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

No need to swear Griff. My question was directed at the how it looks like gatland is going with jones and Itoje rather than one or the other.

Thing with Kruis is that without a marquee lineout captain you risk losing the game right there. The one area where the lions looked both comfortable and slightly in the ascendency iwas the lineout. POM made a huge diff as sure Faletau and Warburton can jump, hell Serfontein took a lineout yesterday in the France game... but like Croft in prior tours, light, lanky jumpers give you so many secure ball options.

After that its a fight for the last place. Was Jones that bad? I thought he defended his heart out and at one point looked very groggy after a monster collision but he shaked it off... I assume the medics checked him out.

What does Jones offer that Itoje can't? Not much to be fair but he has experience, he's been in these situations before and to be fair when he and a few others went off the lions imploded. He was knackered and probably knew his stint would last 60 mins max. I'd say he played better than Kruis mind but Kruis can only be replaced by Lawes

In terms of the pack  it does need tweaking.

Vunipola, George, Cole, Itoje/Jones, Kruis, POM, SOB, Stander

McGrath, Owens, Sinckler, Itoje/Jones, Lawes

Warburton shouldn't be on tour. He's in a worse state that JW was in 05.

Let's be honest was 30-15 the worst score in the world?

We gifted them two tries and left a couple out there ourselves.
Not perfect but consider they are world champions and we our a team thrown together only a few weeks ago I thought we did alright.

Just wish England were out here as we could give them a real game.

Are you one of the Lions supporters that Exile Jack mentioned?

Does the Barbarian FC team have a better record than the Lions? They literally are thrown together for a bit of a laugh.

TightHEAD wrote:Let's be honest was 30-15 the worst score in the world?

We gifted them two tries and left a couple out there ourselves.
Not perfect but consider they are world champions and we our a team thrown together only a few weeks ago I thought we did alright.

Just wish England were out here as we could give them a real game.

Its sort of the way Gatland sets up all his teams against the 3N. Tough to beat but doesn't set out any plan to win other than hopefully we'll be in the mix come 70 mins and then who knows. Its why he's played them 35 times with Wales... and won 3 (and in fact howley got one of those vs SA in Dec).

It brought results against Ireland, France and England but against higher calibre players who are comfortable with not having forward parity (esp. AUS who haven't had this since 2001 yet reached 2 RWC finals and won 2 tri-nations titles during this time).

In 2013 he played the worst AUS team in history and really only got over the line by being able to rotate his team often against an AUS side who didn't' have the same luxury. EJ played a superior team in 2016 and wiped the floor with them with only 1/4 of the players and far lower individual quality.

3 wins in 35 vs the 3N sides... Scotland have 4 in 17 over the same period just to highlight the issue. Its the worst of all nations... with arguably the best individual starting XV of all 4 throughout.

Thought that Davies was the most attacking player for the Lions yesterday, his lines were superb and he cut through the AB's. Was a massive shame that many of the chances created could not be finished off. I thought that Te'o did very well at 12 so I would keep him there.

I think having Farrell and Sexton in the same squad is a mistake, I would start with either one but have Biggar on the bench.

Williams was excellent (despite the missed ball which lead to an AB try) so he would still be my choice for 15. Watson and Daly also looked lively so I would keep them as well.

Neither Kruis or AWJ looked good and were easily out played by their opposite numbers so I would start with Itoje and Henderson with Lawes as impact sub.

I would leave POM (captain), SOB and Faletau but would have Stander or Tipuric on the bench ahead of Warburton. Not that Warburton played badly when he came on, just that I think Tipuric or Stander are better options.

That is why Gatland should never had been given the job this tour.. We all knew it but we still live in hope. Now I know how Welsh fans feel.

eirebilly wrote:Thought that Davies was the most attacking player for the Lions yesterday, his lines were superb and he cut through the AB's. Was a massive shame that many of the chances created could not be finished off. I thought that Te'o did very well at 12 so I would keep him there.

I think having Farrell and Sexton in the same squad is a mistake, I would start with either one but have Biggar on the bench.

Williams was excellent (despite the missed ball which lead to an AB try) so he would still be my choice for 15. Watson and Daly also looked lively so I would keep them as well.

