Hurricanes vs Lions, 27th June 2017

First topic message reminder :


Hurricanes v British & Irish Lions
Venue: Westpac Stadium, Wellington
Date: Tuesday, 27 June.
Kick off: 08:35 BST
Live on: Sky Sports 1, from 8am

Lions



1. Joe Marler (ENG)
2. Rory Best (IRE) (Captain)
3. Dan Cole (ENG)
4. Courtney Lawes (ENG)
5. Iain Henderson (IRE)
6. James Haskell (ENG)
7. Justin Tipuric (WAL)
8. CJ Stander (IRE)
9. Greig Laidlaw (SCO)
10. Dan Biggar (WAL)
11. George North (WAL)
12. Robbie Henshaw (IRE)
13. Jonathan Joseph (ENG)
14. Tommy Seymour (SCO)
15. Jack Nowell    (ENG)

16. Kristian Dacey (WAL)
17. Allan Dell (SCO)
18. Tomas Francis (WAL)
19. Cory Hill (WAL)
20. George Kruis (ENG)
21. Gareth Davies (WAL)
22. Finn Russell (SCO)
23. Jared Payne (IRE)

Hurricanes



1. Ben May
2. Ricky Riccitelli
3. Jeffery Toomaga-Allen
4. Mark Abbott
5. Mark Lousi
6. Vaea Fifita
7. Callum Gibbins
8. Brad Shields (Captain)
9. Te Toiroa-Tahuriorangi
10. Otere Black
11. Julian Savea
12. Ngani Laumape
13. Vince Aso
14. Nehe Milner-Skudder
15. Jordie Barrett

16. Leni Apisai
17. Chris Eves
18. Mike Kainga
19. Janes Blackwell
20. Reed Prinsep
21. K Hauiti-Parapara
22. Wes Goosen
23. Cory Jane

Seriously watch the last match and Biggar again. He was poor.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Seriously watch the last match and Biggar again. He was poor.

I don't need to. He was not poor. In fact, after his last match, people were saying he might have put his hand up for selection on Saturday.

So you were happy with the pass to the ground. Grubber out on full. High swinging arm. Knock on. What impressed you? Please give some examples rather than what I anticipate you saying which is getting the backs moving which means nothing.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you were happy with the pass to the ground. Grubber out on full. High swinging arm. Knock on. What impressed you? Please give some examples rather than what I anticipate you saying which is getting the backs moving which means nothing.

Why would the fact that he actually got the backs moving mean nothing ? No other flyhalf has done this yet. What a strange thing to say. Also, he is not leaving points on the field either when they are gimmes in front of the posts. Of the three players in his position out in New Zealand who have been playing, he has been the best.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you were happy with the pass to the ground. Grubber out on full. High swinging arm. Knock on. What impressed you? Please give some examples rather than what I anticipate you saying which is getting the backs moving which means nothing.

Why would the fact that he actually got the backs moving mean nothing ? No other flyhalf has done this yet. What a strange thing to say. Also, he is not leaving points on the field either when they are gimmes in front of the posts. Of the three players in his position out in New Zealand who have been playing, he has been the best.

He means it's a cliched phrase rather than a specific example of something he did well.

Scottrf wrote:He means it's a cliched phrase rather than a specific example of something he did well.

So we cannot use something he did well as an example because it is cliched ? The other players in this position have not even looked like they are going to get the backs moving. Perhaps if Dan Biggar was born on the eastern side of the Severn then nothing would be cliched about him.

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:He means it's a cliched phrase rather than a specific example of something he did well.

So we cannot use something he did well as an example because it is cliched ? The other players in this position have not even looked like they are going to get the backs moving. Perhaps if Dan Biggar was born on the eastern side of the Severn then nothing would be cliched about him.

It's just not a objective contribution, more of a subjective feeling. It's like saying a forward put in a shift. Doesn't mean anything.

Scottrf wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:He means it's a cliched phrase rather than a specific example of something he did well.

