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

Does jones really think Farrell is not a ten or has he looked at the players available.and then decided on his best tactics and best team? That's gatland biggest mistake, 1 prefered way to play and seemingly.no scope outside of that to make best use out of a group of players that offer more ways of playing.

Guys - please stop responding to Mickey dragon with his continual cries of " you all hate the welsh Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

It just encourages him to clog up these boards with his paranoid nonsense. Just ignore himunless he actually has something constructive to say.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Does jones really think Farrell is not a ten or has he looked at the players available.and then decided on his best tactics and best team? That's gatland biggest mistake, 1 prefered way to play and seemingly.no scope outside of that to make best use out of a group of players that offer more ways of playing.

I think that Jones sees him as a 10 but he works very well at 12 with Ford at 10.

I do not agree with you re Gatland, he clearly tried to change the approach on Saturday when he brought Te'o off and put Sexton to 10 and Farrell to 12. I thought that was a mistake, I thought that Te'o was playing and linking with Davies very well. I would have preferred to have had Biggar on the bench than Sexton, I think Biggar brings more attacking dynamism in the closing stages of a game. Sexton is a starting 10 only, do not feel he is a good replacement 10.

I thought te'o was awful. The midfield stodgy. We need to get the ball to the back 3 more to have a better chance of winning in nz. We should get more ball on saturday we need to use it better.

Really? I thought Te'o made ground everytime he touched the ball and had some good offloads. Liam Williams also linked very well with Davies. The problem, I felt, was that the forwards were dominated by the AB's not allowing the backs to get any forward momentum. When the Lion's looked to counter, they looked very good but just could not finish off the chances created.

I'd agree that one the back 3 got the ball from kicks they used it pretty well. Farrell got davies through a gap once of twice but te'o and davies do the same thing pretty much every time. Run at nz. One or the other is fine but both together not for me.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd agree that one the back 3 got the ball from kicks they used it pretty well. Farrell got davies through a gap once of twice but te'o and davies do the same thing pretty much every time. Run at nz. One or the other is fine but both together not for me.

I agree with that. Eddie Jones has been looking for a big hard running centre but I do not believe he would play two of them. Gatland has always been obsessed with size over skill.

Hood83 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.

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

 Has Shag been reading the V 2 Forum?

Exiledinborders wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd agree that one the back 3 got the ball from kicks they used it pretty well. Farrell got davies through a gap once of twice but te'o and davies do the same thing pretty much every time. Run at nz. One or the other is fine but both together not for me.

I agree with that. Eddie Jones has been looking for a big hard running centre but I do not believe he would play two of them. Gatland has always been obsessed with size over skill.

Gatland has always used a big hard running 12, there is nothing wrong with that if they can offload and link up with a good 13. I still believe that Te'o and Davies work well together as Te'o has looked to offload when he has made a break. The team should be well aware that he can do this and have support for him which they have failed to do. Davies and Te'o have the ability to break the AB lines. A couple of the line breaks the Lions made were not from returning kicks but so very good back play.

eirebilly wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd agree that one the back 3 got the ball from kicks they used it pretty well. Farrell got davies through a gap once of twice but te'o and davies do the same thing pretty much every time. Run at nz. One or the other is fine but both together not for me.

I agree with that. Eddie Jones has been looking for a big hard running centre but I do not believe he would play two of them. Gatland has always been obsessed with size over skill.

Gatland has always used a big hard running 12, there is nothing wrong with that if they can offload and link up with a good 13. I still believe that Te'o and Davies work well together as Te'o has looked to offload when he has made a break. The team should be well aware that he can do this and have support for him which they have failed to do. Davies and Te'o have the ability to break the AB lines. A couple of the line breaks the Lions made were not from returning kicks but so very good back play.

Its also unfair to write off Teo as just a big crash ball merchant. He started life as 10 and has good all round footballing skills.

Whats the alternative in the centers? Short of putting Farrell at 12 which I just dont see happening.

The backs play, espeically when things were breaking up, wasnt too bad and created a number of good opportunities. This loss or at least scale of the loss was much more down to the forwards being played off the park ...most notably in the areas they expected to have parity or dominance. If theres tactical changes to be made thats where they should be looking first.