Neither Kruis or AWJ looked good and were easily out played by their opposite numbers so I would start with Itoje and Henderson with Lawes as impact sub.

I would leave POM (captain), SOB and Faletau but would have Stander or Tipuric on the bench ahead of Warburton. Not that Warburton played badly when he came on, just that I think Tipuric or Stander are better options.

I was chatting to an Irish mate the other day who suggested that Sexton is a much better player when he's the out & out first picked #10 in the squad, & tends to struggle more when there's competition in the squad. Possibly Gatland could've thrown the dice & backed him from the beginning, but right now I'd have Biggar (or preferably Russell but Warren isn't going there) in the 23

I like Sexton Pete, he is a very good 10 (also agree that he does play better when deemed the starter) but right now I feel Farrell is in better form so I would have him as the starter. I feel that Biggar or Russell would off more dynamism from the bench than Sexton.

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.

The us vs them thing stems from the lack of unity on display by the English ever since before the tour. They turn up in their droves slagging off Welsh players and advocating their own. It's a bit rich for you to accuse someone of being obsessed with defending AWJ when you and your rabble are obsessed with attacking him at every opportunity. The accused here actually offered a fair and balanced critique and didn't attack anyone based on nationality unlike you lot. It's been a funny turn of events on here seeing the English try and masquerade Kruis' unacceptable performance by once again attacking AWJ, even though it was proven he outperformed Kruis . Forums aren't for people who can't handle the truth and the Lions ain't for those who can't get behind the concept.

fa0019 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Let's be honest was 30-15 the worst score in the world?

We gifted them two tries and left a couple out there ourselves.
Not perfect but consider they are world champions and we our a team thrown together only a few weeks ago I thought we did alright.

Just wish England were out here as we could give them a real game.

Its sort of the way Gatland sets up all his teams against the 3N. Tough to beat but doesn't set out any plan to win other than hopefully we'll be in the mix come 70 mins and then who knows. Its why he's played them 35 times with Wales... and won 3 (and in fact howley got one of those vs SA in Dec).

It brought results against Ireland, France and England but against higher calibre players who are comfortable with not having forward parity (esp. AUS who haven't had this since 2001 yet reached 2 RWC finals and won 2 tri-nations titles during this time).

In 2013 he played the worst AUS team in history and really only got over the line by being able to rotate his team often against an AUS side who didn't' have the same luxury. EJ played a superior team in 2016 and wiped the floor with them with only 1/4 of the players and far lower individual quality.

3 wins in 35 vs the 3N sides... Scotland have 4 in 17 over the same period just to highlight the issue. Its the worst of all nations... with arguably the best individual starting XV of all 4 throughout.

Ssnnnnnnnoooooooorreeeeeeeeee!

ebop wrote:Does the Barbarian FC team have a better record than the Lions? They literally are thrown together for a bit of a laugh.

Its different.

The baa baas choose 2 players for a jolly for max 2 games. Players know they'll play. They always suffer come the set piece i.e. an inferior bunch of players will grind them down in the scrum and lineout.. see England's c team in 2017 beat a better individually baabaas side.

The lions chooses 40 and then ask them to fight amongst each other for the 23 jerseys and then all act like a team come test week.

In terms of the Lions... they're actually quite successful. Since 2001 here are the stats.

13 matches played. 4 wins (31%) to the 3N sides.

To give you an example over the same period....

Boks 5 in 39 (13%).. but can't play themselves (so compared ENG have 8 in 19 against same opposition or 42%)
AUS 6 in 44 (14%).. but can't play themselves (so compared ENG have 2 in 16 against same opposition or 13%)
FRA 4 in 32 (13%)
SCO 2 in 13 (15%)
IRE 3 in 21 (14%)
ENG 9 in 27 (33%)
NZ 27 in 45 (60%).. but can't play themselves (so compared ENG have 8 in 19 against same opposition or 42%)

So only NZ and England have better records than the lions. Its interesting that one fourth of the lions has a better record than sum of all parts. Really if the lions worked than really they should have had a better record than say England. Between 89-97 they won 55% of games compared to ENG 21% and 0% for the SCO, IRE, WAL. I think it supports the idea that in pro rugby the advancing complexity makes throwing players together something that no longer works.

