South Africa v British & Irish Lions, 24 July

First topic message reminder :

                                  
SOUTH AFRICA v BRITISH & IRISH LIONS
Saturday 24 July
KO: 18:00 SAST / 17:00 UK / 20:00 Dubai  
Cape Town Stadium (Newlands), Cape Town
Sky Sports Main Event

Referee: Nic Berry (Australia)
Assistant Referees: Ben O’Keeffe, Mathieu Raynal
TMO: Marius Bloody Jonker of all people

TEAMS:

SOUTH AFRICA:
15 – Willie le Roux (Toyota Verblitz) – 62 caps, 60 pts (12t)
14 – Cheslin Kolbe (Toulouse) – 14 caps, 40 pts (8t)
13 – Lukhanyo Am (Cell C Sharks) – 15 caps, 15 pts (3t)
12 – Damian de Allende (Munster) – 47 caps, 30 pts (6t)
11 – Makazole Mapimpi (Cell C Sharks) – 14 caps, 70 pts (14t)
10 – Handré Pollard (vice-captain – Montpellier) – 49 caps, 465pts (6t, 78c, 89p, 4d)
09 – Faf de Klerk (Sale Sharks) – 30 caps, 20 pts (4t)

08 – Kwagga Smith (Yamaha Júbilo) – 7 caps, 5 pts (1t)
07 – Pieter-Steph du Toit (DHL Stormers) – 56 caps, 25 pts (5t)
06 – Siya Kolisi (captain – Cell C Sharks) – 51 caps, 30 pts (6t)
05 – Franco Mostert (Honda Heat) – 40 caps, 5pts (1t)
04 – Eben Etzebeth (Toulon) – 86 caps, 15 pts (3t)
03 – Trevor Nyakane (Vodacom Bulls) – 43 caps, 5 pts (1t)
02 – Bongi Mbonambi (DHL Stormers) – 37 caps, 40 pts (8t)
01 – Ox Nché (Cell C Sharks) – 2 caps, 0 pts

16 – Malcolm Marx (Kubota Spears) – 34 caps, 30 pts (6t)
17 – Steven Kitshoff (DHL Stormers) – 48 caps, 5pts (1t)
18 – Frans Malherbe (DHL Stormers) – 39 caps, 5pts (1t)
19 – Lood de Jager (Sale Sharks) – 45 caps, 25 pts (5t)
20 – Rynhardt Elstadt (Toulouse) – 2 caps, 0 pts
21 – Herschel Jantjies (DHL Stormers) – 11 caps, 25 pts (5t)
22 – Elton Jantjies (Pau) – 38 caps, 283 pts (2t, 63c, 49p)
23 – Damian Willemse (DHL Stormers) – 7 caps, 5pts (1t)

BRITISH & IRISH LIONS:
15. Stuart Hogg (Exeter, Scotland) #783
14. Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby, England) #816
13. Elliot Daly (Saracens, England) #822
12. Robbie Henshaw (Leinster Rugby, Ireland) #824
11. Duhan van der Merwe (Worcester Warriors, Scotland) #841
10. Dan Biggar (Northampton Saints, Wales) #821
09. Ali Price (Glasgow Warriors, Scotland) #843

01. Rory Sutherland (Worcester, Scotland) #840
02. Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter, England) #851
03. Tadhg Furlong (Leinster Rugby, Ireland) #818
04. Maro Itoje (Saracens, England) #825
05. Alun Wyn Jones (C) (Ospreys, Wales) #761
06. Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, England) #826
07. Tom Curry (Sale Sharks, England) #853
08. Jack Conan (Leinster Rugby, Ireland) #839

16. Ken Owens (Scarlets, Wales) #829
17. Mako Vunipola (Saracens, England) #787
18. Kyle Sinckler (Bristol Bears, England) #814
19. Tadhg Beirne (Munster Rugby, Ireland) #838
20. Hamish Watson (Edinburgh Rugby, Scotland) #847
21. Conor Murray (Munster Rugby, Ireland) #790
22. Owen Farrell (Saracens, England) #780
23. Liam Williams (Scarlets, Wales) #833

PREVIEW:

There was no attempt to wrap the left arm at all while the attempted wrap of the right arm comes after the initial contact.

king_carlos wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Thats the players, the ref I thought bottled two massive calls at the start of the game, the no arms tackle and shoulder to Daleys chin, and Hogg being taken out in the air, I thought they were reds all day long, and I think those two instances impacted on the performance of the two players for the rest of the game.

