Lions pack, AWJ criticism, and an alternative view...

First topic message reminder :

Vunipola 40
George 17 (0 starts)
Furong 16
AWJ 110
Kruis 20

Itoje 12

What is the obvious stat here capwise that without AWJ the lions don't have? jesus that kiwi tight5 average 70 plus each don't they?!?! How can anyone not view our tight 5 as massively inexperienced. Mako Vunipola I still classed as inexperienced and he'd have to lead!!! with this being Georges first ever test start also.

I think George starting is a massive call, one I understand, I personally would've gone for Owens but hey, off the bench he's a great option. George will need experience around him, he needs a cool head who's seen everything before, and I think Sinckler is a victim of Georges selection, had Owens started I think Sinckler would have also.

Very few people seem to rate AWJ, he has been lauded the best lock in the world recently, until Howley got his hands on the team and created another horror show, most people were considering AWJ, Itoje and Jonny Grey as test starters (Istill don'T understand Greys exclusion but hey).

The AWJ is a non issue, he's good enough, he's needed far more than any other player we have, let alone forward, let alone lock.

My worry is points left on the park, and Gatlands selection of players who are still in recovery from FULL 80 MINUTES!!!!!

There are too many question marks around starters for me to feel comfortable...

Georges lack of experience,
Front row combination looks unbalanced,
Back row combo looks unbalanced,
Inexperienced captain,
Farrells lack of game time at 10 on the highest stage, and injury
Teo's inability to do anything but act like Jamie Roberts
Davies's fitness
both wingers defencive capabilities (although Watsons less so)
Kicking options are limited
Liam Williams lack of gametime from 15
Inexperience of the squad as a whole

I think this is a risky selection, and I get it, Gatland has to take risks to win in NZ, but for me risks can be optimised and minimilsed in certain areas, whereas it almost feels like an 'everything on red 23' moment.

Big concern for me was how easily the ABs dealt with the rolling maul which pretty much got us nowhere.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The criticism. Pretty much universally acknowledged jones wasn't great. Solid ish. Real waste as we have some tremendous locks and now looks ab area of weakness.

So we agree that we drop AWJ AND Kruis? Itoje and Lawes to start next test.

Hoonercat wrote:

Griff wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Griff wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Stats are a bit lop sided when one played the whole game and completely ignores non stastical impact.

How convenient. Stats seemed to be very important in the warm up games...

They matter in context but carry on with your persecution complex.

Who's being persecuted? Just fed up of lopsided reporting. People love to jump on a bandwagon. AWJ is flavour of the month and the mob is foaming at the mouth at every move he makes. Just pointing out that facts.

I didn't have an issue with AWJ being picked and felt he had a big game in him. Unfortunately he proved me wrong He's getting stick because he was picked despite previous poor form, and while Kruis wasn't much better his inclusion can be justified on previous form. For me Lawes is currently the in-form lock and pairs best with Launchbury. Oh well...
You do have a point though, others failed to play as well as we know they can, I thought Farell had a bad game by his standards especially in defence. I was gobsmacked when Teo went off and Farell went to centre
Look on the bright side, we only lost by 15 to an awesome AB side, they were technically superb and a pleasure to watch.

If Kruis didn't play well and neither did AWJ, they both didn't justify any call up. My opinion is neither played well, but AWJ was better.

Hoonercat wrote:Big concern for me was how easily the ABs dealt with the rolling maul which pretty much got us nowhere.

You're right. The rolling bit didn't happen. Did we even try to get it moving?! So much to improve on but I agree with Gatland (for once) that actually a lot of what we didn't do well is within our control and can be improved upon. Going to be tough though.

Some ratings from the down-under papers (who don't really care about the whole anglo-welsh sniping BS)

Fairfax (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/94049852/lions-tour-how-the-all-blacks-and-lions-rated-in-the-first-test)
George Kruis 7: Safe as the Bank of England in the lineout with a key steal. Used his big body to useful effect in the tight stuff. Poor dropped ball when Lions needed a settler after NZ's second try.

Alun Wyn Jones 5: Struggled with the pace of the game and shelled a first-half pass with a promising move beckoning. Will be under threat from Maro Itoje for a second test start.

NZ Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11881560)
5. George Kruis - 7
An 80-minute exercise in commitment, but hard to maintain resilience against the might of Whitelock and Retallick.

4. Alun Wyn Jones - 7
Support play handy. Played at a high tempo and brought experience before Itoje added impact, as per tactical plan.