My ilk? Dear me mikey. At least you acknowledge you've wedged yourself into an us vs them viewpoint. Deep breaths and you ll notice people are just discussing players and it's not necessary for you to always back Welsh players or play the victim card. I've seen one serious poster say they thought Kruis was better than jones so far.

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Let's be honest was 30-15 the worst score in the world?

We gifted them two tries and left a couple out there ourselves.
Not perfect but consider they are world champions and we our a team thrown together only a few weeks ago I thought we did alright.

Just wish England were out here as we could give them a real game.

Its sort of the way Gatland sets up all his teams against the 3N. Tough to beat but doesn't set out any plan to win other than hopefully we'll be in the mix come 70 mins and then who knows. Its why he's played them 35 times with Wales... and won 3 (and in fact howley got one of those vs SA in Dec).

It brought results against Ireland, France and England but against higher calibre players who are comfortable with not having forward parity (esp. AUS who haven't had this since 2001 yet reached 2 RWC finals and won 2 tri-nations titles during this time).

In 2013 he played the worst AUS team in history and really only got over the line by being able to rotate his team often against an AUS side who didn't' have the same luxury. EJ played a superior team in 2016 and wiped the floor with them with only 1/4 of the players and far lower individual quality.

3 wins in 35 vs the 3N sides... Scotland have 4 in 17 over the same period just to highlight the issue. Its the worst of all nations... with arguably the best individual starting XV of all 4 throughout.

Ssnnnnnnnoooooooorreeeeeeeeee!

let snore more reality. Its not an anti gatland post nor anti wales. He's had great success in NH rugby and you can't argue with his methods in 2013 which in the end brought home the trophy.... but stats don't lie and there are enough for it not to be skewed. If you think yesterdays result is reflective of nothing more than NZ's dominance you're delusional. And also AUS is not NZ nor SA. The fact that EJ bettered his series record with 1.4 of the players sorts of diminishes the achievement.
Ireland with 1/4 of players beat them and beat NZ, SA and AUS in the same season. England have won 5 in 5 vs SA and AUS. Set up the right way and they would have pushed NZ all the way. Ireland would have been more competitive, England would have been more competitive.

Jiffy, EJ and many others have said the same thing.

Your whole existence on here is snore. Regurgitating the same old stuff about Wales and Gatland, whilst being a Scot who coat-tails a particular SH team. So repetitive and boring.

Nice analysis fa - all but the most blinkered can't deny the massive disadvantage the Lions have.
... except it's not about rugby it's all about money. As long as the Lions generate the occasional moment of magic to keep the brand alive, results are incidental.

mikey_dragon wrote:Your whole existence on here is snore. Regurgitating the same old stuff about Wales and Gatland, whilst being a Scot who coat-tails a particular SH team. So repetitive and boring.

Don't feed the troll.

TightHEAD wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Your whole existence on here is snore. Regurgitating the same old stuff about Wales and Gatland, whilst being a Scot who coat-tails a particular SH team. So repetitive and boring.

Don't feed the troll.

You're right I shouldn't feed the trolls.

There has been a pattern on this tour of poor performances followed by good, so there maybe a reaction to Saturdays lost opportunity, however I doubt it will be enough.

Ultimately it will come down to the players and their belief. Gatland has played his hand and has come up short, the most we can expect from him now is to get the right players on the field.

Marler
Best
Cole
Kruis
Lawes*
O'Brian
Faletau
Otoje(c)*

Murray
Sexton/Farrell
Watson
Farrell/T'eo
Davies
Joseph
Williams

Vunipola
George
Sinckler/Furlong
O'Mahony
Tipuric

Webb
T'eo/Farrell
Elliott

Very tough call for Furlong who has been immense, however I believe Cole wants to make a statement and then you have to consider impact from the bench, which is where I'd give it to Sinckler.

As to Farrell I'm undecided. Do you go with the English option Ford(Sexton)/Farrell or strait out Sexton and T'eo? Ok I've made my decision, its Sexton T'eo with Farrell on the bench.