Am did the classic Farrell of leading with the shoulder and then making a non attempt at wrapping the arm.

Absolute nonsense.

I agree with Old Man. Am's arms are up when he makes the hit. When Farrell has made no arm tackles in the past his arm is facing backwards towards the post when he makes contact. Similar to a lot of the no arms chop tackles that Exeter players make when they just dive at a players ankles with their leading arm pointing backwards.

Both of Am's arms are up, the right arm immediately wraps around Daly's torso, the left arm tries to wrap around the hips but can't as Daly goes flying. A brilliant tackle.

As for it being high, the initial contact is actually with the ball then Am makes contact with Daly's chest. The force of the impact means that Daly's head flies forward due to whiplash and his nose might graze Am's shoulder but at no point does Am ride up and it's not dangerous.

Just a brilliantly timed and executed tackle.

Thank you king carlos, this is the type of comment that perpetuates the idea that any tackle where the ball carrier is flattedned must be illegal, which then calls for cards and bans and wah wah. wah.

Lets get back to appreciating rugby is a contact sport.

Yeah I thought the Am tackle was fine.

Regarding the comments above on reds etc there is a line though of what we believe the laws should be vs what the laws actually are as well though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah I thought the Am tackle was fine.

Regarding the comments above on reds etc there is a line though of what we believe the laws should be vs what the laws actually are as well though.

Yes unfortunately.

Old Man wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Yes I agree, but to the letter of the law both incidents were pens at least, and contact to the head, with the shoulder is a red, as is taking people out in the air.

To balance it out, Hamish Watson should have seen red as well in my opinion, we want consistency, we want fair play.

A lot of dangerous incidents were let go yesterday, we wouldn't be saying what you are saying if any of the players in question were seriously injured as a result of the tackles would we ?

Like I said, nothing in that match warranted a red. Watson was saved a yellow because the ball under Le Roux prevented him from landing on his neck or head. But it was never a red card.

Players get injured, for me to call red it has to be blatant foul play, regardless of whether the other player is injured.

It's reckless play that causes these injuries, we need to eradicate it. You see it differently from me, fair enough.

There is no need for us to fall out over it.

I think I'll have to disagree with you there, your maj.
Immediately prior to contact Am's left arm is parallel to his side, his fingers are all pointing at the ground. His right arm could be described as being at 90 degrees to his body. He leads with his left shoulder into Daly's chest then after the contact throws his right arm behind Daly. It was as clear an example of letting your opposite number know you're there and he's in for a long day as you'll see. I thought it deserved a yellow but there was no clear contact with the head so not a red.
Also, Hogg was clearly taken out in the air, but the mitigation could be that the Bok player had jumped for the ball. Well, he jumped but I don't think he ever had a chance of competing for that ball. Penalty at the least.
Over the 80 minutes I thought the ref was poor. Equally poor for/against both sides.

jimbopip wrote:I think I'll have to disagree with you there, your maj.
Immediately prior to contact Am's left arm is parallel to his side, his fingers are all pointing at the ground. His right arm could be described as being at 90 degrees to his body. He leads with his left shoulder into Daly's chest then after the contact throws his right arm behind Daly. It was as clear an example of letting your opposite number know you're there and he's in for a long day as you'll see. I thought it deserved a yellow but there was no clear contact with the head so not a red.
Also, Hogg was clearly taken out in the air, but the mitigation could be that the Bok player had jumped for the ball. Well, he jumped but I don't think he ever had a chance of competing for that ball. Penalty at the least.
Over the 80 minutes I thought the ref was poor. Equally poor for/against both sides.  