TJ wrote:Guys - please stop responding to Mickey dragon with his continual cries of " you all hate the welsh Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"

It just encourages him to clog up these boards with his paranoid nonsense. Just ignore himunless he actually has something constructive to say.

Quite right. Everyone knows we do, no need to keep pointing it out.

Hood83 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.

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

To be fair the same noises have come out of the Lions camp to. Commnets suggest that they were genuinely surprised that NZ decided to attack their scrum and were able to counter their line speed.
Its almost as if the All Blacks coaches hgad been watching the warm up games and knew the areas the Lions would be looking to exploit Of course its one thing knowing whats coming, its another to be good enough to be able to do something about it....and have the players who can do that without comprimising the reat of their game.

It does really does boil down to the All Blacks being better players man for man. I dont think anyones surprised the LIons lost, but the maner and scale of defeat is pretty concerning...espeiclaly as theres no obvious plan B to turn to.

I think most of our changes need to be in the back 5 of the pack. The balance isn't right, and both locks made some basic errors. Would a back 5 of Itoje, Lawes, Warburton, Tipuric and Stander offer a better balance? You could argue for 5 changes back there, although we won't see that many. It's a tricky area for Gatland to get right, but if the Lions are to have any chance of getting back into the series, he needs to get the big decisions right.

The backs looked good at times, and if they go unchanged then I'm sure they'll be so much the stronger for it, especially if we can sort some of the issues up front.

The tactics need a bit of tweaking though, we need to kick less and hold onto the ball a bit more. But again, we need to be smashing breakdowns clear if we want to hold onto the possession - so it's all linked.

I think the scratch side argument is becoming a bit of an excuse for a lack of basic skills. Their hooker picks the ball up from his ankles, 8 flicks the ball up from the floor when falling forward, FH picks the ball up with one hand while running at speed, we knock on off basic passes. We try to offload at the last minute when it's not on, they are thinking about it before they get tackled.

robbo277 wrote:I think most of our changes need to be in the back 5 of the pack. The balance isn't right, and both locks made some basic errors. Would a back 5 of Itoje, Lawes, Warburton, Tipuric and Stander offer a better balance? You could argue for 5 changes back there, although we won't see that many. It's a tricky area for Gatland to get right, but if the Lions are to have any chance of getting back into the series, he needs to get the big decisions right.

I would say changes have to be made but not as many as 5. I believe that POM, SOB and Faletau should stay at 6, 7 and 8 but I would have CJ Stander or Tipuric on the bench ahead of Warburton right now.

Locks I would have Itoje and Lawes/Henderson (either to start or not be in the match day 23) with Kruis on the bench.

I would change the both locks. But still have AWJ on the bench.
I would start Rory Best or Ken Owens.
I would drop Farrell from the test squad, start with Sexton with Biggar on the bench.
I would start Webb and have Murray on the bench.

At the moment, those are the only changes I would make.

Would it be worth starting one nation in the front row and have the other as the replacements? Would be harsh on Owens but I think it may make the scrum more powerful

Our backline created nothing. An early line break from JD is the only thing our backline did that wasn't a counter attack.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Our backline created nothing. An early line break from JD is the only thing our backline did that wasn't a counter attack.

Doesn't help when we're not really competing very well at the rucks! We were always on the back foot because of that! We have to be more aggressive at rucks next test to give us quicker ball.

BBC is reporting that Gats is looking at Itoje for AWJ (Agree) and Warbs (for SOB or POM - Don't agree)...

Other changes I'd make, would be Webb starting instead of Murray (Murray was too slow and box kicks so blatantly advertised). And starting Webb I would also play Biggar at 10 with Farrell at 12 (sorry Sexton not the force he used to be... I'd drop him). As for 13, JD was good leave him there and also Daly, Watson and Williams to keep their starting place.

Front row probably leave the starters with same bench.

