• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

British and Irish Lions Test decider

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aye, I wasn't slagging them off or anything - just mad that a lions backline, supposedly the amalgamation of the best players from 40% of the top 10 sides in the world, can't engineer a half break for their outside centre in 160mins of rugby

It's a black mark against the coaching not the players
Yeah the old "cards up his sleeve" thing again shown to not be true. Should coin a term:

Schmidt your pants - Where apparent lack of tactics is put down to keeping them hidden for later only for it to be revealed later there were no hidden tactics.
 
Does he now go for Aki at 12 and Henshaw at 13?
Like most here (I imagine) I've given a good bit of thought to how to turn things around and feel a bit dumb that this only occurred to me this morning. Henshaw played Aki's game on Saturday, if that's what he's being asked to do, surely we'd be better off cutting out the middle man and using Aki to play Aki's game.

Maybe a week of self isolation is getting to me, but I'm starting to talk myself into shifting Curry to 6 and bringing Watson in at 7. Their ability to put pressure on SA ball would force their big forwards to expend effort getting to breakdowns and would facilitate faster recycling of Lions ball to raise the tempo.
 
I think SA will have a hard time with the Ref this week, we normally struggle with a French Ref not sure if it is communication or just that the NH Hemisphere Ref's is somewhat different to how the SH Hemisphere Refs handle the breakdown. But then again the World Cup final had a French ref.
 
Like most here (I imagine) I've given a good bit of thought to how to turn things around and feel a bit dumb that this only occurred to me this morning. Henshaw played Aki's game on Saturday, if that's what he's being asked to do, surely we'd be better off cutting out the middle man and using Aki to play Aki's game.

Maybe a week of self isolation is getting to me, but I'm starting to talk myself into shifting Curry to 6 and bringing Watson in at 7. Their ability to put pressure on SA ball would force their big forwards to expend effort getting to breakdowns and would facilitate faster recycling of Lions ball to raise the tempo.

Could it be Townsends players with Gatlands tactics?

The kicks were either rubbish, or the tactics were wrong (or both). As was seen in the Scotland England game at Twickenham 2 years ago sometimes the 9/10 need to chance their arm and mix it up, Russell did that and we all know how the match went from a 30 odd point deficit to leading then finishing just 7 points adrift.
 
It's testimant to how good he is that if we had Manu playing we'd look and feel like a completely different backline, the same has happened to England since he got injured again they look like a shadow of what they were with him in the side. Can we all fork together and get him on a plane? :D
 
Kyle Sinckler: British and Irish Lions prop cited for 'biting' during second South Africa Test - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/58051015


Ive seen footage of this incident and it did not look conclusive anyone else see it or any other angles?
Maybe my Lions bias is kicking in, but the whole thing doesn't add up to me. If evidence had been broadcast, it would have been all over Twitter, it wasn't. If the cameras captured a something incriminating against the Lions, the South African TV director would have broadcast it, he/she didn't. So where has sufficient evidence to bring a citing come from? Couple this with the fact that evidence of other dangerous incidents was broadcast and no citings have been brought, it makes even less sense.
 
Maybe a week of self isolation is getting to me, but I'm starting to talk myself into shifting Curry to 6 and bringing Watson in at 7. Their ability to put pressure on SA ball would force their big forwards to expend effort getting to breakdowns and would facilitate faster recycling of Lions ball to raise the tempo.
That's exactly the kind of creative thinking Gatland needs to have although I'm not sure it would work. Depowering our pack against a Bok 8 that duffed us up last week is as counter intuitive as it gets.

Getting some devil and speed into the half backs wouldn't half be helpful as a starter.

Aye, I wasn't slagging them off or anything - just mad that a lions backline, supposedly the amalgamation of the best players from 40% of the top 10 sides in the world, can't engineer a half break for their outside centre in 160mins of rugby

It's a black mark against the coaching not the players
It's a black mark against both. Coaches select and determine the overall game plan but the players are on the pitch and have to adapt to what's going on there, not what was on the chalkboard on Wednesday. If elements of the plan aren't working they've got to figure it out for themselves and that is part of the mythical 'leadership'.
 
Maybe my Lions bias is kicking in, but the whole thing doesn't add up to me. If evidence had been broadcast, it would have been all over Twitter, it wasn't. If the cameras captured a something incriminating against the Lions, the South African TV director would have broadcast it, he/she didn't. So where has sufficient evidence to bring a citing come from? Couple this with the fact that evidence of other dangerous incidents was broadcast and no citings have been brought, it makes even less sense.
Bit of a 20th century attitude, but just because something's not on film from 10 different angles doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I've no idea whether Sinckler's guilty or not but there must be something significant for him to be charged. I hope he hasn't done anything but if he has he then he deserves what's coming.
 
