NEW ZEALAND v BRITISH & IRISH LIONS, 24 June

First topic message reminder :

                   
NEW ZEALAND v BRITISH & IRISH LIONS  
24 June 2017
KO: 19:35 NZST (8.35am BST)
Eden Park, Auckland

Live on [Sky Sports HD]

Referee: Jaco Peyper (South Africa)
ARs: [tbc]
TMO: [tbc]

A. Head to Head

38 Played 38
29 Won 6
3 Drawn 3
6 Lost 29
634 Points 345

B. Recent Form

9 July 2005
Eden Park, Auckland
38 – 19 to New Zealand

2 July 2005
Westpac Stadium, Wellington
48 – 18 to New Zealand

25 June 2005
Lancaster Park, Christchurch
21 – 3 to New Zealand

3 July 1993
Eden Park, Auckland
30 – 13 to New Zealand

26 June 1993
Athletic Park, Wellington
7 – 20 to British & Irish Lions

12 June 1993
Lancaster Park, Christchurch
20 – 18 to New Zealand

16 July 1983
Eden Park, Auckland
38 – 6 to New Zealand

2 July 1983
Carisbrook, Dunedin
15 – 8 to New Zealand

18 June 1983
Athletic Park (Wellington), Wellington
9 – 0 to New Zealand

4 June 1983
Lancaster Park, Christchurch
16 – 12 to New Zealand

C. TEAMS:

NEW ZEALAND

01. Joe Moody (25)
02. Codie Taylor (16)
03. Owen Franks (91)
04. Brodie Retallick (61)
05. Samuel Whitelock (85)
06. Jerome Kaino (78)
07. Sam Cane (41)
08. Kieran Read (97)

09. Aaron Smith (59)
10. Beauden Barrett (50)
11. Rieko Ioane (2)
12. Sonny Bill Williams (34)
13. Ryan Crotty (26)
14. Israel Dagg (62)
15. Ben Smith (61)

16. Nathan Harris (5)
17. Wyatt Crockett (59)
18. Charlie Faumuina (47)
19. Scott Barrett (5)
20. Ardie Savea (13)
21. TJ Perenara (30)
22. Aaron Cruden (47) / Lima Sopoaga (7)
23. Anton Lienert-Brown (10)

BRITISH & IRISH LIONS  

15. Liam Williams – Scarlets, Wales, #833
14. Anthony Watson – Bath Rugby, England, #816
13. Jonathan Davies – Scarlets, Wales, #778
12. Ben Te’o – Worcester Warriors, England, #815
11. Elliot Daly – Wasps, England, #822
10. Owen Farrell – Saracens, England, #780
09. Conor Murray – Munster, Ireland, #790

01. Mako Vunipola – Saracens, England, #787
02. Jamie George – Saracens, England, #819
03. Tadhg Furlong – Leinster, Ireland, #818
04. Alun Wyn Jones – Ospreys, Wales, #761
05. George Kruis – Saracens, England, #817
06. Peter O’Mahony (capt) – Munster, Ireland, #832
07. Sean O’Brien – Leinster, Ireland, #796
08. Taulupe Faletau – Bath Rugby, Wales, #779

16. Ken Owens – Scarlets, Wales, #829
17. Jack McGrath – Leinster, Ireland, #827
18. Kyle Sinckler – Harlequins, England, #814
19. Maro Itoje – Saracens, England, #825
20. Sam Warburton – Cardiff Blues, Wales, #800
21. Rhys Webb – Ospreys, Wales, #820
22. Johnny Sexton – Leinster, Ireland, #791
23. Leigh Halfpenny – Toulon, Wales, #775

Thought I'd mention I don't think Gatland is a bad coach. He has great success NH wise but when he comes against the best his teams struggles and teams his sides beat regularly in the 6N have far more success getting over the line vs the very best. Its not bad luck, the stats don't lie.

5 wins in 39 matches (if we inc. 13 & 17 lions test matches and not 09 when he was AC).

I said it was devil's advocate Geoff... but it was also true. We looked creaky in the scrum all game, but were butchered in the one when our power replacements came on!

milkyboy wrote:I said it was devil's advocate Geoff... but it was also true. We looked creaky in the scrum all game, but were butchered in the one when our power replacements came on!