As to Elliott, I just think Joseph is too good a player not to start.

*Otoje and Lawes to shuffle as they did for England.

This website is something I look forward to and dread in equal measure. It really is a love hate relationship.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:This website is something I look forward to and dread in equal measure. It really is a love hate relationship.

I agree, just so many armchair fans with no sense of humour or fun and no experience of ever playing the game or being envolved within a club system where banter is king.

The Great Aukster wrote:Nice analysis fa - all but the most blinkered can't deny the massive disadvantage the Lions have.
... except it's not about rugby it's all about money. As long as the Lions generate the occasional moment of magic to keep the brand alive, results are incidental.

Thanks GA

You're 100% right. I'm a big lions fan and for a scot who at least in this tour probably have some legit grievance to the lack of representatives I try at least to leave any resentments at home and was cheering the boys on as hard as any other yesterday.

But we have to wonder if its all worth it if composite teams start doing better than the lions themselves as if so whats the point?

As many players come back injured or in reduced morale for either not getting picked, not winning their 1-1 internal battle etc as those who come back better players and often the home nations teams suffer the year after given the ferocity of the series itself.

There is no natural order. Gareth Davies knows that Webb has been picked above him over the last few seasons. When he's not selected he's probably disappointed but I don't think he'll take it as bad as the loser of Jonathan Joseph vs Jonathan Davies who both have been staking a claim for the 13 jersey.
Look at Lawes... he's been magnificent but isn't even in the 23. For me the pick of the forwards on tour. Jamie George will go from starting for the lions to being Hartley's understudy again... how will this impact his morale? It killed Balshaw in 2001 who for a time was probably one of the best line breakers in the game.

The familiarity issue is huge. Why I think a POM, SOB and Stander backrow will serve the lions better in the 2nd test. Why Sexton and Murray together works and why I think Ford should have travelled (perhaps even above Russell) because its undoubted that he and Farrell as a great combo.  Hartley should have travelled, its ridiculous that the captain of a 17 in 18 team isn't in the squad because those wins weren't simply because ENG were better... Hartley's leadership was a big factor and frankly his ballast would have been very useful in NZ.

Watched an old 1966 doc a while back with Jack Charlton talking about when he asked Alf Ramsey why he was in the side.. Alf apparently replied that he didn't always choose the best players, his aim was to build the best team. That is where I think the coaching staff made their biggest mistakes on this tour.

I'd say that Murray, Sexton and Henshaw is a better 9-12 then we saw yesterday and a Ford, Farrell, Joseph 10-13 would have been a better combo and brought better results. Its just which you see as a more of a priority?

Hansen.....

“I always find it amusing when people tell us they are going to beat us up in the tight five,” he said. “We can play down-and-dirty rugby too, if we have to. You don’t become the No1 side in the world without having a quality tight five.”

ebop wrote:Hansen.....

“I always find it amusing when people tell us they are going to beat us up in the tight five,” he said. “We can play down-and-dirty rugby too, if we have to. You don’t become the No1 side in the world without having a quality tight five.”

Don't think I've seen NZ dominated up front from 04 onwards (the Henry-Hansen era) bar the 09 boks who flickered brightly albeit for 1 season. If your gameplan vs NZ relies purely on forward dominance prepare to get hammered.

Can't argue with that fa. That 2009 SA team schooled us with their aerial attack and caused a re-think.

ebop wrote:Can't argue with that fa. That 2009 SA team schooled us with their aerial attack and caused a re-think.

I thought Frans & Morne Steyn had a lot to do with it as well.... 1 deadly kicker from 50 metres. 1 50% kicker from 65 metres meant you couldn't even penalise from you own 10m line onwards.

Anyhow, the lions don't have such players and can't simply say... oh we beat the crusaders upfront, we beat the Maori in the set piece... I mean the maori are great players but they always always lack one thing... locks. Few maori's have that 2m size and length to become world class locks and often their locks are european NZ with the tiniest of drops.

I recall reading about how Maori were NZ 2nd team.... in reality they're not, not even close because you can alway attack them in scrums and lineouts.