Yep, thats a fair assessment I suppose. But if we are talking to the letter of the law, you could not have argued if a red was given for either incident, or the Hamish Watson incident.

Soul Requiem wrote:There was no attempt to wrap the left arm at all while the attempted wrap of the right arm comes after the initial contact.

You want him to wrap as the initial contact?

There was some 50/50 calls in the game and I thought the ref was consistent in giving the players the benefit of the doubt. Nothing malicious went on so the game was allowed to continue. The game was stop start enough as it was, sir did his best to try and let it flow. Credit to the ref he was consistent at the breakdown and the maul with both teams going out their way to try and spoil at all times. Tough game to manage and he did well, not great but well.

Under what interpretation of a tip tackle could Watson have been red?

LordDowlais wrote:

jimbopip wrote:I think I'll have to disagree with you there, your maj.
Immediately prior to contact Am's left arm is parallel to his side, his fingers are all pointing at the ground. His right arm could be described as being at 90 degrees to his body. He leads with his left shoulder into Daly's chest then after the contact throws his right arm behind Daly. It was as clear an example of letting your opposite number know you're there and he's in for a long day as you'll see. I thought it deserved a yellow but there was no clear contact with the head so not a red.
Also, Hogg was clearly taken out in the air, but the mitigation could be that the Bok player had jumped for the ball. Well, he jumped but I don't think he ever had a chance of competing for that ball. Penalty at the least.
Over the 80 minutes I thought the ref was poor. Equally poor for/against both sides.  

Yep, thats a fair assessment I suppose. But if we are talking to the letter of the law, you could not have argued if a red was given for either incident, or the Hamish Watson incident.

In both those cases I would have argued it isn’t a red, nor a yellow. But the inconsistencies of these cards are becoming a joke. Koirobete, got red carded, then the judiciary found him not guilty, The Argentinian player got red carded against Wales and the judiciary banned him for three matches. Both those tackles were similar.

The game’s interpretations by virtue of player safety is turning rugby into a farce.

More and more matches are going to be fought 14 on 15 or even worse. If every head knock is seen as a red card then soon we will have rugby players running on all fours just so nobody wants to take the risk in tackling them.

Lets go the route of the NFL, bring in the shoulder pads of the eighties and start wearing motorcycle helmets

I think people are getting me wrong here.

I love the physical side to rugby, I love the big hits, but I am talking about fair play and consistency. The laws are there, everybody knows them, we shouldn't turn a blind eye for the spirit of the game.

If contact to the head with the shoulder is a law that shouldn't be broken, then it should be dealt with, if taking people out in the air is a law that shouldn't be broken, then it should be dealt with. None of those incidents were looked at, it's so friggin frustrating.

At least the Hamish Watson incident was penalised.

Kolbe was also taken out whilst in the air. The referee ignored it, my assumption it didn’t look dangerous, I assume Hogg being taken out in the air was similarly adjudicated, that is consistency.

The laws are what they are, but like any other law in rugby union, is or should not be cast in stone as every situation at every ruck, scrum, tackle, maul etc is unique

[quote="Old Man"]Kolbe was also taken out whilst in the air. The referee ignored it, my assumption it didn’t look dangerous, I assume Hogg being taken out in the air was similarly adjudicated, that is consistency.[/quote

Was that the one where the ref said they were both going for the ball ?

Old Man wrote:Lets go the route of the NFL, bring in the shoulder pads of the eighties and start wearing motorcycle helmets

Only the helmets don't help, just make the players think they are protected, so leading to more dangerous practices and worse problems. Interesting to see that mens Olympic Boxing dropped headguards last time and are sticking with it this time. More danger of cuts but better for the head.

He was taken out by his legs with arm wrapped around it, can’t remember who it was

George Carlin wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Just watching the highlights and I’m really surprised the Hamish Watson tip tackle wasn’t a yellow. The SA player is clearly taken past the horizontal and not returned to the ground safely. Lucky escape for the Lions.