Never bring on a cold front rower when there is a scrum unless forced through injury. They get hammered by fully warmed up players (even if they have been battered for 50 mins of rugby).

fa0019 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I said it was devil's advocate Geoff... but it was also true. We looked creaky in the scrum all game, but were butchered in the one when our power replacements came on!

Never bring on a cold front rower when there is a scrum unless forced through injury. They get hammered by fully warmed up players (even if they have been battered for 50 mins of rugby).

Spot on - never understand that.
Same with Hookers - Owens came on and butchered an attacking line out

geoff999rugby wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I said it was devil's advocate Geoff... but it was also true. We looked creaky in the scrum all game, but were butchered in the one when our power replacements came on!

Never bring on a cold front rower when there is a scrum unless forced through injury. They get hammered by fully warmed up players (even if they have been battered for 50 mins of rugby).

Spot on - never understand that.
Same with Hookers - Owens came on and butchered an attacking line out

Not sure how you can blame Owens or the jumper really. The ball was thrown well and was on track for the jumper (Kruis?) but the kiwis guessed right and got up slightly in front of Kruis to intercept. How do you defend a guessed and intercepted line out? It's not the same as throwing a squint throw, or an over throw, or no one jumping at all, or missing the man completely, etc.

geoff999rugby wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I said it was devil's advocate Geoff... but it was also true. We looked creaky in the scrum all game, but were butchered in the one when our power replacements came on!

Never bring on a cold front rower when there is a scrum unless forced through injury. They get hammered by fully warmed up players (even if they have been battered for 50 mins of rugby).

Spot on - never understand that.
Same with Hookers - Owens came on and butchered an attacking line out

They should warm up then! Seriously, I take your point but they come on all the time at a scrum break. The attacking lineout I mentioned earlier and was a crucial call and plain dumb imo. I thought he underthrew it, but I wouldn't blame him regardless. It's a high pressure throw for your first involvement in the game... unnecessary risk I'd only take if the lineout had been a disaster.

You could argue the game turned on that lineout.

Griff wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I said it was devil's advocate Geoff... but it was also true. We looked creaky in the scrum all game, but were butchered in the one when our power replacements came on!

Never bring on a cold front rower when there is a scrum unless forced through injury. They get hammered by fully warmed up players (even if they have been battered for 50 mins of rugby).

Spot on - never understand that.
Same with Hookers - Owens came on and butchered an attacking line out

Not sure how you can blame Owens or the jumper really. The ball was thrown well and was on track for the jumper (Kruis?) but the kiwis guessed right and got up slightly in front of Kruis to intercept. How do you defend a guessed and intercepted line out? It's not the same as throwing a squint throw, or an over throw, or no one jumping at all, or missing the man completely, etc.

Why when players are in the opposite 22 do they throw to the front? Wasn't hookers call. Its madness. Far easier to scramble.

fa0019 wrote:

Griff wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I said it was devil's advocate Geoff... but it was also true. We looked creaky in the scrum all game, but were butchered in the one when our power replacements came on!

Never bring on a cold front rower when there is a scrum unless forced through injury. They get hammered by fully warmed up players (even if they have been battered for 50 mins of rugby).

Spot on - never understand that.
Same with Hookers - Owens came on and butchered an attacking line out

Not sure how you can blame Owens or the jumper really. The ball was thrown well and was on track for the jumper (Kruis?) but the kiwis guessed right and got up slightly in front of Kruis to intercept. How do you defend a guessed and intercepted line out? It's not the same as throwing a squint throw, or an over throw, or no one jumping at all, or missing the man completely, etc.

Why when players are in the opposite 22 do they throw to the front? Wasn't hookers call. Its madness. Far easier to scramble.

It's not that simple and a poster of your calibre should know that. Throw to the front is safer than aiming for the tail, in terms of the hooker hitting his mark. Sure it's easier for the opposition to spoil a throw to the front but it is the safest option. Throwing to the middle is probably the most dangerous and prone to mistakes. If the hooker under or overthrows its a chance gone. Throwing to the tail tends to work a bit better but it's all about the hooker's accuracy. Calling a tail ball for the hooker's first throw is pretty low...

