All Blacks 3 - 4 Lions... (after 2 tests)

.... that's Trys of course...

Who would have put money on that

No9 wrote:.... that's Trys of course...

Who would have put money on that

Yeah but last week's tries just don't count because the first was unpredictable and not a Lions type try (only New Zealand can score those type of tries) and the 2nd was just a consolation. Obviously this week both tries were only scored because they were down to 14 men. Especially the one where Dagg missed a soft tackle and Murray sniped the fringes.

There's enjoying a win then obnoxious boasting about scraping past a 14 man side...

Scottrf wrote:There's enjoying a win then obnoxious boasting about scraping past a 14 man side...

.... Was only a bit of banter..... Since the Lions equalised the series, all sense of fun has evaporated on this forum.

No 9 - Kiwis are renowned for their lack of a sense of humour. Apparently when you say the word 'fun' they actually hear it as 'fume'...

No9 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:There's enjoying a win then obnoxious boasting about scraping past a 14 man side...

.... Was only a bit of banter..... Since the Lions equalised the series, all sense of fun has evaporated on this forum.

There's accepting defeat graciously and not whining about refs/food poisoning/spear tackling someone/ the weather/kicking too much...and there's New Zealand.

Great country. With the ABs, the auld mug, Middle earth, and a huge dollop of humility, heaven on earth.

Must try harder

[quote="Gwlad"]

No9 wrote: Obviously this week both tries were only scored because they were down to 14 men.

One of the tries was scored while it was 14 v 14

Scarpia wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

No9 wrote: Obviously this week both tries were only scored because they were down to 14 men.  

One of the tries was scored while it was 14 v 14

good point but nevertheless there must be a reason that they had an advantage of the NZ team, can't just be because they played better.

Scarpia wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

No9 wrote: Obviously this week both tries were only scored because they were down to 14 men.  

One of the tries was scored while it was 14 v 14

Yes 14/14 except the ABs had spent 30 minutes with 14 before that so the two don't compare.

You think it's suddenly all evens during that 14/14 period? Nah. One sides been working harder for half an hour.

If the Lions had a man off for the same thirty then 14/14 at that point would compare, but the match would look very different by then.

Kind of obvious really.

Taylorman wrote:

Scarpia wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

No9 wrote: Obviously this week both tries were only scored because they were down to 14 men.  

One of the tries was scored while it was 14 v 14

Yes 14/14 except the ABs had spent 30 minutes with 14 before that so the two don't compare.

You think it's suddenly all evens during that 14/14 period? Nah. One sides been working harder for half an hour.

If the Lions had a man off for the same thirty then 14/14 at that point would compare, but the match would look very different by then.

Kind of obvious really.

I don't think it is kind of obvious. The weather, and the Lions indiscipline negate much of the effect of the red card IMO.

the ball was in play for a really low 26 mins. Now I don't have the breakdown, but assuming it was equal (although it's likely to have been more for the first 25 mins given everyone was fresh and it was 15 v 15) that means the ball was in play for 18 mins in the time NZ were reduced to 14, roughly a 1/3 of the time. Or to put it another way, for every minute of play, the players got 2 minutes rest.

Now NZ did a much better job of playing the conditions and had more possession and territory. More importantly NZ were asked to make 67 tackles whereas the Lions were tasked with 122. Now the logic we are used to hearing is it's more draining to defend than it is to attack. The game just wasn't played at a breakneck speed (why would it be, it was honking it down) and NZ did really well to control the pace of the game and keep it nice and slow. The Lions indiscipline stopped them applying any sort of concerted pressure on NZ and as such, gave NZ a far easier ride than they might have expected. Another little nuance to this in terms of sheer effort expended is the use of the benches. Hansen emptied his, while Gatland had players that played 10 (HIA), 0, 0, 0, and 0 minutes left on his. To come back to the 14v14 period, the ball would have been in play for 10 minutes leading up to that period, with half time punctuating that period giving us 15 mins on the clock either side. So NZ had to deal with 5 mins of ball in play time before the 14v14 period.

Also, as an aside, I read something that surprised me greatly. Looking at test matches involving a tier one nation and top level club competition over the last 2 years, the side that has had a man sent off wins more often than not.

https://topofthemoongw.wordpress.com/2017/07/02/did-steve-hansen-make-a-mistake-in-taking-off-jerome-kaino/

Now obviously there are different ways of interpreting the data so it's not clear cut. Although even then, for every player sent off after 70 mins when the game is secured there is an Elliot Daly who went off after 5 minutes and England still went on to win. Above all though, there's one overriding thing that is clear cut, a man advantage does not automatically mean a win.

Lions fans would be a bit daft to get too excited about the performance on Saturday (after all we didn't play very well for large swathes, but there were some bright spots). There is one inescapable truth, the series is level. Can't see how anyone would begrudge a Lions fan being excited about that.

Equally though, if you're a NZ fan, it'd be folly to hide behind the red card and say "yeah but...". It's far from that straightforward in my eyes and I'd be concerned about the things NZ did poorly, and things they failed to stop the Lions from doing.

Taylorman wrote:

Scarpia wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

No9 wrote: Obviously this week both tries were only scored because they were down to 14 men.  

One of the tries was scored while it was 14 v 14

Yes 14/14 except the ABs had spent 30 minutes with 14 before that so the two don't compare.

You think it's suddenly all evens during that 14/14 period? Nah. One sides been working harder for half an hour.

If the Lions had a man off for the same thirty then 14/14 at that point would compare, but the match would look very different by then.

Kind of obvious really.

The Lions haven't played together as a team for the years their opponents have so they started at a massive disadvantage - kind of obvious really