And just for comedy value (I suspect the author had a big wedge of cash on a Lions' win at the bookies & is a tad grumpy), here's WOL http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/lions-player-ratings-v-blacks-13233286

Alun Wyn Jones 4 Knocked on when Lions were building, but stuck to task and expended plenty of sweat and energy until getting subbed on 48 minutes. Not enough time to do himself justice.

George Kruis 4 Not great. Relieved of possession so swiftly by Sam Cane in first quarter the words “candy”, “kid”, “as”, “off”, “taking”, “easy”, “as” and “a” came to mind, though not necessarily in that order. Lost ball again later and simply wasn’t at races.

Griff wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Kruis ran the line out well which is more than Jones did, both looked physically inferior but one offered something.

One offered something? AWJ must have been that one then, according to the stats. I wouldn't have even played AWJ, but credit where it's due. After all, it was the stats that people used to discredit him in the games so far:

Turnovers conceded: Jones 1; Kruis 3
Tackles made: Jones 11; Kruis 16
Missed tackles: Jones 0; Kruis 3
Penalties conceded: Jones 0; Kruis 2
Offloads: Jones 1; Kruis 0.
Metres run: Jones 2; Kruis 5 - those extra 3 metres must be the 'thing' he offered.

The problem with those particular stats is that yours (and mine) for the day read
Turnovers conceded 0
Missed tackles 0
Penalties conceded 0
Metres run 0 (only 2 or 5 less)
Offloads 0 (same or only one less)

Sometimes stats show up significant differences and sometimes they don't

RiscaGame wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

Griff wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Griff wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Stats are a bit lop sided when one played the whole game and completely ignores non stastical impact.

How convenient. Stats seemed to be very important in the warm up games...

They matter in context but carry on with your persecution complex.

Who's being persecuted? Just fed up of lopsided reporting. People love to jump on a bandwagon. AWJ is flavour of the month and the mob is foaming at the mouth at every move he makes. Just pointing out that facts.

I didn't have an issue with AWJ being picked and felt he had a big game in him. Unfortunately he proved me wrong He's getting stick because he was picked despite previous poor form, and while Kruis wasn't much better his inclusion can be justified on previous form. For me Lawes is currently the in-form lock and pairs best with Launchbury. Oh well...
You do have a point though, others failed to play as well as we know they can, I thought Farell had a bad game by his standards especially in defence. I was gobsmacked when Teo went off and Farell went to centre
Look on the bright side, we only lost by 15 to an awesome AB side, they were technically superb and a pleasure to watch.

If Kruis didn't play well and neither did AWJ, they both didn't justify any call up. My opinion is neither played well, but AWJ was better.

I said that Kruis' inclusion prior to the game could be justified based on previous form, not that his performance during the game justified his inclusion. AFAIK Gatland doesn't have a crystal ball.

I wouldn't drop both. Kruis and Itoje with Lawes on the bench. Reason being the lineout was really good and I wouldn't want to make wholesale changes. I'd bring Mcgrath in for vunipola as well. I'd hope for te'o to be dropped as well with Farrell moving across try to get some more ball to a back 3 who look v good.

Hoonercat wrote:

RiscaGame wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

Griff wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Griff wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Stats are a bit lop sided when one played the whole game and completely ignores non stastical impact.

How convenient. Stats seemed to be very important in the warm up games...

They matter in context but carry on with your persecution complex.

Who's being persecuted? Just fed up of lopsided reporting. People love to jump on a bandwagon. AWJ is flavour of the month and the mob is foaming at the mouth at every move he makes. Just pointing out that facts.

I didn't have an issue with AWJ being picked and felt he had a big game in him. Unfortunately he proved me wrong He's getting stick because he was picked despite previous poor form, and while Kruis wasn't much better his inclusion can be justified on previous form. For me Lawes is currently the in-form lock and pairs best with Launchbury. Oh well...
You do have a point though, others failed to play as well as we know they can, I thought Farell had a bad game by his standards especially in defence. I was gobsmacked when Teo went off and Farell went to centre
Look on the bright side, we only lost by 15 to an awesome AB side, they were technically superb and a pleasure to watch.

If Kruis didn't play well and neither did AWJ, they both didn't justify any call up. My opinion is neither played well, but AWJ was better.

I said that Kruis' inclusion prior to the game could be justified based on previous form, not that his performance during the game justified his inclusion. AFAIK Gatland doesn't have a crystal ball.

Not sure what your bold offers? Previous form could mean any period. How far back are you showing form? AWJ showed form before, so previous form is there. Form and match performances are subjective, so I'll stick by neither justified their appearance.

lostinwales wrote:

Griff wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Kruis ran the line out well which is more than Jones did, both looked physically inferior but one offered something.

