irish props start in the Test, perhaps Cole may nick it but Mako is an impact player as is Itoje so I go with AWJ and Kruis. I thought SOB was superb and hope to see him and Warburton in the back row

McGrath, Owens, Furlong
AWJ, Kruis
Warburton, SOB, Faletau
Murray
Farrell
Watson
Te'o
JD2
Watson
Half

Mako, George, Cole, itoje, POM, Webb, Sexton, Williams.

Not sure why anyone would pick Warburton in their test side

Gwlad wrote:Sexton is not a 12...suprised it is even a debate

Te'o is the 12. He is the only player so far who has looked like he could break the defence ball in hand one on one.

The first 5 or so minutes before the Lions lost possession proves we MUST have that capability somewhere in the inside backs. We steadily went backwards in possession. Only Te'o with his excellent footwork looks capable of beating defenses off first phase and quick ball.

The risk of playing Farrell at 10 is that while he creates opportunities playing so damn flat he also invites handling mistakes in backline with what appear to be rusty handling skills. The CC rush defence tried to exploit that but  were unable to do to the Lions what the Lions did to them i.e. force untold unforced errors.

North appeared irrelevant for most of the first half but clearly Gatland told him to rush up 2nd half and he took the outside attack to pieces.

We need Bigger fit asap or Russell to be brought in.

Hogg is done IMO and I think we'll see Half at 15 though I thought Watson put his hand up for inclusion in the back 3 so I expect a Watson, Half, north back 3 with Williams on the bench.

Up front I am loving all the chat is about the one area that the CC competed in, but they did nothing with it because they dont know how to. So the scrum creaked a few times, fact is the Lions won more pens and free kicks from the scrum than CC with their NZ tight 5 being suckered in.

The Lions showed a blueprint to choke the NZ team, defend for your lives by pressuring the opposition in possession and forcing them to panic. What surprised me is that instead of thinking their plan wasn't working the CC just kept doing the same thing when what they should have done was narrow their attack first and gain ground before going wide, which they were so desperate to do at every chance. But genetically they can't do that because its too much like Warrenball.

Murray is nailed on at 9; his management was fantastic and his kicking game superlative.

Let the Irish props start in the Test, perhaps Cole may nick it but Mako is an impact player as is Itoje so I go with AWJ and Kruis. I thought SOB was superb and hope to see him and Warburton in the back row

McGrath, Owens, Furlong
AWJ, Kruis
Warburton, SOB, Faletau
Murray
Farrell
Watson
Te'o
JD2
Watson
Half

Mako, George, Cole, itoje, POM, Webb, Sexton, Williams.

He, or anyone, wasn't advocating Sexton at 12 he was saying a Sexton, Farrell 10,12 combo. And that is a realistic option as it gives them more variety on attack by having two playmakers, simple.

If Farrell at 10 we are back to Warrenball with the two big midfielders approach.

And there is no blueprint for beating the ABs. If you think that then you've lost already.

The Saders had poor service at 9 and 10, where the ABs will have Smith/ Perenara and Barrett/ Cruden the best pairs in the Business.

With the scrums the number of penalties were questionable because it's not normal for the dominant front row, the case here, to keep getting penalised, and many were questioned at the time, by fans and commentators alike.

Don't think the numbers on their back matters as Sexton and Farrell can interchange. I really liked the look of that combo when they were on, I think it has potential. Te'o only starts unless he finds his hands. I think he's a good bench option. Gwlad, Fitzpatrick et al agree with most of your team.

mikey_dragon wrote:Don't think the numbers on their back matters as Sexton and Farrell can interchange. I really liked the look of that combo when they were on, I think it has potential. Te'o only starts unless he finds his hands. I think he's a good bench option. Gwlad, Fitzpatrick et al agree with most of your team.

Yes so did I but the thought of Sexton running at 12 too long isn't wise, but having a double looks good, add to that some kicking variation from 9,10,12 and things get really interesting.

mikey_dragon wrote:Don't think the numbers on their back matters as Sexton and Farrell can interchange. I really liked the look of that combo when they were on, I think it has potential. Te'o only starts unless he finds his hands. I think he's a good bench option. Gwlad, Fitzpatrick et al agree with most of your team.