SA call up Dan du Preez (L/LF), Rosco Specman (W) and Johan Grobbelaar (HK).

No firm news on PSdT injury. I would say calling up Du Preez points towards PS not being fit. maybe just a precaution that Dan doesn't come in cold?

That along with the news of Duane Vermeulen joining training and De Jager having had a stint off the bench raises quite a few selection related questions.

Assuming Lood and Vermeulen are good for a start and Du Toit is unavailable what i would like to see is 4 Etzebeth, 5 De Jager, 6 Kolisi, 7 Mostert, 8 Vermeulen with Elstadt, Du Preez and Wiese on the bench but I expect they will retain Smith and keep De Jager and Vermeulen on the bench? Actually would've liked Marcel Coetzee to come into a bench spot but I assume they had the chance now and rather went with DDP.

Johan Grobbelaar is a weird call up at this stage. Is Jospeh Dweba sent back to France? Would they leapfrog Dweba with him having had a good outing for SA 'A'? Maybe just to bring Grobbelaar into the fold and learn the ropes- kind of a reward for good form. Don't get me wrong I rate him highly- a new look Schalk Brits. I just think the timing is odd because AFAIK all of Mbonambi, Marx and Dweba are fit. Would've been weird to get Akker back in to face off against his Scottish bro LOL.

Specman also a weird call up for my money. Kolbe didn't look 100%. Maybe this is an indication that he isn't well? That said we have players I'd prefer ahead of Specman especially considering the type of rugby both teams are playing. Would prefer any of Nkosi, Kriel or Fassi at 14... perhaps even if Kolbe is 100%.. and if we are calling up someone for me it'd be between Gelant and Cornal Hendricks who is in fine form and has been for some time now.

Only changes I hope for is at 8, De Jager swapping with Mostert at 5 and at 14. H Jantjies and Willemse to remain the 2 of a 6/2 bench. We'll probably have a longer wait than last week on our hands I expect seeing as they'll probs want to be assessing a few walking wounded and guys coming back from long injury lay off. That said we've seen Vermeulen come back cold and put in MotM performances before.

I expect a close match with crazy intensity. I feel the scoreline flattered us to a small extent in that we were very fortunate that Kolisi managed the tackle he did- that is not something to replicate on a game to game basis and we had essentially 2 scoring opps ourselves which we took whereas our strike rate is not normally 100% so it could've easily been a very different game on the score board. The Lions also went from dominating us in the air to not being able to hold onto a ball game 2. I expect that to even out. To top it off, with the amount of ****le in game 2 there was so much TMO involvement that slowed the game right down suiting us. I expect the Lions will be looking to up the tempo even if not having a chuck around there are many ways to up the tempo from last week that only takes marginal adjustment.
 
Could it be Townsends players with Gatlands tactics?

The kicks were either rubbish, or the tactics were wrong (or both). As was seen in the Scotland England game at Twickenham 2 years ago sometimes the 9/10 need to chance their arm and mix it up, Russell did that and we all know how the match went from a 30 odd point deficit to leading then finishing just 7 points adrift.

Murray and Biggar are definitely Gatland's picks. Townsend wouldn't select a scrum half who nips off to stick the kettle on before every ruck and he wouldn't pick a fly half who passes three times in a game and whose attacking arsenal comprises of a few up and unders hoping one of his team mates will catch the ball or tap it backwards. Russell and Smith are Townsend type of players but Gatland is keeping them away from the 23.
 
Could it be Townsends players with Gatlands tactics?

The kicks were either rubbish, or the tactics were wrong (or both). As was seen in the Scotland England game at Twickenham 2 years ago sometimes the 9/10 need to chance their arm and mix it up, Russell did that and we all know how the match went from a 30 odd point deficit to leading then finishing just 7 points adrift.
I'm not sure that back line would have been Townsend's choice. My best guess is that Toonie is backs coach because Gatland's hand was forced, not because he had any intention to use him to coach the backs.

That's exactly the kind of creative thinking Gatland needs to have although I'm not sure it would work. Depowering our pack against a Bok 8 that duffed us up last week is as counter intuitive as it gets.

Getting some devil and speed into the half backs wouldn't half be helpful as a starter.
Part of my rationale is that at this point, doing nothing, or doubling down on fighting a really bad fire with a box of Swan Vestas would represent the old cliché about doing nothing and expecting different results. I don't think it would represent as much of a de-powering of the pack as you might think. Curry has bulked up and Lawes has never filled out as I hoped he might when he broke through. Given the difference in height, Curry is more likely to run his weight and some IMO.

I suspect it won't happen if for no other reason than the amount of lineout ball that Lawes has taken, but if that's the case, I would at very least swap Bernie in and tell him to run his arse off for 45 minutes and expect to be subbed. Outside the lineout work, Lawes has had a good 20 minutes of rugby within 142 minutes of the two tests, but the timing of it flattered him.