So we cannot use something he did well as an example because it is cliched ? The other players in this position have not even looked like they are going to get the backs moving. Perhaps if Dan Biggar was born on the eastern side of the Severn then nothing would be cliched about him.

It's just not a objective contribution, more of a subjective feeling. It's like saying a forward put in a shift. Doesn't mean anything.

Unseen work.

Scottrf wrote:It's just not a objective contribution, more of a subjective feeling. It's like saying a forward put in a shift. Doesn't mean anything.

i just think you are being selective in your praise for players, the forwards putting in a shift comment is not privvy to the forwards, I have heard that being said for players in numerous positions, wingers to be more precise. Is another cliched saying, when a winger goes looking for work ?

Because you are just dismissing the facts that a player will put X amount more into a game than the person next to him.

The fact that Biggar has got the players outside him into the game a lot more than others in his position is not cliched. It is a fact. He has been better than both Farrell and Sexton on this tour, and that is not something I thought I would be saying a month or two ago.

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:It's just not a objective contribution, more of a subjective feeling. It's like saying a forward put in a shift. Doesn't mean anything.

i just think you are being selective in your praise for players, the forwards putting in a shift comment is not privvy to the forwards, I have heard that being said for players in numerous positions, wingers to be more precise. Is another cliched saying, when a winger goes looking for work ?

Because you are just dismissing the facts that a player will put X amount more into a game than the person next to him.

The fact that Biggar has got the players outside him into the game a lot more than others in his position is not cliched. It is a fact. He has been better than both Farrell and Sexton on this tour, and that is not something I thought I would be saying a month or two ago.

Biggar has been playing the poorer opposition. I am not dismissing him. I agree he has looked good but you cannot compare players when the standard of opposition is different.

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:It's just not a objective contribution, more of a subjective feeling. It's like saying a forward put in a shift. Doesn't mean anything.

i just think you are being selective in your praise for players, the forwards putting in a shift comment is not privvy to the forwards, I have heard that being said for players in numerous positions, wingers to be more precise. Is another cliched saying, when a winger goes looking for work ?

Because you are just dismissing the facts that a player will put X amount more into a game than the person next to him.

The fact that Biggar has got the players outside him into the game a lot more than others in his position is not cliched. It is a fact. He has been better than both Farrell and Sexton on this tour, and that is not something I thought I would be saying a month or two ago.

He asked for actual examples, like plays in the game. He had a good line and offload in the lead up to a try. You could have used that, or admitted you didn't have any rather than pretend a phrase is a specific example.

I think many a coach, but not Gatland, would say to Biggar, "You've got 40 minutes tomorrow to earn a test place." Then say the same to Russell.

If he's lucky one of them will give him a selection problem.

However, as SCW has said it's not the personnel it's the gameplan. Gats won't change the way his teams play, so he might make one or two line up changes (fecc it he could make fourteen or fifteen) but the team will still play the same way. I think Russell is the form 10 in the NH at the moment. Gats knows Russell would be a waste of time in his team.

An interesting comparison would be with McGeechan/Telfer's Lions in SA. They had a choice of a reliable, steady, metronomic kicking 10 in Neil Jenkins or a loose cannon, mercurial 10 in Gregor Townsend. They knew they couldn't win unless they played fast, dynamic, attacking rugby, so they picked Townsend but gambled on Jenkins at 15. Gatland knows the Lions won't win unless they have lots of attacking creativity but insists on excluding Ford and Russell.

McGeechan & Telfer lived by the credo that no Test places were settled until the week of the first test.
Gatland's fifteen for the Crusaders match

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

Apart from Hogg being injured and North going AWOL, in terms of his form, that is exactly the XV that started against the AB's. This suggests to me that he pretty much had his team picked before they left Blighty. It doesn't matter who starts on Saturday we will see more of the same...and pretty much the same result.

Exiledinborders wrote:Biggar has been playing the poorer opposition. I am not dismissing him. I agree he has looked good but you cannot compare players when the standard of opposition is different.