I partly agree with Sir Clive Woodentop (God.. never thought I'd say that)... Its tactics that have to change, but the main tactic, ie box kicking means putting Murray on the bench and Webb to start. We should then see faster ball from the breakdown. And Biggar at 10, would give a partnership that knows each other and works. Also, Farrell at 12 would give better more attacking options, not that Teo did anything wrong, just unlucky at "my" re-org.

But that's just my thoughts.. I just know others will disagree.

LordDowlais wrote:I would change the both locks. But still have AWJ on the bench.
I would start Rory Best or Ken Owens.
I would drop Farrell from the test squad, start with Sexton with Biggar on the bench.
I would start Webb and have Murray on the bench.

At the moment, those are the only changes I would make.

AWJ has probably been the worst performing player in the squad and shouldn't be near the squad, it has to be Itoje and Kruis for the second test with Henderson on the bench. Unfair on Lawes to an extent but for me Henderson gives more in attack and has gotten better with each game this tour.

Best should start too, again unfair on Owens but we need to dominate the scrum and as Ferris said on Saturday, he's the best scrimmaging hooker in the world.

LordDowlais wrote:I would change the both locks. But still have AWJ on the bench.
I would start Rory Best or Ken Owens.
I would drop Farrell from the test squad, start with Sexton with Biggar on the bench.
I would start Webb and have Murray on the bench.

At the moment, those are the only changes I would make.

Tactically the Lions need to tweak things - NZ won the breakdown because the Lions were fanning out on D rather than committing, meaning NZ won the collisions. Several Lions had poor games by their own standards - if you were to select a playing XV from the starters on Saturday you'd have L Williams, JD2 and 13 NZers, whereas pre-match there were quite a few NH media types picking combined XVs with 7 or 8 Lions.

I'd look at tweaking the balance rather than wholesale changes - agree on Owens (or Best if his darts go OK tomorrow) starting. I'd drop both Kruis and AWJ (Kruis made a lot of errors, AWJ simply can't hack the pace NZ play at any more), Itoje & Lawes starting, Henderson bench if he has a good game tomorrow. Warburton to start at 6, Stander onto the bench. And leave the back line as is - but look to bring Webb on after 50 mins.

No9 wrote:BBC is reporting that Gats is looking at Itoje for AWJ (Agree) and Warbs (for SOB or POM - Don't agree)...

Other changes I'd make, would be Webb starting instead of Murray (Murray was too slow and box kicks so blatantly advertised). And starting Webb I would also play Biggar at 10 with Farrell at 12 (sorry Sexton not the force he used to be... I'd drop him). As for 13, JD was good leave him there and also Daly, Watson and Williams to keep their starting place.

Front row probably leave the starters with same bench.

I partly agree with Sir Clive Woodentop (God.. never thought I'd say that)... Its tactics that have to change, but the main tactic, ie box kicking means putting Murray on the bench and Webb to start. We should then see faster ball from the breakdown. And Biggar at 10, would give a partnership that knows each other and works. Also, Farrell at 12 would give better more attacking options, not that Teo did anything wrong, just unlucky at "my" re-org.

But that's just my thoughts.. I just know others will disagree.

Whats wrong with Murrays box kicking? he's far more accurate than Webb in that regard

Best is class in the scrum but george is very good too marty. Loose head prop and Itoje in would improve it.

marty2086 wrote:Best should start too, again unfair on Owens but we need to dominate the scrum and as Ferris said on Saturday, he's the best scrimmaging hooker in the world.

Just because Ferris said that, it does not make it true. I like Rory Best, but scrummaging wise there is not much difference between him and Owens. Owens is much more accurate with his line out throwing, which puts him ahead.

But in saying that, I would be just as pleased to see Best start as I would if Owens were to start.

marty2086 wrote:

No9 wrote:BBC is reporting that Gats is looking at Itoje for AWJ (Agree) and Warbs (for SOB or POM - Don't agree)...

Other changes I'd make, would be Webb starting instead of Murray (Murray was too slow and box kicks so blatantly advertised). And starting Webb I would also play Biggar at 10 with Farrell at 12 (sorry Sexton not the force he used to be... I'd drop him). As for 13, JD was good leave him there and also Daly, Watson and Williams to keep their starting place.

Front row probably leave the starters with same bench.