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Griff wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I said it was devil's advocate Geoff... but it was also true. We looked creaky in the scrum all game, but were butchered in the one when our power replacements came on!

Never bring on a cold front rower when there is a scrum unless forced through injury. They get hammered by fully warmed up players (even if they have been battered for 50 mins of rugby).

Spot on - never understand that.
Same with Hookers - Owens came on and butchered an attacking line out

Not sure how you can blame Owens or the jumper really. The ball was thrown well and was on track for the jumper (Kruis?) but the kiwis guessed right and got up slightly in front of Kruis to intercept. How do you defend a guessed and intercepted line out? It's not the same as throwing a squint throw, or an over throw, or no one jumping at all, or missing the man completely, etc.

Why when players are in the opposite 22 do they throw to the front? Wasn't hookers call. Its madness. Far easier to scramble.

It's not that simple and a poster of your calibre should know that. Throw to the front is safer than aiming for the tail, in terms of the hooker hitting his mark. Sure it's easier for the opposition to spoil a throw to the front but it is the safest option. Throwing to the middle is probably the most dangerous and prone to mistakes. If the hooker under or overthrows its a chance gone. Throwing to the tail tends to work a bit better but it's all about the hooker's accuracy. Calling a tail ball for the hooker's first throw is pretty low...

You're right but throwing the the front on the 5 attacking is madness. You can get shoved into touch, more likely to have your ball competed on and generally on the 5 every man goes for the shove immediately on the jumper landing. We see it time and time again on big attacking lineouts. Sure you have to mix it up now and again but it was a high risk play when they didn't need to risk it.

fa0019 wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

mid_gen wrote:Have to revise the strategy of box-kicking possession back to the ABs constantly, despite Murray being very good at it, it wasn't working for us.

Bench needs to be reworked to bring on some impact players up front Lawes, Stander, Marler, Sinckler....and some pace, JJ?

Problem is I get the impression it's used as much as a way to give our forwards a breather. Fitness and intensity still seem to be a problem for us, incredibly.

Its the way the NH set up their game and also in part to the conditions. If the game is played 3/4 of the time in cold, wet conditions then you build players to be slower, force fewer passes and linebreaks are more difficult to maintain... so you have bigger backlines, more suited 10 yard smashes rather than clean breaks.

Look at junior rugby for instance and the JRWC... NH players are men and look like their training regime is 30% rugby, 70% deadlift. England physically dominate other sides but whereas size can win, the smaller SH players are playing an offloading game, one handed plays, tracking channels rather than standing behind the carrier for the expected ruck clearance. It breeds better players in the long term for the test arena.

You don't watch any U20's do you

fa0019 wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

mid_gen wrote:Have to revise the strategy of box-kicking possession back to the ABs constantly, despite Murray being very good at it, it wasn't working for us.

Bench needs to be reworked to bring on some impact players up front Lawes, Stander, Marler, Sinckler....and some pace, JJ?

Problem is I get the impression it's used as much as a way to give our forwards a breather. Fitness and intensity still seem to be a problem for us, incredibly.

Its the way the NH set up their game and also in part to the conditions. If the game is played 3/4 of the time in cold, wet conditions then you build players to be slower, force fewer passes and linebreaks are more difficult to maintain... so you have bigger backlines, more suited 10 yard smashes rather than clean breaks.

Look at junior rugby for instance and the JRWC... NH players are men and look like their training regime is 30% rugby, 70% deadlift. England physically dominate other sides but whereas size can win, the smaller SH players are playing an offloading game, one handed plays, tracking channels rather than standing behind the carrier for the expected ruck clearance. It breeds better players in the long term for the test arena.

England's U20s were amongst the smallest teams in the tournament.

Talk of NH and SH is nonsense. While it is true that NZ are the best team the rest of the SH are not really much cop as shown by recent NH results against them and world ranking where Australia and South Africa are out of the top four and still heading south.

To be fair south Africa are currently 2-0 up on their 3 series test. And dicking them in the 3rd test.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:To be fair south Africa are currently 2-0 up on their 3 series test. And dicking them in the 3rd test.

Only because France are even more crap.

lostinwales wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

mid_gen wrote:Have to revise the strategy of box-kicking possession back to the ABs constantly, despite Murray being very good at it, it wasn't working for us.