One offered something? AWJ must have been that one then, according to the stats. I wouldn't have even played AWJ, but credit where it's due. After all, it was the stats that people used to discredit him in the games so far:

Turnovers conceded: Jones 1; Kruis 3
Tackles made: Jones 11; Kruis 16
Missed tackles: Jones 0; Kruis 3
Penalties conceded: Jones 0; Kruis 2
Offloads: Jones 1; Kruis 0.
Metres run: Jones 2; Kruis 5 - those extra 3 metres must be the 'thing' he offered.

The problem with those particular stats is that yours (and mine) for the day read
Turnovers conceded 0
Missed tackles 0
Penalties conceded 0
Metres run 0 (only 2 or 5 less)
Offloads 0 (same or only one less)

Sometimes stats show up significant differences and sometimes they don't

You've lost me! Say what now?!

The Official Lions site is showing the lineout stats as: Lineouts won: AWJ 3, Kruis 1, O'Mahony 5. What the hell was Kruis actually doing in the game? And he was calling the lineout? Just not bothering to include himself though? And AWJ was only on for 48mins. Disappointing stats from Kruis.

Griff wrote:The Official Lions site is showing the lineout stats as: Lineouts won: AWJ 3, Kruis 1, O'Mahony 5. What the hell was Kruis actually doing in the game? And he was calling the lineout? Just not bothering to include himself though? And AWJ was only on for 48mins. Disappointing stats from Kruis.

Kruis will have called and he'll obviously be heavily marked. Line out went well so he did he job. His handling was at times poor though.

Yup. Picking guys on past form just doesn't cut it. Too late now.

RiscaGame wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

RiscaGame wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:

Griff wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Griff wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Stats are a bit lop sided when one played the whole game and completely ignores non stastical impact.

How convenient. Stats seemed to be very important in the warm up games...

They matter in context but carry on with your persecution complex.

Who's being persecuted? Just fed up of lopsided reporting. People love to jump on a bandwagon. AWJ is flavour of the month and the mob is foaming at the mouth at every move he makes. Just pointing out that facts.

I didn't have an issue with AWJ being picked and felt he had a big game in him. Unfortunately he proved me wrong He's getting stick because he was picked despite previous poor form, and while Kruis wasn't much better his inclusion can be justified on previous form. For me Lawes is currently the in-form lock and pairs best with Launchbury. Oh well...
You do have a point though, others failed to play as well as we know they can, I thought Farell had a bad game by his standards especially in defence. I was gobsmacked when Teo went off and Farell went to centre
Look on the bright side, we only lost by 15 to an awesome AB side, they were technically superb and a pleasure to watch.

If Kruis didn't play well and neither did AWJ, they both didn't justify any call up. My opinion is neither played well, but AWJ was better.

I said that Kruis' inclusion prior to the game could be justified based on previous form, not that his performance during the game justified his inclusion. AFAIK Gatland doesn't have a crystal ball.

Not sure what your bold offers? Previous form could mean any period. How far back are you showing form? AWJ showed form before, so previous form is there. Form and match performances are subjective, so I'll stick by neither justified their appearance.

Yes, neither justified their inclusion based on their performance during the game, though it is a separate discussion to that which you originally quoted me. The bit where I said 'prior to the game' sort of gives it away You're also quoting me out of context, I was simply explaining why AWJ (who I expected to have a good game) was getting more flak, as his inclusion was more contentious. Prior to the game

Griff wrote:The Official Lions site is showing the lineout stats as: Lineouts won: AWJ 3, Kruis 1, O'Mahony 5. What the hell was Kruis actually doing in the game? And he was calling the lineout? Just not bothering to include himself though? And AWJ was only on for 48mins. Disappointing stats from Kruis.

If only Gatland had been watching the stats instead of the game he might have subbed Kruis instead of AWJ
Having said that, there's little point arguing over who was better/worse, they were both solidly outplayed.

Hoonercat wrote:

Griff wrote:The Official Lions site is showing the lineout stats as: Lineouts won: AWJ 3, Kruis 1, O'Mahony 5. What the hell was Kruis actually doing in the game? And he was calling the lineout? Just not bothering to include himself though? And AWJ was only on for 48mins. Disappointing stats from Kruis.

If only Gatland had been watching the stats instead of the game he might have subbed Kruis instead of AWJ
Having said that, there's little point arguing over who was better/worse, they were both solidly outplayed.

Again, I'm just responding to the point that Kruis 'offered more' than AWJ. I can't find any evidence of that. That's all I'm responding to.

Try watching the game instead then Griff, you might learn something.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Try watching the game instead then Griff, you might learn something.