In the game, yes, but I would guess that he'll be cited and won't be available for the remaining two games.

He will not be cited. the tippoed player landing on arms / front means penalty only is the correct call

TJ wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Just watching the highlights and I’m really surprised the Hamish Watson tip tackle wasn’t a yellow. The SA player is clearly taken past the horizontal and not returned to the ground safely. Lucky escape for the Lions.

In the game, yes, but I would guess that he'll be cited and won't be available for the remaining two games.

He will not be cited.  the tippoed player landing on arms / front means penalty only is the correct call

Not sure about that. Degree of danger comes into it. If his arms aren't there he lands on his head and Watson not in control. It looks a yellow.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:There was no attempt to wrap the left arm at all while the attempted wrap of the right arm comes after the initial contact.

You want him to wrap as the initial contact?

There was some 50/50 calls in the game and I thought the ref was consistent in giving the players the benefit of the doubt. Nothing malicious went on so the game was allowed to continue. The game was stop start enough as it was, sir did his best to try and let it flow. Credit to the ref he was consistent at the breakdown and the maul with both teams going out their way to try and spoil at all times. Tough game to manage and he did well, not great but well.

The initial contact and arm should be one fluid movement, not a shoulder charge followed by an arm wrap.

Soul Requiem wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:There was no attempt to wrap the left arm at all while the attempted wrap of the right arm comes after the initial contact.

You want him to wrap as the initial contact?

There was some 50/50 calls in the game and I thought the ref was consistent in giving the players the benefit of the doubt. Nothing malicious went on so the game was allowed to continue. The game was stop start enough as it was, sir did his best to try and let it flow. Credit to the ref he was consistent at the breakdown and the maul with both teams going out their way to try and spoil at all times. Tough game to manage and he did well, not great but well.

The initial contact and arm should be one fluid movement, not a shoulder charge followed by an arm wrap.

In real time I think it is one fluid movement. They are running into each other at full pelt, Am has his arms up, the collision is massive, he gets the right arm round but the left arm tries to wrap then fails as Daly is already most the way towards being on his backside from the huge impact.

One issue with TV coverage is that you usually see these things in real time once from a wider angle then see them in slow mo about a dozen times from a closer shot. It's actually frustratingly rare to see them played through in real time from the better/closer camera angle.

A drill a reffing supervisor used to do with young refs when I was coming up was send us clips of borderline tackles on YouTube which we'd watch from those closer angles in slow motion, then put the YouTube video into 2x speed using the playback speed function and re-watch said slow motion clip sped up which is as close as you can usually get to actually seeing these hits from the better camera angles at real speed. Sounds convoluted and I'm typing on my phone so may make no sense at all but it's actually a really interesting thing to do to demonstrate how much slow mo and camera angles can change the perception of collisions.

I can't really agree with that, when I first saw it in real time I thought it was a clear no arm shot. Am was clever in making it look like he was attempting to wrap the arm but to me clearly wasn't. It's only a small issue but as highlighted by Farrell something the refs and TMO's need to be cuter with it.

IMO Curry should have had a yellow for his late no arms hit - these things even out

Soul Requiem wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:There was no attempt to wrap the left arm at all while the attempted wrap of the right arm comes after the initial contact.

You want him to wrap as the initial contact?

There was some 50/50 calls in the game and I thought the ref was consistent in giving the players the benefit of the doubt. Nothing malicious went on so the game was allowed to continue. The game was stop start enough as it was, sir did his best to try and let it flow. Credit to the ref he was consistent at the breakdown and the maul with both teams going out their way to try and spoil at all times. Tough game to manage and he did well, not great but well.

The initial contact and arm should be one fluid movement, not a shoulder charge followed by an arm wrap.

Which is easier than it sounds at full speed. As long as he's not tucking the arm and there's an attempt to wrap I'm ok with it.

Soul Requiem wrote:I can't really agree with that, when I first saw it in real time I thought it was a clear no arm shot. Am was clever in making it look like he was attempting to wrap the arm but to me clearly wasn't. It's only a small issue but as highlighted by Farrell something the refs and TMO's need to be cuter with it.