Bench needs to be reworked to bring on some impact players up front Lawes, Stander, Marler, Sinckler....and some pace, JJ?

Problem is I get the impression it's used as much as a way to give our forwards a breather. Fitness and intensity still seem to be a problem for us, incredibly.

Its the way the NH set up their game and also in part to the conditions. If the game is played 3/4 of the time in cold, wet conditions then you build players to be slower, force fewer passes and linebreaks are more difficult to maintain... so you have bigger backlines, more suited 10 yard smashes rather than clean breaks.

Look at junior rugby for instance and the JRWC... NH players are men and look like their training regime is 30% rugby, 70% deadlift. England physically dominate other sides but whereas size can win, the smaller SH players are playing an offloading game, one handed plays, tracking channels rather than standing behind the carrier for the expected ruck clearance. It breeds better players in the long term for the test arena.

You don't watch any U20's do you

He doesn't watch any rugby. He just comes on here to regurgitate.

You'd have thought that with all that practice the French would be better. Still with the new SH biased global season we'll all be able to play 10 months a year and that will be just great.

Griff wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I said it was devil's advocate Geoff... but it was also true. We looked creaky in the scrum all game, but were butchered in the one when our power replacements came on!

Never bring on a cold front rower when there is a scrum unless forced through injury. They get hammered by fully warmed up players (even if they have been battered for 50 mins of rugby).

Spot on - never understand that.
Same with Hookers - Owens came on and butchered an attacking line out

Not sure how you can blame Owens or the jumper really. The ball was thrown well and was on track for the jumper (Kruis?) but the kiwis guessed right and got up slightly in front of Kruis to intercept. How do you defend a guessed and intercepted line out? It's not the same as throwing a squint throw, or an over throw, or no one jumping at all, or missing the man completely, etc.

z

Totally agree I read the post the throw was spot on the jumper for N Z knew the call as most of the time the ball went to Kruis.

Why was Faletau so poor this game? He's been brilliant leading up to this, then disappears. Again I guess it comes down to the players in front of him getting bullied.

yappysnap wrote:Why was Faletau so poor this game? He's been brilliant leading up to this, then disappears. Again I guess it comes down to the players in front of him getting bullied.

You say that, but the stats say he had a good game:
In attack he had the highest number of runs of any forward (9) which was joint top in the team with T'eo and JD2. He had the second highest metres gained of the forwards behind O'Brien.
Defending - he was top tackler for the Lions with 21. That's pretty impressive. George was 2nd with 20 and Kruis was next with 16. He missed only 1 tackle whereas Kruis and Murray missed 3 and 4 other players missed 2.
He did concede 2 penalties though, same as Kruis. O'Brien was 3.
He just went about his business quietly I guess.

There's a full replay up here for anyone who missed it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYKSMK7o4M8

Griff wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Why was Faletau so poor this game? He's been brilliant leading up to this, then disappears. Again I guess it comes down to the players in front of him getting bullied.

You say that, but the stats say he had a good game:
In attack he had the highest number of runs of any forward (9) which was joint top in the team with T'eo and JD2. He had the second highest metres gained of the forwards behind O'Brien.
Defending - he was top tackler for the Lions with 21. That's pretty impressive. George was 2nd with 20 and Kruis was next with 16. He missed only 1 tackle whereas Kruis and Murray missed 3 and 4 other players missed 2.
He did concede 2 penalties though, same as Kruis. O'Brien was 3.
He just went about his business quietly I guess.

Which is what you expect from a flanker rather than your 8. We were really outmuscled which is not good as we can't match NZ in other areas. Scrum was poor, Furlong has failed to reproduce his Ireland form in the set piece, we should be dominating up front but it's just not happening.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Griff wrote:

yappysnap wrote:Why was Faletau so poor this game? He's been brilliant leading up to this, then disappears. Again I guess it comes down to the players in front of him getting bullied.

You say that, but the stats say he had a good game:
In attack he had the highest number of runs of any forward (9) which was joint top in the team with T'eo and JD2. He had the second highest metres gained of the forwards behind O'Brien.
Defending - he was top tackler for the Lions with 21. That's pretty impressive. George was 2nd with 20 and Kruis was next with 16. He missed only 1 tackle whereas Kruis and Murray missed 3 and 4 other players missed 2.
He did concede 2 penalties though, same as Kruis. O'Brien was 3.
He just went about his business quietly I guess.