I partly agree with Sir Clive Woodentop (God.. never thought I'd say that)... Its tactics that have to change, but the main tactic, ie box kicking means putting Murray on the bench and Webb to start. We should then see faster ball from the breakdown. And Biggar at 10, would give a partnership that knows each other and works. Also, Farrell at 12 would give better more attacking options, not that Teo did anything wrong, just unlucky at "my" re-org.

But that's just my thoughts.. I just know others will disagree.

Whats wrong with Murrays box kicking? he's far more accurate than Webb in that regard

Nothing wrong with Murray box kicking IMO, he's superb at it. Though he probably did too much of it on Sat - it worked early as Ben Smith was poor in the air (I don't know exactly when he took his head knock but have a horrible feeling it was early and not picked up for 10-15 mins), but once Barrett was at 15 he and Dagg did a good job of fielding them.

marty2086 wrote:

No9 wrote:BBC is reporting that Gats is looking at Itoje for AWJ (Agree) and Warbs (for SOB or POM - Don't agree)...

Other changes I'd make, would be Webb starting instead of Murray (Murray was too slow and box kicks so blatantly advertised). And starting Webb I would also play Biggar at 10 with Farrell at 12 (sorry Sexton not the force he used to be... I'd drop him). As for 13, JD was good leave him there and also Daly, Watson and Williams to keep their starting place.

Front row probably leave the starters with same bench.

I partly agree with Sir Clive Woodentop (God.. never thought I'd say that)... Its tactics that have to change, but the main tactic, ie box kicking means putting Murray on the bench and Webb to start. We should then see faster ball from the breakdown. And Biggar at 10, would give a partnership that knows each other and works. Also, Farrell at 12 would give better more attacking options, not that Teo did anything wrong, just unlucky at "my" re-org.

But that's just my thoughts.. I just know others will disagree.

Whats wrong with Murrays box kicking? he's far more accurate than Webb in that regard

Does he do it a bit too much?  As someone else said, it's a great tool for clearing your lines and relieving pressure but doing it on the half way line just gives away possession. I want to see more variety from him.  I don't think Murray once made a snipe/dart around the fringes.  If you never do that then the defense can spread out a bit, meaning less space for our attackers.  If he does it a few times then they'll need to keep some defenders closer to the ruck and that will mean slightly bigger gaps in the defensive line.  Every little helps!

Edit: what Pete said!

He might be accurate at it but never did we put NZ under pressure after a kick, and the ones that went into touch were dealt with via a quick lineout so really it's a hidden +11 in the turnover column.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Best should start too, again unfair on Owens but we need to dominate the scrum and as Ferris said on Saturday, he's the best scrimmaging hooker in the world.

Just because Ferris said that, it does not make it true. I like Rory Best, but scrummaging wise there is not much difference between him and Owens. Owens is much more accurate with his line out throwing, which puts him ahead.

But in saying that, I would be just as pleased to see Best start as I would if Owens were to start.

Just because Dowlais said that, it does not make it true

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Best should start too, again unfair on Owens but we need to dominate the scrum and as Ferris said on Saturday, he's the best scrimmaging hooker in the world.

Just because Ferris said that, it does not make it true. I like Rory Best, but scrummaging wise there is not much difference between him and Owens. Owens is much more accurate with his line out throwing, which puts him ahead.

But in saying that, I would be just as pleased to see Best start as I would if Owens were to start.

Just because Dowlais said that, it does not make it true

When are the mods going to sort members like you out.

It's just my opinion. Just like it is of the opinion of Ferris about Best.

Scottrf wrote:He might be accurate at it but never did we put NZ under pressure after a kick, and the ones that went into touch were dealt with via a quick lineout so really it's a hidden +11 in the turnover column.

I thought they knocked on a couple?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Best should start too, again unfair on Owens but we need to dominate the scrum and as Ferris said on Saturday, he's the best scrimmaging hooker in the world.

Just because Ferris said that, it does not make it true. I like Rory Best, but scrummaging wise there is not much difference between him and Owens. Owens is much more accurate with his line out throwing, which puts him ahead.