I didn't mention getting rid of Murray because I took it as a given that had already been advocated for, not because I don't want to see it happen. For me the number one priority is raising the tempo of the game and failing to get rid of Murray (I don't mind him on the bench and will pray to a god I don't believe in that Price doesn't get injured) would represent a lack of appetite to do this.
It's a black mark against both. Coaches select and determine the overall game plan but the players are on the pitch and have to adapt to what's going on there, not what was on the chalkboard on Wednesday. If elements of the plan aren't working they've got to figure it out for themselves and that is part of the mythical 'leadership'.
This is one of those things that those of outside the camp can only guess at. Maybe the game plan is wrong, or maybe the players didn't execute it. If they didn't execute it, is it because they weren't properly prepared to do so or because the wrong players were picked? If they were the right players and properly prepared, does that mean the game plan was wrong or that we simply aren't good enough?

I agree about leadership. I thought it as particularly stark as Sam Warburton was sat in the comm box talking about a game theory based approach to determining tactics in play, AWJ was saying "okay lads, keep letting them beat the **** out of us, hopefully they won't do it so hard next time". That being the case, the "leadership" argument for AWJ goes out of the window for me (we just need better watercarriers) so I'd be open to a case to pick someone who would have more impact with their own play. You could make a case for at least three players here.
Bit of a 20th century attitude, but just because something's not on film from 10 different angles doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I've no idea whether Sinckler's guilty or not but there must be something significant for him to be charged. I hope he hasn't done anything but if he has he then he deserves what's coming.
That's not what I was intending to assert. The way I'm looking at it, it doesn't matter whether it happened or not, this is a pseudo-legal process, so what matters is whether there's sufficient evidence for a panel to find him guilty and am questioning how a citing officer has found said evidence, while ignoring other apparently incriminating evidence of other incidents.
 
I can't help thinking the lions are playing into the springbok's hands. Sure, it can work every now and then, but playing into their strengths?
When someone asks 'how do we beat the springboks?' my first suggestion would be to look at how NZ does it (not that they do it often, but they do it better than anyone else). See what you can pick up from that.
They do not do it by trying to outmuscle the RSA forwards nor by constantly dividing the ball with high kicks. It's generally smarter and cost-efficient to beat rock with paper than by using a larger rock. Especially with how Pollard is kicking.
 
I can't help thinking the lions are playing into the springbok's hands. Sure, it can work every now and then, but playing into their strengths?
When someone asks 'how do we beat the springboks?' my first suggestion would be to look at how NZ does it (not that they do it often, but they do it better than anyone else). See what you can pick up from that.
They do not do it by trying to outmuscle the RSA forwards nor by constantly dividing the ball with high kicks. It's generally smarter and cost-efficient to beat rock with paper than by using a larger rock. Especially with how Pollard is kicking.
Beating a rock with a bigger rock is Gatland to a tee though...
 
Last weeks team is too slow and predictable. Never challenged the boks.
Williams for Hogg.
Adams for DVDM.
Aki for Harris.
Farrell for Biggar
Price for Murray.
Wyn for Maco
Berine for lawes

Personally I am not sure how effective the AWJ and itoje combo is working but individual the are better than the rest.
Bench selection has between terrible for the lions. You know what the boks are bringing the lions need to mirror split 3 front rows 2 locks. Cover for 9/10 and someone for the back 3.
Bench.
Sinkler, George, maco, Hill and henderson, Murray, Harris, Hogg.
Some players have being very luck to see teat time, Daly is not near the level to compete at the moment, fergerson has not being up to it.
The Lions must be prepared to match them physically when the boks have the ball and look to stretch them when the lions have the ball. In both test the lions have being very 1 dimensional. They are in a dangerous place this week.
 
Unless the Lions play with a lot more width and ambition this test is only going one way. Time to bin the aimless kicking and keep the ball in hand. The problem we have is that the backs have looked totally impotent so far. If you include the game against SA A them in 3 games I can barely remember us making a line break. One out rugby won't work against the Boks. It's time to gamble.
 
Last weeks team is too slow and predictable. Never challenged the boks.
Williams for Hogg.
Adams for DVDM.
Aki for Harris.
Farrell for Biggar
Price for Murray.
Wyn for Maco
Berine for lawes
Whilst I don't disagree with your first sentence I do find it funny that you think
Williams, Aki, Farrell and Wyn Jones are faster and less predictable than who they'd replace
 
Whilst I don't disagree with your first sentence I do find it funny that you think
Williams, Aki, Farrell and Wyn Jones are faster and less predictable than who they'd replace
I can predict Hogg will drop the ball.
 
Whoever wants Farrell over Biggar needs to give their head a shake. Jesus wept, he's more useless kicking than he is human.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top