Don't tell me, 'context'? Kruis was better 'contextually'? Bullschidt. As others have pointed out both were poor and both were owned by the All Black locks. If you want to believe that Kruis was awesome then you go for it. Whatever makes you sleep well.

I'm not suggesting anything of the sort but you just seem intent on defending AWJ no matter what.

Kruis played better than AWJ, not really a debate. Both the NZ locks outplayed Kruis though.....

Can anybody show me where AWJ got embarrassingly stripped in contact? It's embarrassing the level of bias on here. I won't claim it's nationality based either.

Personally, I've never been an AWJ fan. I've always slagged him off for running too upright as he used to and other things, but to make him the worst lock today shows an agenda.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Kruis played better than AWJ, not really a debate. Both the NZ locks outplayed Kruis though.....

Plenty of debate. That kind of post is tantamount to the original 606 and saying fact or end of is allegedly some
kind of debate ender.

Yeah you guys are right. Cory Hill to start with AWJ for next weeks test. Hope Gats sends Kruis packing after that, he was shocking today what a waste of a tour spot.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm not suggesting anything of the sort but you just seem intent on defending AWJ no matter what.

Where as the angry mob on here have posted nothing but AWJ-vitriol, and then get all uptight when it's pointed out to them. This evenings discussion has been hilarious to say the least.

Griff wrote:The Official Lions site is showing the lineout stats as: Lineouts won: AWJ 3, Kruis 1, O'Mahony 5. What the hell was Kruis actually doing in the game? And he was calling the lineout? Just not bothering to include himself though? And AWJ was only on for 48mins. Disappointing stats from Kruis.

It's gone quiet in here... I feel this post deserves a thread of its own.

Kruis had a stinker for sure in fact I've never seen him play as bad but I would say that was very unusual. However, AWJ had his now normal ineffective game.
Even Geechs & Ferris post test agreed Itoje should come in for AWJ.

It seems to me that only some Welsh fans are defending AWJs at all cost whereas most others can see this is a necessary change.
He looks a yard short of pace & lacks that agility/physical edge that he once had.

Even the great Graham Price says he would have started Itoje in front of AWJ.
If it was indeed a 'toss of the coin decision' it should have been best of 3.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Kruis had a stinker for sure in fact I've never seen him play as bad but I would say that was very unusual. However, AWJ had his now normal ineffective game.
Even Geechs & Ferris post test agreed Itoje should come in for AWJ.

It seems to me that only some Welsh fans are defending AWJs at all cost whereas most others can see this is a necessary change.
He looks a yard short of pace & lacks that agility/physical edge that he once had.

Even the great Graham Price says he would have started Itoje in front of AWJ.
If it was indeed a 'toss of the coin decision' it should have been best of 3.

Trev, just to be crystal clear I'm not defending AWJ at all costs. I said Gatland was a fool for picking him in the test side based on tour form up to that point. I said I would start Itoje in the first test. I would start Itoje over AWJ in the 2nd test too. But what I cannot accept is that Kruis was better than AWJ. Sgt_pooly says Kruis was much better, end of. There's just nothing to support that. That's my only point here, that Kruis had a stinker and, IMO, he stank more than AWJ. Yes its uncharacteristic for Kruis, but I'm looking at his performance in that first test only. The way to counter my argument would be to point out where Kruis was better, e.g. stats, but they all point to him making more mistakes and 'offering' less. You know, the same way the stats have been used (correctly, IMO) to show that AWJ has not had a good tour thus far. I couldn't care less if AWJ was put on a plane tomorrow and sent home, but on this occasion he was not as bad as his 2nd row partner.

Not much better, just better. If you can't see this I'm unable to help you. Happy to agree to disagree, both players can play better.

Neither Kruis nor AWJ had good games, they were both completely out played by their opposites. Would not really say one was better than the other either.

Henderson (who I feel was very lucky to tour) is starting to look to be back to his best. He and Itoje are the kind of players that would put the AB's under pressure with Lawes being deployed as an impact sub.

Fair comment Griff.

We need a much more aggressive in your face performance from the back row to. There maybe even a case for starting Lawes at 6.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Not much better, just better. If you can't see this I'm unable to help you. Happy to agree to disagree, both players can play better.

In which area was he better?

Wyn Jones was as good as he always is these days and didn't disappoint us that watch him regularly. very very average.

Alun wyn jones or jones.

Wyn should be rested for the remainder of the tour.

He can offer his leadership skills as a waterboy.

Why are you calling him wyn?

As I know it gets to you.

And it's Mr Wyn Jones to you.

The problem I saw was that the lions players were doing very uncharacteristic things.... and that comes with be next to unfamiliar players and unfamiliar systems.