That is something to consider I suppose. But the franchises in New Zealand are hardly poor sides.

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:It's just not a objective contribution, more of a subjective feeling. It's like saying a forward put in a shift. Doesn't mean anything.

i just think you are being selective in your praise for players, the forwards putting in a shift comment is not privvy to the forwards, I have heard that being said for players in numerous positions, wingers to be more precise. Is another cliched saying, when a winger goes looking for work ?

Because you are just dismissing the facts that a player will put X amount more into a game than the person next to him.

The fact that Biggar has got the players outside him into the game a lot more than others in his position is not cliched. It is a fact. He has been better than both Farrell and Sexton on this tour, and that is not something I thought I would be saying a month or two ago.

Yes.

The worst cliche is when paid pundits say a player has "X-factor", which literally means an indescribable quality. You're paid to comment on rugby, if you can't describe what makes a player good, you're obviously not very good at your job.

I would expect the entire tempo of the 2nd test to be different purely from having a French ref in charge, for me most French officials let far less go than others, whether this will even the penalty count, keep the teams honest, or result in an even more one sided game is yet to be seen.

For the Lions to have a chance though Gatland has to make some changes in the pack, personally I would like to see Lawes have a strong 1st half tomorrow and come off early to then start the test alongside Itoje, other than that I hope he keeps the rest of the squad pretty much as it was last week.
Last Saturday we looked very nervous at the start but settled as the game went on, I'd like to think we can build on that, plus the self belief that Courtney Lawes at his best can bring should close the gap. Here's hoping anyway.

An example if how he got the backs involved more than the others and why then. For me watching him closely he did nothing of note that was good you seem to want to overlook his mistakes as well.

robbo277 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:It's just not a objective contribution, more of a subjective feeling. It's like saying a forward put in a shift. Doesn't mean anything.

i just think you are being selective in your praise for players, the forwards putting in a shift comment is not privvy to the forwards, I have heard that being said for players in numerous positions, wingers to be more precise. Is another cliched saying, when a winger goes looking for work ?

Because you are just dismissing the facts that a player will put X amount more into a game than the person next to him.

The fact that Biggar has got the players outside him into the game a lot more than others in his position is not cliched. It is a fact. He has been better than both Farrell and Sexton on this tour, and that is not something I thought I would be saying a month or two ago.

Yes.

The worst cliche is when paid pundits say a player has "X-factor", which literally means an indescribable quality. You're paid to comment on rugby, if you can't describe what makes a player good, you're obviously not very good at your job.

But when a player puts a shift in, it's an observation, and an observation that he has had a decent game, no matter how cliched the phrase sounds. Did the winger go looking for work or not ? Does the flyhalf get the backs moving or not ? No matter how cliched it sounds, dismissing it because of it is a weak argument.

The players are either doing something good, or they are not. You cannot dismiss it because you think it sounds cliched. Biggar has got the backs into the game more than any other player in his position. That is a fact. Now as has been mentioned, perhaps the teams he is playing against might not be as good, but I do not buy into that.

It's not a fact it's your opinion. How did he do that. What did he do differently.

TightHEAD wrote:Which of these players could now force their way into the Test team?

Lawes and Hendorson are shooting out for a place on the bench.

Kruis is dropped from the 23, AWJ and Itoje to start in the second row.

LordDowlais wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:It's just not a objective contribution, more of a subjective feeling. It's like saying a forward put in a shift. Doesn't mean anything.

i just think you are being selective in your praise for players, the forwards putting in a shift comment is not privvy to the forwards, I have heard that being said for players in numerous positions, wingers to be more precise. Is another cliched saying, when a winger goes looking for work ?

Because you are just dismissing the facts that a player will put X amount more into a game than the person next to him.

The fact that Biggar has got the players outside him into the game a lot more than others in his position is not cliched. It is a fact. He has been better than both Farrell and Sexton on this tour, and that is not something I thought I would be saying a month or two ago.

Yes.