Which is what you expect from a flanker rather than your 8. We were really outmuscled which is not good as we can't match NZ in other areas. Scrum was poor, Furlong has failed to reproduce his Ireland form in the set piece, we should be dominating up front but it's just not happening.

So did Faletau 'disappear'? That's what I was responding to.

Do you actually think any Welsh players wee under par Griff. Or does that just happen to others?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you actually think any Welsh players wee under par Griff.  Or does that just happen to others?

What's nationality got to do with it? If you check back (on both threads) I'm just responding to points raised.

Just asking a question. Which Welsh players didn't hit the heights for you today.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just asking a question.  Which Welsh players didn't hit the heights for you today.

Again, why ask me about Welsh players only? There were only Lions players out there today. I have opinions on the English and Irish ones too.

I'm asking as you just seem obsessed with defending Welsh players than casting a critical eye. The Welsh were all good and the English and irish at fault it seems. You can talk of the players as lions I'd love it if you would. Too much defensiveness in reply to people criticising performances in general.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm asking as you just seem obsessed with defending Welsh players than casting a critical eye. The Welsh were all good and the English and irish at fault it seems. You can talk of the players as lions I'd love it if you would. Too much defensiveness in reply to people criticising performances in general.

See, now you're exaggerating. 'The Welsh were all good'. Why would you write that? I never said that or tried to claim it. That's very Donald Trump-esque of you and makes your post just seem stupid. Fake news. For the record, I responded to Hammersmith Harrier who said that Kruis offered more than Jones did when stats suggest otherwise; and I responsed to Yappysnapp who asked (so a question, therefore expecting a response I assume?) why Faletau was so poor and 'disapeared', again with some stats I found on ESPN and on the Lions site. So others raised the criticism. I just replied. I note that when other posters provided ESPN stats before the test they were thanked by others as they found them insightful!  Also, one of the threads was an AWJ thread so it's inevitable that we're going to be discussing a Welsh player on there, FFS!

I'm happy to respond to the other test players criticized, for balance. Direct me to the posts please and I will respond as I have done on these two occasions. But please do not accuse me of being obsessed with defending Welsh players. I've called out criticism that I feel was unjust, especially where comparisons were made to players who, it seems, did not do better. So point me to the posts and I'll respond in kind.

P.s. Where have I said ANY English or Irish player was at fault?! In fact, where have I even mentioned an Irish player apart from in the stats for context?

Faletau was generally non-existent....yes.

On the counter, JD stepped up and Williams showed some real quality at times.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Faletau was generally non-existent....yes.

On the counter, JD stepped up and Williams showed some real quality at times.

How can you make the most tackles in the whole team and be non-existent? Yes I thought he could have been better carrying. Definitely. But non-existent? Disappeared? Anonymous? Disagree.

On the other two, what about the rest of the backs?! How did Murray do, for you? Daly? Farrell? T'eo? Did they all step up? Step down? Do the okey cokey? Turn around?!

[quote="Griff"]

No 7&1/2 wrote:For the record, I responded to Hammersmith Harrier who said that Kruis offered more than Jones did when stats suggest otherwise; and I responsed to Yappysnapp who asked (so a question, therefore expecting a response I assume?) why Faletau was so poor and 'disapeared', again with some stats I found on ESPN and on the Lions site.

While I agree with you on Faletau, I can't help but think we're looking at different stats where AWJ is concerned. How do the stats suggest otherwise?

Hoonercat wrote:

Griff wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:For the record, I responded to Hammersmith Harrier who said that Kruis offered more than Jones did when stats suggest otherwise; and I responsed to Yappysnapp who asked (so a question, therefore expecting a response I assume?) why Faletau was so poor and 'disapeared', again with some stats I found on ESPN and on the Lions site.

While I agree with you on Faletau, I can't help but think we're looking at different stats where AWJ is concerned. How do the stats suggest otherwise?

In comparison to Kruis, which was the point I was responding to. Kruis gave away more penalties, took less Lineouts, was turned over more, missed more tackles, made less offloads than Jones. Like I said, just providing what ESPN have reported. Neither was great. But stats suggest one was worse.