Kruis at one point took the ball off a ruck on his own with no support, drove 5m into 4 kiwi's. It was utter madness., he got turnover and I think gave away a penalty on the AB 10m line which is like giving them a lineout on your 22. Yet when I think of it, its more the unfamiliarity then anything else. He would have expected players around him. He lacked awareness but also at the elite level you should expect players around you.

Furlong looked like he wasn't in sync either. I just don't think 3 games is enough.

I watched a online video of Jiffy during the 6N saying was the above problem in his era wasn't as severe because a) they had more games to prepare and b) strategy, calls and positioning were far less complex.
In that he suggested you build your team around say the best side at the time and then tweak it for improvements without losing unity and familiarity. In 93 Jonno turned up after 1 ENG cap, knew hardly any of the players and within a week he was playing in the 2nd test. You couldn't do that today.

In 2013, Gatland played 10 welshmen in his starting XV. He improved his "welsh" side with a superior flyhalf (Sexton), Loosehead (Corbisiero), lineout captain (Parling) for example. The lions looked more balanced and with played like a welsh team but say with an additional kick.

This is how I think any lions team needs to be based upon if they want to beat 3N sides at home. Would Kruis have run into no mans land  in an England jersey? Doubtful because he is comfortable with his instructions... they're embedded in his brain and he can play on instinct without have brain fades like he had in that one moment.

The problem with this strategy is that its not seen as fair as certain players could be deemed superior individually.
Farrell hasn't played as a test 10 for 12 months and say what we want about club rugby.... there is a big difference when at sarries he has a monster pack in from of him who dominate everyone compared to at test level where his forwards may gain parity/a slight edge.
EJ tried him at 10 in AUS 1st test 2016 for 30 mins before bringing back Ford because it wasn't running smoothly... it was brutal but it probably was the diff between winning the series. When Sexton came on it wasn't like Eureka and the backline clicked but its why I think Ford should have traveled on tour... those 2 together are greater than the sum of their parts (albeit defensively its a nightmare into what you do with Ford).

Its too late anyhow but I have to say Gatland has stuffed the tour and saying... oh we stuffed up this chance and knocked the ball on here etc is ridiculous. It was raining hard, of course you're going to drop balls, of course you'll concede turnovers (you're facing the best ruck operators in the game), you'll give away penalties (against the team with the best recycle and line speed)... if they didn't concede these the score would have been 50-5. Its just unrealistic to expect such perfection as a fundamental key to victory. You may win the odd game in 10... but never 2 in 3. There has to be another route to victory.

You think it gets to me that you're wrong? At least you are wumming and not a complete moron!

Only a fool reacts.

Alan's race is run, might as well book his flight home.

Nah I prefer to just call people out as idiots. You still enjoying pretending to be on holiday?

Might as well book Danny Bigger, Lee Halfpennie and Sammy Warmburton on it too.

All average players like Wyn-Jones.

Maybe it's possibly to be a moron and a wum?

Gatland pulls it off well.

As does Wyn pretending to be a top class international.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Maybe it's possibly to be a moron and a wum?

As man who often speaks out and engages in double standards 7.5, I find it ironic that Gwlad can get a ban (I assume) and HERSH is still here ruining the site. Can you agree with that?

Damn right.

ssssssssssnnnnnnnooooooorrrrrrrreeeeeee

When have you two ever made a decent opinion or view on a game?

Just so negative and wouldn't be missed from this forum, I doubt you ever played a game of rugby or ever been involved with a club.

SCW would describe you both as Negs.

Gwlad was just rude and nasty with it.

A line out leader does not have to catch all the throws himself, it makes complete sense to use himself as a decoy and have secondary options taking easy catches while he's being marked.

Matfield was a master at it, just look at how many catches the likes of Juan Smith used to make when the SA lineout was at its peak.

The lineout was arguably the only area where we were on top, we pinched a couple of theirs are crucial times, although they obviously did the same late on when we were in their 22

Criticising Kruis for catching less line outs is just . He might not have had the best game in the loose, but can't be faulted in this area

The moderating on this section of the forum needs some serious attention.

BamBam wrote:A line out leader does not have to catch all the throws himself, it makes complete sense to use himself as a decoy and have secondary options taking easy catches while he's being marked.

Matfield was a master at it, just look at how many catches the likes of Juan Smith used to make when the SA lineout was at its peak.

The lineout was arguably the only area where we were on top, we pinched a couple of theirs are crucial times, although they obviously did the same late on when we were in their 22

Criticising Kruis for catching less line outs is just . He might not have had the best game in the loose, but can't be faulted in this area

And yet others have called out AWJ for 'not running the lineout as well as Kruis'. You can't have two players running it