The worst cliche is when paid pundits say a player has "X-factor", which literally means an indescribable quality. You're paid to comment on rugby, if you can't describe what makes a player good, you're obviously not very good at your job.

But when a player puts a shift in, it's an observation, and an observation that he has had a decent game, no matter how cliched the phrase sounds. Did the winger go looking for work or not ? Does the flyhalf get the backs moving or not ? No matter how cliched it sounds, dismissing it because of it is a weak argument.

The players are either doing something good, or they are not. You cannot dismiss it because you think it sounds cliched. Biggar has got the backs into the game more than any other player in his position. That is a fact. Now as has been mentioned, perhaps the teams he is playing against might not be as good, but I do not buy into that.

Did Biggar play close to the gain line? Can you point to any examples when Biggar did and players outside him directly benefitted by making a break?

Did Biggar make any breaks himself? Did he therefore interest defenders and create more space for those outside him? Can you point to any examples of Biggar doing this?

Did Biggar station himself at second receiver outside a link player on occasion so he could release the outside backs? Can you point to any examples of Biggar doing this?

There are many ways to "get the backs moving". I didn't see the game last Tuesday, so I don't know what he did.

In the same way, does a winger "looking for work" appear off the 10's shoulder on first phase and carry into traffic or track his centres so he can take an offload at best or at worst hit a ruck and ensure clear ball?

In the same way, does a forward "putting a shift in" carry lots, tackle lots or hit a lot of rucks. Or was it a combination of the 3?

Biggar has got the backs into the game more than any other player in his position. That is a fact.

So if it is a fact, it can be backed up by statistics? So did numbers 11-15 get more touches on the ball than outside any other 10? Can we demonstrate that Biggar was directly responsible? If not, it's not a fact.

If you think Biggar was the best 10, that's fine, you're allowed to think that. But you have got to define what "got the backs into the game" means and explain how Biggar did this if you want people to get on board with your opinion.

The Chiefs side that Biggar played was a shadow of their full team, I posted the players missing on the match thread

With the quality of the ball we got that game, you'd expect any international 10 to look good, Biggar looked average

Just hope that the 3 Glasgow players on the park don't get injured.

George Carlin wrote:Just hope that the 3 Glasgow players on the park don't get injured.

George, Tommy is marking Julian Savea only joking

robbo277 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:It's just not a objective contribution, more of a subjective feeling. It's like saying a forward put in a shift. Doesn't mean anything.

i just think you are being selective in your praise for players, the forwards putting in a shift comment is not privvy to the forwards, I have heard that being said for players in numerous positions, wingers to be more precise. Is another cliched saying, when a winger goes looking for work ?

Because you are just dismissing the facts that a player will put X amount more into a game than the person next to him.

The fact that Biggar has got the players outside him into the game a lot more than others in his position is not cliched. It is a fact. He has been better than both Farrell and Sexton on this tour, and that is not something I thought I would be saying a month or two ago.

Yes.

The worst cliche is when paid pundits say a player has "X-factor", which literally means an indescribable quality. You're paid to comment on rugby, if you can't describe what makes a player good, you're obviously not very good at your job.

But when a player puts a shift in, it's an observation, and an observation that he has had a decent game, no matter how cliched the phrase sounds. Did the winger go looking for work or not ? Does the flyhalf get the backs moving or not ? No matter how cliched it sounds, dismissing it because of it is a weak argument.

The players are either doing something good, or they are not. You cannot dismiss it because you think it sounds cliched. Biggar has got the backs into the game more than any other player in his position. That is a fact. Now as has been mentioned, perhaps the teams he is playing against might not be as good, but I do not buy into that.

Did Biggar play close to the gain line? Can you point to any examples when Biggar did and players outside him directly benefitted by making a break?

Did Biggar make any breaks himself? Did he therefore interest defenders and create more space for those outside him? Can you point to any examples of Biggar doing this?

Did Biggar station himself at second receiver outside a link player on occasion so he could release the outside backs? Can you point to any examples of Biggar doing this?