If they legitimised their strategy off the crusaders and maori games it was a strategy doomed for failure.

Soft wins from players shorn of AB forwards created a false impression
about the pack.The Crusaders pack had the edge over the Lions as I pointed
out to Sgt.Pooley.
2009?a rookie Lock and a non Jumping Lock versus Matfield and Botha?
Aerial ping pong that forced a change to the laws then 2010 when the
RC was won 6-0 for the first time ever?
When the Lions really should have won that series so well did they play,
played like RWC champs they were at start,and RWC chumps at the end
of it.
The inter/nation bitching of Lions fans is not helping they played really
well on Saturday and lost.Two matches to fix it ,if its as good as Saturday
bring it on.

emack2 wrote:Soft wins from players shorn of AB forwards created a false impression
about the pack.The Crusaders pack had the edge over the Lions as I pointed
out to Sgt.Pooley.
2009?a rookie Lock and a non Jumping Lock versus Matfield and Botha?
Aerial ping pong that forced a change to the laws then 2010 when the
RC was won 6-0 for the first time ever?
When the Lions really should have won that series so well did they play,
played like RWC champs they were at start,and RWC chumps at the end
of it.
The inter/nation bitching of Lions fans is not helping they played really
well on Saturday and lost.Two matches to fix it ,if its as good as Saturday
bring it on.

IF those players were the best NZ had at time then they were the best NZ had. Rookie or not it doesn't matter.

SA won 5 out 6 in the 3N... 3 matches vs NZ. 2 vs AUS and 2 vs the Lions... all in 1 british summer. Credit where credit is due. It was a great year of rugby with a well contested lions series, quality 3N matches and the boks were deserved series winners and champions. A little bit of humility now and again is a good thing.

The Great Aukster wrote: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.

This. Best post on the thread

Hoonercat wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote: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.

This. Best post on the thread

Have to admit, although I've been critical of Aukster and the negativity towards the Lions concept, he is spot on here. Completely agree.

100% agree

ebop wrote:Hansen.....

“I always find it amusing when people tell us they are going to beat us up in the tight five,” he said. “We can play down-and-dirty rugby too, if we have to. You don’t become the No1 side in the world without having a quality tight five.”

 I thought it somewhat amusing when only a couple of weeks ago on this very Forum the general consensus was that Owen Franks,Tom Moody. Wyatt Crockett and Charlie Faumuina were below standard tier one props.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

ebop wrote:Hansen.....

“I always find it amusing when people tell us they are going to beat us up in the tight five,” he said. “We can play down-and-dirty rugby too, if we have to. You don’t become the No1 side in the world without having a quality tight five.”

 I thought it somewhat amusing when only a couple of weeks ago on this very Forum the general consensus was that Owen Franks,Tom Moody. Wyatt Crockett and Charlie Faumuina were below standard tier one props.

I'm not sure performing well against the Lions provides any real evidence to the contrary.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

ebop wrote:Hansen.....

“I always find it amusing when people tell us they are going to beat us up in the tight five,” he said. “We can play down-and-dirty rugby too, if we have to. You don’t become the No1 side in the world without having a quality tight five.”

 I thought it somewhat amusing when only a couple of weeks ago on this very Forum the general consensus was that Owen Franks,Tom Moody. Wyatt Crockett and Charlie Faumuina were below standard tier one props.

I'm not sure performing well against the Lions provides any real evidence to the contrary.

 If I recall correctly, the context was that if the Lions were to dominate anywhere then it would be in the front row at scrum time.

Not sure how that's proving that your props are better than perceived; the two games against the Irish last year are more representative of their ability to scrummage.

Down here there is a lot more to a props list of duties than just scrummage.

aucklandlaurie wrote:Down here there is a lot more to a props list of duties than just scrummage.

Its a toss up... The Vunipola vs Marler debate. Do you go for stability upfront or an extra ball carrier? Eddie Jones prefers Marler... Gatland prefers Vunipola.
I would say that Cole is probably a better choice for tighthead because of his ruck abilities but Gatland doesn't rate him even prefering Sinckler over him...and yet there is no way Eddie Jones will start selecting Sinckler over Cole anytime soon.  