But what were Kruis stats when he was paired with his club and Counrty Team mate Itoje?

Griff wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

Griff wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:For the record, I responded to Hammersmith Harrier who said that Kruis offered more than Jones did when stats suggest otherwise; and I responsed to Yappysnapp who asked (so a question, therefore expecting a response I assume?) why Faletau was so poor and 'disapeared', again with some stats I found on ESPN and on the Lions site.

While I agree with you on Faletau, I can't help but think we're looking at different stats where AWJ is concerned. How do the stats suggest otherwise?

In comparison to Kruis, which was the point I was responding to. Kruis gave away more penalties, took less Lineouts, was turned over more, missed more tackles, made less offloads than Jones. Like I said, just providing what ESPN have reported. Neither was great. But stats suggest one was worse.

Hmm. Kruis missed more tackles, but even so still made more tackles than AWJ. In fact Kruis had the 3rd highest tackle count for the lions. He was turned over more, but AWJ only made 2 runs (a feat only matched by one other starter) and made a whole 1 metre, less than any other starter. Difficult to get turned over when you're not having much involvement in the game. AWJ made 1 offload, Kruis 0, but Kruis made 4 passes to AWJ's 1.

Let's just agree that they were both a bit rubbish on the day

I didnt realise Faletau was playing until about 70mins.

Passive tackles, poor physicality, few carries.....just what you want from your 8.

The scariest thing about how good Retallick and Whitelock are is that in Scott Barrett they now genuinely have a prospect who could challenge them! That is looking further ahead than this series though.

TightHEAD wrote:But what were Kruis stats when he was paired with his club and Counrty Team mate Itoje?

With that command of your national tongue, I finally believe you're in NZ and you're constantly drunk.

https://twitter.com/ruaidhrioc/status/878545093132562436

Is this a parody account?

Stats Kruis vs Jones show nothing - as I pointed out on the other thread. Stats can be significant but only when there are big outliers, or when the stats are more complete than the ones Griff presented. It is also a team game so its hard to truly isolate and rate an individual performance.

I am not trying to claim one performance was better or worse than the other as I don't pretend to know, and the 'stats' I have seen don't tell me. It is worthwhile noting that one was replaced and the other was not.

How can posters criticise players and think the Lions is good for NH rugby?
All the players are giving their all - but it is patently obvious that a team takes years together before they can perform and compete against a team that has been together for years.
For example George doesn't hook in the scrum, so guys like McGrath and Furlong aren't used to that and the timing is all different. Not only does it not work for the Lions it messes up their game when they get back to their own sides.
If Whitelock and Retallick were Lions they too would be struggling because they would be asked to play a game with which they are unfamiliar. If Codie Taylor was a Lion he would be relegated to dirt-tracker oblivion for his propensity to miss barn doors with his darts, and he has 17 caps which is way more experience than any Lion is ever going to have.
AWJ did his damndest today and it wasn't good enough, neither were the efforts of Kruis, or Itoje. It's always interesting how players who aren't in the team like Lawes or Henderson would have made all the difference - when the probability is they would have made no difference either. Gatland isn't Dr Who in charge of a time machine to give this group of players enough time to become a team.

The stinging criticism of some players especially along national lines is yet another manifestation of the malaise that is inherent in the Lions concept. Occasionally a thing of beauty such as the SOB try is manufactured to convince the superficial that all the pain and recriminations are worth it - they aren't.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm asking as you just seem obsessed with defending Welsh players than casting a critical eye. The Welsh were all good and the English and irish at fault it seems. You can talk of the players as lions I'd love it if you would. Too much defensiveness in reply to people criticising performances in general.

You're not sensing the irony?

So again Griff you just turn your ire away from the Welsh. Not seeing the irony no mikey but again you're more bothered about seeing criticism of the else rather than just talking about the match just ends up driving the conversation to a us vs them route.

Well Kruis is the lock on the bench for the midweek game so gatland is probably going with Kruis and Itoje to start next week. Expect Warburton and halfpenny to come back in as well.

Hoonercat wrote:

Griff wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

Griff wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:For the record, I responded to Hammersmith Harrier who said that Kruis offered more than Jones did when stats suggest otherwise; and I responsed to Yappysnapp who asked (so a question, therefore expecting a response I assume?) why Faletau was so poor and 'disapeared', again with some stats I found on ESPN and on the Lions site.