Probably an agree to disagree thing and only a small issue as you say, I also agree with TJ that Curry's late no arms hit was probably worse (and dumber), but the difference with Farrell's hits and Am's is Am being in a position to wrap if the impact isn't so massive.

His arms are up, right arm wraps and left arm tries to but doesn't. Some might say that Am's hand is pointing down rather than forward just before impact but his arms are both up and in a position to wrap. With some of Farrell's hits, the no arm chop tackles that LCD often makes which I highlighted earlier, several Bundee Aki hits, etc their arms are actually pointing back towards the posts which makes it impossible to wrap.

LCD had a tackle reviewed this season with Exeter in which he dived at the runners ankles with his torso/shoulders travelling down towards the ground and his leading arm practically pointing up to the sky as well as towards his own posts due to the way he'd dived downwards like a door wedge. It's the type of tackle Lydiate was brilliant at before chop tackles were looked at more. Those are the sort of tackles I think need clamping down on. Ones where the player is blatantly in no position to wrap if the impact allows.

As said probably an agree to disagree thing at this point and we are reaching a cyclical point in the discussion so I'll leave my thoughts on the incident at that!

Soul Requiem wrote:I can't really agree with that, when I first saw it in real time I thought it was a clear no arm shot. Am was clever in making it look like he was attempting to wrap the arm but to me clearly wasn't. It's only a small issue but as highlighted by Farrell something the refs and TMO's need to be cuter with it.

I thought exactly the same when I saw it first time, we were all there (In the club) and we all called it. I thought it was reckless to say the least, it didn't help matters either when a few seconds later Hogg was taken out in the air, and again nothing came of it. I was livid.

We have all given Farrell a roasting on here for it, this was no different.

TJ wrote:IMO Curry should have had a yellow for his late no arms hit - these things even out

Yes, that could have been a yellow as well.

LordDowlais wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:I can't really agree with that, when I first saw it in real time I thought it was a clear no arm shot. Am was clever in making it look like he was attempting to wrap the arm but to me clearly wasn't. It's only a small issue but as highlighted by Farrell something the refs and TMO's need to be cuter with it.

I thought exactly the same when I saw it first time, we were all there (In the club) and we all called it. I thought it was reckless to say the least, it didn't help matters either when a few seconds later Hogg was taken out in the air, and again nothing came of it. I was livid.

We have all given Farrell a roasting on here for it, this was no different.

Comparing Farrell’s shoulder charges to Am is just ridiculous

I wouldn't call it ridiculous, they are both shoulder charges so we can compare them, they might differ in technique, but they are shoulder charges to say the least.

LordDowlais wrote:I wouldn't call it ridiculous, they are both shoulder charges so we can compare them, they might differ in technique, but they are shoulder charges to say the least.

You have a habitual shoulder charger vs a guy that has a reputation of being a clean tackler, if you see Am’s tackle as a shoulder charge then we se rugby as a completely different sport.

I will leave it there, if you see that as a shoulder charge then I doubt we view rugby the same.

Curry could have been a yellow although saved from a lack of actual contact, far less dangerous than the Am 'tackle'.

Going to change my opinion of Ams tackle after rewatching 6 mins 30 for anyone wanting to know. I don't think he moves his left arm at all to make the tackle right does grasp but immaterial.

Old Man wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I wouldn't call it ridiculous, they are both shoulder charges so we can compare them, they might differ in technique, but they are shoulder charges to say the least.

You have a habitual shoulder charger vs a guy that has a reputation of being a clean tackler, if you see Am’s tackle as a shoulder charge then we se rugby as a completely different sport.

I will leave it there, if you see that as a shoulder charge then I doubt we view rugby the same.

I am not bringing AM's clean record into it, he just got this one wrong, look I am only going with the rugby laws, you are not allowed to make contact to the head with your shoulder.