I rate George at hooker but I don't see him as superior to Hartley and he doesn't have that mean streak in him. Hartley is sometimes sluggish and has the occasional and if not predictable brain fade but he has that bite that sometimes you need which all the greats had...Brian Moore, Sean Fitzpatrick, Phil Kearns, Keith Wood, James Dalton, Steve Thompson, Kevin Melamu, Bismark Du Plessis etc etc. We're simply don't have enough animals in the pack at the moment.

In terms of talent I would say Retallick for instance is a top 5 front jumper.... but his intensity is off the chart and makes him an out an out no.1 4 in the world. Did we ever really see anyone really take the game to NZ ball in hand physicality wise? Vunipola, Faletau.... the forwards who took the ball up they both play running lines rugby rather than smashing the front door down. Sometimes you need a bit of both.

fa0019 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Down here there is a lot more to a props list of duties than just scrummage.

Its a toss up... The Vunipola vs Marler debate. Do you go for stability upfront or an extra ball carrier? Eddie Jones prefers Marler... Gatland prefers Vunipola.
I would say that Cole is probably a better choice for tighthead because of his ruck abilities but Gatland doesn't rate him even prefering Sinckler over him...and yet there is no way Eddie Jones will start selecting Sinckler over Cole anytime soon.  

I rate George at hooker but I don't see him as superior to Hartley and he doesn't have that mean streak in him. Hartley is sometimes sluggish and has the occasional and if not predictable brain fade but he has that bite that sometimes you need which all the greats had...Brian Moore, Sean Fitzpatrick, Phil Kearns, Keith Wood, James Dalton, Steve Thompson, Kevin Melamu, Bismark Du Plessis etc etc. We're simply don't have enough animals in the pack at the moment.

In terms of talent I would say Retallick for instance is a top 5 front jumper.... but his intensity is off the chart and makes him an out an out no.1 4 in the world. Did we ever really see anyone really take the game to NZ ball in hand physicality wise? Vunipola, Faletau.... the forwards who took the ball up they both play running lines rugby rather than smashing the front door down. Sometimes you need a bit of both.

 When the Lions go home they should have one more game. Against England.

 I am still trying to fathom out why Hartley isn't in New Zealand.

mikey_dragon wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Your whole existence on here is snore. Regurgitating the same old stuff about Wales and Gatland, whilst being a Scot who coat-tails a particular SH team. So repetitive and boring.

Don't feed the troll.

You're right I shouldn't feed the trolls.

It's really sad, because fa makes some really salient points, and just because they are about the team that you support (Wales), you call him a troll.

Look at yourself before blaming others.

kingelderfield wrote:There has been a pattern on this tour of poor performances followed by good, so there maybe a reaction to Saturdays lost opportunity, however I doubt it will be enough.

Ultimately it will come down to the players and their belief. Gatland has played his hand and has come up short, the most we can expect from him now is to get the right players on the field.

Marler
Best
Cole
Kruis
Lawes*
O'Brian
Faletau
Otoje(c)*

Murray
Sexton/Farrell
Watson
Farrell/T'eo
Davies
Joseph
Williams

Vunipola
George
Sinckler/Furlong
O'Mahony
Tipuric

Webb
T'eo/Farrell
Elliott

Very tough call for Furlong who has been immense, however I believe Cole wants to make a statement and then you have to consider impact from the bench, which is where I'd give it to Sinckler.

As to Farrell I'm undecided. Do you go with the English option Ford(Sexton)/Farrell or strait out Sexton and T'eo? Ok I've made my decision, its Sexton T'eo with Farrell on the bench.

As to Elliott, I just think Joseph is too good a player not to start.

*Otoje and Lawes to shuffle as they did for England.

That team made me laugh - possibly the worst selection I've seen on here and that is saying something

ABs by 50+ points

Ineffable wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Your whole existence on here is snore. Regurgitating the same old stuff about Wales and Gatland, whilst being a Scot who coat-tails a particular SH team. So repetitive and boring.

Don't feed the troll.

You're right I shouldn't feed the trolls.

It's really sad, because fa makes some really salient points, and just because they are about the team that you support (Wales), you call him a troll.