Course he does, knows rather more about the game he just watched than the kiwis on here.

Gwlad wrote:Same fan/press reaction, different game.

It varies from dismissing the ref (apparently SH refs coach the players ) to dismissing the set piece which they are struggling to do this time as they are claiming it was an area of dominance despite the fact that the lions won more pens and free kicks at the scrum than NZ. This was the New Zealand tight 5 and it was defeated.
Total dominance in the lineout and forced the 1 dimensional 'attack' - which is actually only a counterattack to go wide so quickly that they coughed up time and again. Didnt have a clue how to turn the kicking game in their favor because that is how they counter, totally defeated in the aerial battle.
Best side in NZ v a scratch Lions team which lost two starters early on.
Perhaps NZ will try some Warrenball before they go wide...anyone watching could see that is all that was required.

Worst side in NZ also beat a scratch side three tries to one and a much worse than worst side nearly beat them in the first game. What's your point?

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Same fan/press reaction, different game.

It varies from dismissing the ref (apparently SH refs coach the players ) to dismissing the set piece which they are struggling to do this time as they are claiming it was an area of dominance despite the fact that the lions won more pens and free kicks at the scrum than NZ. This was the New Zealand tight 5 and it was defeated.
Total dominance in the lineout and forced the 1 dimensional 'attack' - which is actually only a counterattack to go wide so quickly that they coughed up time and again. Didnt have a clue how to turn the kicking game in their favor because that is how they counter, totally defeated in the aerial battle.
Best side in NZ v a scratch Lions team which lost two starters early on.
Perhaps NZ will try some Warrenball before they go wide...anyone watching could see that is all that was required.

Worst side in NZ also beat a scratch side three tries to one and a much worse than worst side nearly beat them in the first game. What's your point?

My point is that you're a sore loser.

Gwlad wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Same fan/press reaction, different game.

It varies from dismissing the ref (apparently SH refs coach the players ) to dismissing the set piece which they are struggling to do this time as they are claiming it was an area of dominance despite the fact that the lions won more pens and free kicks at the scrum than NZ. This was the New Zealand tight 5 and it was defeated.
Total dominance in the lineout and forced the 1 dimensional 'attack' - which is actually only a counterattack to go wide so quickly that they coughed up time and again. Didnt have a clue how to turn the kicking game in their favor because that is how they counter, totally defeated in the aerial battle.
Best side in NZ v a scratch Lions team which lost two starters early on.
Perhaps NZ will try some Warrenball before they go wide...anyone watching could see that is all that was required.

Worst side in NZ also beat a scratch side three tries to one and a much worse than worst side nearly beat them in the first game. What's your point?

My point is that you're a sore loser.

But I didn't lose Gwlad, Saders ain't my team.

Re Warrenball,
And posted this earlier, my only concern for the Lions is that after all the criticism of Gatland, Warrenball etc is he’s gained parity by applying even more Warrenball!

Fans are now happy with a gameplan that lacked creativity, X factor etc just because he pours more of it on and wins.

Now that Warrenball been fully validated with the win that’s obviously what we are going to see from the top side, Farrell and Murray the two players he’s not had at Wales to really make it work well.

That makes them even more predictable in my eyes. Saders got caught trying to be creative with the line kicks rather than goalkicks etc and in a way this was an ambush in a similar way to Chicago.

Saders should have, but didn’t expect the level of intensity and didn’t adapt, just as the ABs in Chicago didn’t, so in one way the ‘Chicago’ of this tour has been used, it won’t be available in the tests, and had this been the first test, the ABs might well have lost.

But Gatlands now become super predictable, more so than ever, and he still hasn't worked out how to score tries in NZ.

I wouldn't be celebrating too early.

Surely it was a bit of a step aside from warren ball once Sexton came on? It offered that variety and a bit more unpredictability.

Decent performance, and steady progress. Presumably the squad will now be divided into mix-week and weekend sides. Still plenty to work on, but we are creating chances which is a good start.

I was disappointed with the much hyped Crusaders. I think there are European club sides who would have given the Lions a much harder time.