I am not saying he wanted to shoulder charge Daley, but his shoulder did make contact with his head, it was reckless, you can try and pretty it up all you like, he got his technique wrong, plain and simple. It should have been looked at, probably as it was early in the game and the adrenalin was flowing, the ref didn't want to make a big call.

It deffo looks like we do not see rugby the same way though. But thats life.

What is his leading arm do? a shoulder charge is classified as tucking in or trailing the arm with which shoulder you hit. If you shoulder charge with your right shoulder and your right arm wraps the player the impact of the shoulder is materially minimised.

Old Man wrote:What is his leading arm do? a shoulder charge is classified as tucking in or trailing the arm with which shoulder you hit. If you shoulder charge with your right shoulder and your right arm wraps the player the impact of the shoulder is materially minimised.

He didn't do that though did he ?

His arms were not out before he made contact, he led with his shoulder, his right arm them moved around with the momentum of the impact. His left arm did not even move, he got his technique wrong, and it was reckless, as I said, it was early on in the game and his adrenalin was probably pumping through his skin. Thats not an excuse though.

Might as well leave it there, as we will not see eye to eye on this, and we will only end up arguing, which I do not want to do. As you said, we see rugby differently.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/rugbyleague/lions-player-ratings-forward-pack-take-a-bow/ar-AAMwf4P?ocid=msedgntp

15 Stuart Hogg: Never really able to shine in attack but was tidy as the Lions’ last line of defence on a busy evening in the backfield. 7

14 Anthony Watson: Outstanding in the air and was one of the Lions’ better players when the chips were down in the opening half. 8

13 Elliot Daly: Hammered by Springbok centre Lukhanyo Am in an early hit and his composure never really recovered. Quiet game. 6

12 Robbie Henshaw: Engineered a first-half break that gave the Lions hope when things were looking bleak. Solid account at centre. 8

11 Duhan van der Merwe: Even in the cauldron of a Test he made hard yards through his power running. Would’ve liked more ball. 8

10 Dan Biggar: Along with his team, struggled in the first half but was rejuvenated after the interval, kicking well at goal and tactically. 8

9 Ali Price: The Lions pack struggled early on and Price’s game suffered as a result, but grew in stature thereafter in a strong showing. 8

Deft touches
8 Jack Conan: A complete number eight performance, mixing up some deft touches with graft in the tight. Came through the game well. 8

7 Tom Curry: Let down somewhat by his indiscipline and although he gave it everything around the field, his place is under pressure. 7

6 Courtney Lawes: The Lions’ standout performer. Lawes was relentlessly physical and took the fight to South Africa. Nuisance to Boks. 9

5 Alun Wyn Jones: The decision to opt for the lineout that produced Cowan-Dickie’s try, rather than a penalty, was inspired. Talisman. 9

4 Maro Itoje: Almost single-handedly kept the Lions in the hunt with his crucial first-half turnovers. Partnership with Jones was superb. 9

3 Tadhg Furlong: Rose to the occasion magnificently, besting both of South Africa’s loosehead props as his reputation continues to grow. 9

2 Luke Cowan-Dickie: Touched down for the Lions’ only try and his line-out throwing was pinpoint. Another top game from the Chief. 8

1 Rory Sutherland: A late replacement for the injured Wyn Jones, he gave a good account of himself and should keep his spot next week. 8

Replacements:

The Lions bench made a far greater impact than South Africa’s. Half-backs Conor Murray and Owen Farrell provided stability when it was needed and Mako Vunipola delivered a towering performance. 8

Very different ratings from many I have seen. Looks much fairer. My only argument would be A Watson - He was all over the place defensively ( out of position for the Boks try) and not great under the high ball IMO but some good attacking running- but you know what they say about opinions :-)

I thought Watson was excellent. Strong under the high ball.....made yards pretty much every time he had the ball and looked a threat throughout.

DVDM was the winger that struggled for me. He just seems to get in odd positions...was pretty useless under the high ball for a such a big lad and didn't offer much ball in hand. I was amazed that SA didn't look to attack him more (I'm sure they will next game).