Look at yourself before blaming others.

I've been reading him regurgitate the same stuff about Gatland and Wales for years, real petty stuff but I suppose you'll commend him for that as he's dissing Wales. Yeah we get that Scots don't like our team it comes from an inability to beat them regularly. And I didn't call him a troll so don't be soft.

geoff999rugby wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:There has been a pattern on this tour of poor performances followed by good, so there maybe a reaction to Saturdays lost opportunity, however I doubt it will be enough.

Ultimately it will come down to the players and their belief. Gatland has played his hand and has come up short, the most we can expect from him now is to get the right players on the field.

Marler
Best
Cole
Kruis
Lawes*
O'Brian
Faletau
Otoje(c)*

Murray
Sexton/Farrell
Watson
Farrell/T'eo
Davies
Joseph
Williams

Vunipola
George
Sinckler/Furlong
O'Mahony
Tipuric

Webb
T'eo/Farrell
Elliott

Very tough call for Furlong who has been immense, however I believe Cole wants to make a statement and then you have to consider impact from the bench, which is where I'd give it to Sinckler.

As to Farrell I'm undecided. Do you go with the English option Ford(Sexton)/Farrell or strait out Sexton and T'eo? Ok I've made my decision, its Sexton T'eo with Farrell on the bench.

As to Elliott, I just think Joseph is too good a player not to start.

*Otoje and Lawes to shuffle as they did for England.

That team made me laugh - possibly the worst selection I've seen on here and that is saying something

ABs by 50+ points

Yeah not sure why anyone would make wholesale changes. There'll be two or three at the most, plus some different players on the bench.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

ebop wrote:Hansen.....

“I always find it amusing when people tell us they are going to beat us up in the tight five,” he said. “We can play down-and-dirty rugby too, if we have to. You don’t become the No1 side in the world without having a quality tight five.”

 I thought it somewhat amusing when only a couple of weeks ago on this very Forum the general consensus was that Owen Franks,Tom Moody. Wyatt Crockett and Charlie Faumuina were below standard tier one props.

Ahh, the "smug blanket" descends :-) - https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2017/jun/25/steve-hansen-new-zealand-british-lions-warren-gatland

exile jack wrote: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.

Agree!

Having just watched the game - why did the lions not contest the breakdown for the first 60 mins? Why did Murray kick away good ball including turnover ball? Why was there not a single backs move in the whole match?

The NZ props are below top standard in the scrum at least. The Lions have really missed a trick not being able to build a cohesive unit with the options available, its quite shocking.

If AB props are below top standard then certainly no B/I Lions props are top standard. So who are the top standard props?

TJ wrote:Having just watched the game - why did the lions not contest the breakdown for the first 60 mins?  Why did Murray kick away good ball including turnover ball?  Why was there not a single backs move in the whole match?

My thoughts too. Box kick away if you're under pressure but on halfway to a side like NZ? They were in the Lions 22 within seconds every time that happened. Both locks were poor, as was the Lions composure when we had a rare decent attacking position. I firmly believe if Townsend accepted the backs coaching role, the Lions would've had far more tries and been a lot more inventive. Howleys limitations have been even more exposed this tour. I'd be tempted to start Sexton, Webb and Tipuric next test. Biggar on the bench.

The Great Aukster wrote: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.

Before we were overcome by multiple sherbets last night about 35 of us debated your comments and we concluded the following.

It was open to Gatland to manage or finesse the issue you raise by playing recognised combinations such as an all Irish or English front row,an all English second row and an all Irish or Welsh back row.In the backs he could have gone for Murray/Sexton or Webb/Farrell and so on and so forth.He didn't,he went for mix and match.It didn't work.Where Gatland lets himself down is his stubborness in selection.Why pick Farrell at 10 when Eddie Jones clearly sees Farrell as not a 10? If his strategy is to box kick why didn't he take Richard Wigglesworth whose box kicking is the best in the NH.

None of this detracts from the excellence of the AB's whose speed of thought and action continues to set the standard.The plain fact is the Lions scored tries from 2 of 5 opportunities and the AB's 3 from 3.That's the difference,the AB's would have scored 5 from 5.