There are many ways to "get the backs moving". I didn't see the game last Tuesday, so I don't know what he did.

In the same way, does a winger "looking for work" appear off the 10's shoulder on first phase and carry into traffic or track his centres so he can take an offload at best or at worst hit a ruck and ensure clear ball?

In the same way, does a forward "putting a shift in" carry lots, tackle lots or hit a lot of rucks. Or was it a combination of the 3?

Biggar has got the backs into the game more than any other player in his position. That is a fact.

So if it is a fact, it can be backed up by statistics? So did numbers 11-15 get more touches on the ball than outside any other 10? Can we demonstrate that Biggar was directly responsible? If not, it's not a fact.

If you think Biggar was the best 10, that's fine, you're allowed to think that. But you have got to define what "got the backs into the game" means and explain how Biggar did this if you want people to get on board with your opinion.

The 42 Player ratings had Bigger as
Dan Biggar: 6
Overall, a decent night for the Welshman despite the odd poor pass and lucky escape from the sin-bin for a high shot. Made his mark on Stephen Donald and kicked his goals with no fuss.

Huge Canes scrum there. Right over the top of the Lions. And, somehow, Poite gives the Lions a penalty??

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:Huge Canes scrum there. Right over the top of the Lions. And, somehow, Poite gives the Lions a penalty??

pen was after the turn over, for diving in i think. trying to sneakily watch it in work. was lucky not to give away the pen at the scrum though

compelling and rich wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:Huge Canes scrum there. Right over the top of the Lions. And, somehow, Poite gives the Lions a penalty??

pen was after the turn over, for diving in i think. trying to sneakily watch it in work. was lucky not to give away the pen at the scrum though

LH boring in apparently. Given that I'd have been shocked if that Canes pack pushed the Lions around probably legit


Apparently Payne was replaced by 1/2P on the bench due to a headache

Kingshu wrote:

The 42 Player ratings had Bigger as
Dan Biggar: 6
Overall, a decent night for the Welshman despite the odd poor pass and lucky escape from the sin-bin for a high shot. Made his mark on Stephen Donald and kicked his goals with no fuss.

Where is this from Kingshu? I looked up Biggar's player ratings yesterday out of interest and could find nothing less than 7 (even NZ media gave him a 7.5)!

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:Huge Canes scrum there. Right over the top of the Lions. And, somehow, Poite gives the Lions a penalty??

pen was after the turn over, for diving in i think. trying to sneakily watch it in work. was lucky not to give away the pen at the scrum though

LH boring in apparently. Given that I'd have been shocked if that Canes pack pushed the Lions around probably legit


Apparently Payne was replaced by 1/2P on the bench due to a headache

That old chestnut! Trying to sneak his way onto the test bench! Good skills.

In the previous warm up match I thought Biggar did indeed play well and got the outside backs involved better than the others have- however its much easier against weaker opposition.

None of the tens have covered themselves in glory.

Griff wrote:

Kingshu wrote:

The 42 Player ratings had Bigger as
Dan Biggar: 6
Overall, a decent night for the Welshman despite the odd poor pass and lucky escape from the sin-bin for a high shot. Made his mark on Stephen Donald and kicked his goals with no fuss.

Where is this from Kingshu?  I looked up Biggar's player ratings yesterday out of interest and could find nothing less than 7 (even NZ media gave him a 7.5)!

Presume it was 42.ie

Canes have been to the Biggar school of handwaving-when-penalised

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Griff wrote:

Kingshu wrote:

The 42 Player ratings had Bigger as
Dan Biggar: 6
Overall, a decent night for the Welshman despite the odd poor pass and lucky escape from the sin-bin for a high shot. Made his mark on Stephen Donald and kicked his goals with no fuss.

Where is this from Kingshu?  I looked up Biggar's player ratings yesterday out of interest and could find nothing less than 7 (even NZ media gave him a 7.5)!

Presume it was 42.ie

Thanks Pete. I hadn't heard of that site before. Cheers.