But in saying that, I would be just as pleased to see Best start as I would if Owens were to start.

I said it right after the game myself and plenty of others agree, Best got the better of Dane Coles twice in November and Coles is up there with the best of them and better than Taylor.

We have 3 scrummaging hookers. And mako. Just saying if gatland wanted the scrum to be the be all and end all we'd have Mcgrath or Marler starting and probably Cole on the bench at tight head.

Changes I'd make.

Drop AWJ,Faletau and Farrell Jr.

Start Itoje,Stander and Sexton.

Lawes,Tipuric and Russell on bench.

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Best should start too, again unfair on Owens but we need to dominate the scrum and as Ferris said on Saturday, he's the best scrimmaging hooker in the world.

Just because Ferris said that, it does not make it true. I like Rory Best, but scrummaging wise there is not much difference between him and Owens. Owens is much more accurate with his line out throwing, which puts him ahead.

But in saying that, I would be just as pleased to see Best start as I would if Owens were to start.

Just because Dowlais said that, it does not make it true

When are the mods going to sort members like you out.

It's just my opinion. Just like it is of the opinion of Ferris about Best.

When are you going to grow up, he was pointing out the flaw in your argument but like a child you throw a hissy fit

LondonTiger wrote:

Scottrf wrote:He might be accurate at it but never did we put NZ under pressure after a kick, and the ones that went into touch were dealt with via a quick lineout so really it's a hidden +11 in the turnover column.

I thought they knocked on a couple?

True actually but unforced errors, but kick chase was poor. I think one we put under pressure near their line and they ended up getting the ball back to our own half, giving us a lineout back where we had possession.

Scottrf wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Scottrf wrote:He might be accurate at it but never did we put NZ under pressure after a kick, and the ones that went into touch were dealt with via a quick lineout so really it's a hidden +11 in the turnover column.

I thought they knocked on a couple?

True actually but unforced errors, but kick chase was poor. I think one we put under pressure near their line and they ended up getting the ball back to our own half, giving us a lineout back where we had possession.

Was it Williams or Watson who was taken into touch and like a star struck child handed the ball back to the ABs instead of throwing it into the crowd or giving it to a ball boy to kill the ball

Throw a ball in the crowd and risk a yellow.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Throw a ball in the crowd and risk a yellow.

Has that ever happened? Players throw the ball away from the hooker all the time.

Oh yes. Danny care. Made Martin Johnson punch himself.

Griff wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Our backline created nothing. An early line break from JD is the only thing our backline did that wasn't a counter attack.

Doesn't help when we're not really competing very well at the rucks!  We were always on the back foot because of that!  We have to be more aggressive at rucks next test to give us quicker ball.

Winning the ball is key. NZ's primary strength is ball retention in my opinion. It really boils my wee wee when pundits say "they do the basics so well" but it's true. Because the look after that ball when they have it, this is how they can expose so many defences. It's built on superior ball retention, quick recycling and accurate passing.

When we won the ball we made an excellent job of giving it back to them.

Scottrf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Throw a ball in the crowd and risk a yellow.

Has that ever happened? Players throw the ball away from the hooker all the time.

Drew Mitchell got a (2nd) yellow for doing it vs NZ a few years ago - there'd just been a team warning, & he'd been binned earlier in the match

TBH any changes could easily just be a case of re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

If we are going to go after NZ in the tight (and this is a comparative weakness) then we need to play the guys best suited for this job. This would probably mean changes to all three rows of the scrum.

While George continued to show he is in a slight dip in form, he was palpably better than Owens and Best has done little to support a call up. However Mako would have to move to the bench. He tried hard, got busy but was ineffectual in the loose and underwhelming in the tight.
The second row was underpowered compared to the Kiwi pair. We probably cannot stand toe to toe with them (or match teh skill levels) but the Kruis/AWJ pairing looked lightweight and innocuous.
In the back row we probably need a miracle. Faletau and SOB have to stay but not sure replacing POM would make any difference. Perhaps we need to hope that thre french refs view the breakdown differently to Peyper.