I thought Hogg had a good game despite getting a slating from some sources. He missed a few high balls but looked good with the little ball he saw.

SGT Pooly - None of the outside backs got much ball - but DVDM kept Kolbe quiet and caught several high balls and also prevent Kolbe getting any.  Marked him out of the game.

perhaps both of us are guilty of seeing only what we expected to see but for my money DVDM was the best winger on the pitch. He beat more players than any other lions back from the stats I saw

ESPN have Watson as having beaten more players. They also have VDM having missed more tackles (2-1), I’m sure. Although to be fair, Watson only attempted 2.

Watson was good going forward but horribly out of position for the SA try and all over the place in defense IMO - but as above I think many of us are guilty of only seeing what we want to see. It really was not a game for wingers tho.

TJ wrote:SGT Pooly - None of the outside backs got much ball - but DVDM kept Kolbe quiet and caught several high balls and also prevent Kolbe getting any.  Marked him out of the game.

perhaps both of us are guilty of seeing only what we expected to see but for my money DVDM was the best winger on the pitch.  He beat more players than any other lions back from the stats I saw

Stats said Watson beat 7. VDM 2.

RiscaGame wrote:ESPN have Watson as having beaten more players. They also have VDM having missed more tackles (2-1), I’m sure. Although to be fair, Watson only attempted 2.

Interesting....would have had VDM down as missing more. Watson was certainly on another level in attack anyway, he made some great yards in heavy traffic, as did Hogg.

I really hope Gats opts for Adams over VDM next week.

must have revised the stats after I saw them - they often do.

TJ wrote:SGT Pooly - None of the outside backs got much ball - but DVDM kept Kolbe quiet and caught several high balls and also prevent Kolbe getting any.  Marked him out of the game.

perhaps both of us are guilty of seeing only what we expected to see but for my money DVDM was the best winger on the pitch.  He beat more players than any other lions back from the stats I saw

SA kept Kolbe quiet....he was criminally underused and did VDM catch a high ball all night? I prefer to watch than quote stats, but I think you're a bit off there TJ. Watson was beating guys every time him touched the ball.

TJ wrote:must have revised the stats after I saw them - they often do.

Yea they must have....quite dramatically it seems.

and did VDM catch a high ball all night

Yes - first Bomb down his wing he caught and a few others he either caught or competed so well the SA player knocked on.

I agree Watson was fine going forward but I thought he was defensivly poor and poor under the high ball

Sgt
https://youtu.be/61P9nJIu1gg

33 mins in and there were others. Can't be bothered to go thru the whole game frame by frame. He took at least one more cleanly thru a crowd and competed well enough to force SA knock ons

Watson missed a bomb which lead to the first disallowed SA try

As I said - we are all guilty of seeing what we want to see

I thought VDM and Watson were both strong. I'd stick with the same back three next week.

Hogg kicking predominantly for distance rather than aiming to find grass frustrated me but I'm 99% sure that was tactical to prevent SA getting line-outs. The Lions would just rather kick very long and straight to a back three player, then fan out and defend in a flat line. I wouldn't say the chase was particularly aggressive, i.e. it gave SA space to run the ball back but it was very well aligned for much the match so still repelled the Boks. A very Tandy-esque d-line and to his credit it got the win.

king_carlos wrote:I thought VDM and Watson were both strong. I'd stick with the same back three next week.


.

Harsh on Adams who has been on fire on tour but I tend to agree

king_carlos wrote:I thought VDM and Watson were both strong. I'd stick with the same back three next week.

Hogg kicking predominantly for distance rather than aiming to find grass frustrated me but I'm 99% sure that was tactical to prevent SA getting line-outs. The Lions would just rather kick very long and straight to a back three player, then fan out and defend in a flat line. I wouldn't say the chase was particularly aggressive, i.e. it gave SA space to run the ball back but it was very well aligned for much the match so still repelled the Boks. A very Tandy-esque d-line and to his credit it got the win.

If only there was a super rapid winger in the squad who is also a world class kick chase specialist...