Try made in Scotland!

one for the scots there, great try. although laidlaw looked like a prop running against savea there

Griff wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Griff wrote:

Kingshu wrote:

The 42 Player ratings had Bigger as
Dan Biggar: 6
Overall, a decent night for the Welshman despite the odd poor pass and lucky escape from the sin-bin for a high shot. Made his mark on Stephen Donald and kicked his goals with no fuss.

Where is this from Kingshu?  I looked up Biggar's player ratings yesterday out of interest and could find nothing less than 7 (even NZ media gave him a 7.5)!

Presume it was 42.ie

Thanks Pete.  I hadn't heard of that site before.  Cheers.

They have quite a bit of good analysis, well worth a look

I'm truly amazed at anyone rating that performance from Biggar. I've seen him play miles better. Passing and kicking from hand iffy. High swinging arm tackle where it was lucky the other guy slipped. Its never even an average performance from him as he can be miles better.

Good try, well done Tommy Seymour!

compelling and rich wrote:one for the scots there, great try. although laidlaw looked like a prop running against savea there

He is around 3ft 2 - his legs can only move so fast!

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm truly amazed at anyone rating that performance from Biggar.  I've seen him play miles better. Passing and kicking from hand iffy. High swinging arm tackle where it was lucky the other guy slipped. Its never even an average performance from him as he can be miles better.

I didn't see it, 7.5. Was in work. I'm just going on the ratings from the NZ media, Telegraph, Independent, etc. Just from a Google search.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:Huge Canes scrum there. Right over the top of the Lions. And, somehow, Poite gives the Lions a penalty??

Not watching the game (at work) so can't comment on the incident. But I dislike the general belief that you can only penalise the team moving backwards, because they're being dominated and are likely to cheat.

I think the referee should always be looking to penalise the team going forward first. If the referee did that, it would negate any potential advantage of cheating in the scrum, and would hopefully clean them right up.

Poite allowing a bit of offside in the Lions' rush defence. Gats will be taking notes for the 3rd test.

As will Hansen no doubt

When will folk realise that its no coincidence the scots players make and score a lot from interceptions.  They play for them!

Its a high risk high reward tactic but its one scotland and Glasgow have been using for a cfew years

robbo277 wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:Huge Canes scrum there. Right over the top of the Lions. And, somehow, Poite gives the Lions a penalty??

Not watching the game (at work) so can't comment on the incident. But I dislike the general belief that you can only penalise the team moving backwards, because they're being dominated and are likely to cheat.

I think the referee should always be looking to penalise the team going forward first. If the referee did that, it would negate any potential advantage of cheating in the scrum, and would hopefully clean them right up.

See my follow up comment

I'm at work too, so have a really tiny box in corner of screen up

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:Poite allowing a bit of offside in the Lions' rush defence. Gats will be taking notes for the 3rd test.

As will Hansen no doubt

You cant complain, SH refs clearly give NZ the rub of the green too.

I think its fair to say that on this tour apart from the Blues try the Lions are scoring the better tries.

I liked how when there was a bit of argy bargy they played "all you need is love" over the Tanoy. Nice touch.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:Poite allowing a bit of offside in the Lions' rush defence. Gats will be taking notes for the 3rd test.

As will Hansen no doubt

You cant complain, SH refs clearly give NZ the rub of the green too.

Not complaining. Just noting the stylistic differences

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

compelling and rich wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:Huge Canes scrum there. Right over the top of the Lions. And, somehow, Poite gives the Lions a penalty??

pen was after the turn over, for diving in i think. trying to sneakily watch it in work. was lucky not to give away the pen at the scrum though

LH boring in apparently. Given that I'd have been shocked if that Canes pack pushed the Lions around probably legit

It was a blatant penalty, I was shocked it was given since its been missed throughout the tour

Poite clearly obstructed the Lions defence for the Canes try, Stander had to push him out of the way before making a tackle

The French refs are some of the worst for getting in the way of play

hurricanes cant be happy be the trys they have given away, very soft.