If we want to target the breakdown, we need to select accordingly. Then Cole, Itoje (who perhaps has to be called up to start whatever) and Warburton should be considered. Cole however stands almost zero chance of playing.




If we want to utilise the promise shown by the back 3 then again we have to make changes to do that, mainly in the backs, but also to add Tipuric to the back row. Then pair Murray (without the instructions to kick all the time) with Sexton and start JD2 or Te'o but not both.





HOWEVER as NZ are more skillful, whatever we do will only ever stand a chance of winning IF the ABs are under par. If they play anywhere near their expected levels they continue to win rather easily.

marty2086 wrote:

No9 wrote:BBC is reporting that Gats is looking at Itoje for AWJ (Agree) and Warbs (for SOB or POM - Don't agree)...

Other changes I'd make, would be Webb starting instead of Murray (Murray was too slow and box kicks so blatantly advertised). And starting Webb I would also play Biggar at 10 with Farrell at 12 (sorry Sexton not the force he used to be... I'd drop him). As for 13, JD was good leave him there and also Daly, Watson and Williams to keep their starting place.

Front row probably leave the starters with same bench.

I partly agree with Sir Clive Woodentop (God.. never thought I'd say that)... Its tactics that have to change, but the main tactic, ie box kicking means putting Murray on the bench and Webb to start. We should then see faster ball from the breakdown. And Biggar at 10, would give a partnership that knows each other and works. Also, Farrell at 12 would give better more attacking options, not that Teo did anything wrong, just unlucky at "my" re-org.

But that's just my thoughts.. I just know others will disagree.

Whats wrong with Murrays box kicking? he's far more accurate than Webb in that regard

Murray was far too slow in delivery.. He would wait, look round then think about passing the ball.. and what has that to do with box kicking... A lot, its because he was so b!oody slow, he had to box kick over and over and over again.. The ABs knew every time, he would kick, and hence where able to try and sack him. Gatland has made a comment that the ABs where targeting him. I'm not surprised.. We all knew what he was going to do. That is all he could do. We need a scrum half who will feed the backs quickly, not one that will kick, kick and kick again...

No 7&1/2 wrote:Throw a ball in the crowd and risk a yellow.

It happens in most games, you don't have to throw it into the crowd but kill the ball to prevent the quick throw rather than handing the opposition the ball and walking away allowing them to take a quick throw

Seems to gatland preferred hame plan though as Webb was kicking a lot in the warm ups and obviously laidlaw does. I'm all for Webb starting if the tactic changes.

I thought the Lions played superb in the first test.

The speed that that ABs recycled the ball was simply unbelievable, nothing would have prepared the Lions for that.

They also massively underestimated the ABs pack and overestimated their own and didn't get any of the dominance they expected.

All that said to be 13-8 at half time was a tremendous achievement as most teams would have been blown away.

Things went wrong with the substitutions, the AB's got stronger and the Lions weaker - Itoje excepted the others were a mistake and the bench was too weak.

For the second test the Lions should stick with the starting 15, with Itoje in for Jones and Henderson/Lawes on the bench.

I'd drop Warburton and 1/2 penney from the 23 and bring in Tipuric and Joseph for impact, maybe Best for Owens.

However I believe Gats will start Warburton for O'Mahoney and drop Kruis for Itoje.

He's an eejit.

Not in the crowd marty. Let's face it if we did it and it ended in us to 14 men we'd be saying it's pretty stupid.

Yet through the tour, Murray has been the quickest at clearing the ball of any of the SHs. Laidlaw is not threatening a place, while Webb is more exciting ball in hand, his delivery has so far been slower and less accurate and his kicking far too long.

NZ did a very good job of getting players over the ball (and on the wrong side) and thus slowed down the ball. Lions were appalling at presenting the ball and clearing out the Kiwi spoilers. It is easy to blame the SH for slow ball - but often the issue is elsewhere.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not in the crowd marty. Let's face it if we did it and it ended in us to 14 men we'd be saying it's pretty stupid.

It always happens, if you are driven close to the fans just drop the ball in someones lap, or drop it in front of a ball boy. Im not saying kick it into row Z but take the most innocuous looking approach to killing it.