While I agree with you on Faletau, I can't help but think we're looking at different stats where AWJ is concerned. How do the stats suggest otherwise?

In comparison to Kruis, which was the point I was responding to. Kruis gave away more penalties, took less Lineouts, was turned over more, missed more tackles, made less offloads than Jones. Like I said, just providing what ESPN have reported. Neither was great. But stats suggest one was worse.

Hmm. Kruis missed more tackles, but even so still made more tackles than AWJ. In fact Kruis had the 3rd highest tackle count for the lions. He was turned over more, but AWJ only made 2 runs (a feat only matched by one other starter) and made a whole 1 metre, less than any other starter. Difficult to get turned over when you're not having much involvement in the game. AWJ made 1 offload, Kruis 0, but Kruis made 4 passes to AWJ's 1.

Let's just agree that they were both a bit rubbish on the day

Don't forget that Kruis played 80mins, AWJ 48! So you'd expect less tackles in much less time on the field. And less runs/metres gained.

Seems some are defending Kruis 'at all costs' too! But essentially we're like too bald men fighting over a comb.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So again Griff you just turn your ire away from the Welsh. Not seeing the irony no mikey but again you're more bothered about seeing criticism of the else rather than just talking about the match just ends up driving the conversation to a us vs them route.

Again, show me the others that have been criticised and I'll respond. That's what you're asking me to do. You seem to be dodging this now. So if someone has written a post about Farrell or Murray or JD2, for example, let me know the time and thread title and I'll have a look and respond like I have done with Faletau and AWJ. Hopefully with some stats too.

There's plenty of talk of underperformance players. You don't have to jump to the defence of faletau when someone says he was quieter than he warm up games and back jones no matter what. You think these 2 guys played well yesterday? The problem all tour is that posters are talking about the lions as they do all their teams bar a few Welsh men who are just stoically defending 'their' players no matter what.
It looks as though jones is starting next week; mistake?

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's plenty of talk of underperformance players. You don't have to jump to the defence of faletau when someone says he was quieter than he warm up games and back jones no matter what. You think these 2 guys played well yesterday?  The problem all tour is that posters are talking about the lions as they do all their teams bar a few Welsh men who are just stoically defending 'their' players no matter what.
It looks as though jones is starting next week; mistake?

You're not even reading my posts now quite obviously, 7.5. You're just writing what you want to believe rather than what is actually there. Back Jones no matter what? Incorrect. Think these guys played well? I haven't said that.

For the last time please point me to the talk about underperformance of players. That's what I'm here to discuss. I must have missed it, which is quite possible as I was out most of yesterday afternoon. Help me out here so we can get the debate going. Cheers.

You happy with gatland seemingly going with jones and Itoje next week then? I'm guessing Warburton is going to come in for pom; does that weaken the lineout considerably or do we need Stander in there to combat the loss of the big carrying billy vunipola which we seem to be missing?

I'd start Tupiric. We got massacred at the breakdown and Warburton is either not 100% fit and if he is he's woefully out of from.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You happy with gatland seemingly going with jones and Itoje next week then? I'm guessing Warburton is going to come in for pom; does that weaken the lineout considerably or do we need Stander in there to combat the loss of the big carrying billy vunipola which we seem to be missing?

FFS, just read my posts on the other thread. I've already said before the first test and since the first test that I want Itoje in over Jones.

I'd stick with the same back row personally, but would have no problem bringing in Stander at 8 if we want more ball carrying. SOB was good, POM was good in the lineout but I'm not sure he was that effective elsewhere. But I'd give him another go and retain him as captain. I'd prefer to see Tipuric on the bench over Warburton.

Here's some views from me and other Lions supporters in NZ:
-AWJ no longer has the dynamism to play Lions Test rugby;
-persistent box kicking to the AB's is brainless as is timed substitutions;
-Warburton is well off the pace required at this level;
-George and Faletau should be replaced by Owens and Stander;
-not playing a specialist open side against NZ is crazy;
-Lawes and Itoje should start next week with Henderson and Kruis on the bench with Webb and Sexton starting 9 and 10.