First Test: Australia vs. British and Irish Lions (22/06/13)

[mstar]

I think the Australian team are a little more drilled at the breakdown and will play a quick flowing game making our pack run around the park. it be close but i think australia will lose on Saturday but win when Bale is back. 2-1 overall australia.
the welsh pressure crumble in the final minutes will haunt Gatland.

 

[Big Ewis]

"Forwards win games, backs decide by how much" is a fairly limited concept these days.
Italy smashed Samoa in the scrum, even with a pen. try to prove it, and got absolutely thrashed by the Pac. Islanders. Australia consistently came to Europe during Nov. tours to get beaten noticeably in the scrum, concede penalties, easy tries off huge opposition scrums in their 22m, or even downright penalty tries - and would still come away with a comfortable win.

BUT: this is the Lions, a composite team with many quality backs, pure power, height and pace. They'll (Aus) have their hands full just containing the Norths/Tuilagis/Cuthberts alone...
I think it's just not a fair fight. I know the Lions have to come every 12 years, but just by circumstances this year doesn't work imo.
Lions in NZ or SA would be fair, against the Aussies it's really a huge challenge for Australia.

Anybody think Adam Jones is the best scrummager in the world ?

EDIT: oh yeah, and I got Lions 2-1 for the series.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I really don't know what to expect from the tests. My gut feeling is 2-1 Aus.

 

[ratsapprentice]

"Forwards win games, backs decide by how much" is a fairly limited concept these days.
Italy smashed Samoa in the scrum, even with a pen. try to prove it, and got absolutely thrashed by the Pac. Islanders. Australia consistently came to Europe during Nov. tours to get beaten noticeably in the scrum, concede penalties, easy tries off huge opposition scrums in their 22m, or even downright penalty tries - and would still come away with a comfortable win.

That adage doesn't refer to set piece exclusively.
And it's as true today as it ever has been.

 

[psychic duck]

Veal.. you make some very good points. I'd say though, that few of us on here still believe the Aussie pack is 'marshmallowy' . In terms of scrum advantage, it's more a case of what a very good tighthead prop can do, to anyone. The home nations typify this - Wales shafted England in the 2013 six nations, France gave Wales some trouble there, the previous year England took Ireland apart... Most of this was down to excellent tighthead performances...Jones for Wales, Cole for England, Mas for France. I agree though, the wallabies will be competitive at least.

The first two examples you give were mostly to do with referee seemingly picking one side to give penalties against, and had a fair bit to do with luck tbh. There were only about 1 or 2 scrums in that England/Wales game where Wales were genuinely pushing England backwards, the rest was just flopping on the floor on impact and Wales getting the luck of the referees guess. The third was domination in part from a loosehead playing tighthead.

 

[Peat]

There is a case to be made from Adam Jones and Corbs being the strongest scrummaging pair possible for the Lions. Its certainly Jones and someone, and providing the rest of the guys are on message I'd never bet against Jones making marshmallow of anyone.

 

[dullonien]

I think the selection of Tom Youngs ahead of Hibbard shows that the Lions aren't going to try to just out-muscle the Aussies. Hibbard is the better scrummager and he would have fit that type of game better. What Youngs offers is a more athletic carrying option and a huge work rate in and around the ruck (and a better lineout throw judging on the Lions tour alone). I see this as a positive step by Gatland to play a more rounded , fast tempo game.

We may not quite see the best out of Adam in the scrums without Hibbard, but it will probably mean there will be almost no let-up in intensity when the front-row replacements come on. I wouldn't be surprised is the front row as a unit is replaced as a whole, with Vunipola, Hibbard and Cole expected to come on and really pile on the pressure, in terms of scrummaging and carrying, late on.

For this reason, I also understand the selection of Corbisiero ahead of Vunipola. Vunipola has done everything right, but his impact from the bench could really sway this game late on. We really don't want to slip-up in the final few minutes like Wales have done so many times over the past couple of years against Aus. Lydiate also fits into this. If we are leading heading into the final quarter, expect Lydiate to come on with a sole purpose, stop Austrailia in their tracks, because they will up the tempo and will apply pressure.

I'm not quite sure I agree with the Lydiate selection though. If we don't experience any backrow injuries in the game, it will prove a good selection, but if Warburton or Heaslip get injured early on, it could really mess up our balance in the backrow. It's a bit of a gamble imo, especially when we have the versatility of SOB and possibly Faletau (could easily play on the blindside), and the brilliance of Tipuric in the squad.

 

[psychic duck]

There is a case to be made from Adam Jones and Corbs being the strongest scrummaging pair possible for the Lions. Its certainly Jones and someone, and providing the rest of the guys are on message I'd never bet against Jones making marshmallow of anyone.

Adam was on top last year (with a weaker scrummmager at loosehead in Gethin Jenkins). But a mixture of things limited it's effect.

Notably in one test there was hardly a scrum and barely any with Wales' put in. There were also occasions where Wales were going forward massively but the referee was not giving penalties and the scrum was reset, many referees would have given a penalty for standing up here, but Joubert didn't.

Add to that, the scrum half Mike Phillips played dreadfully on that tour. I remember him mucking up a scrum going forward with an awful piece of play. So with lack of scrums/referees/Phillips, the advantage wasn't as much as hoped.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I think the selection of Tom Youngs ahead of Hibbard shows that the Lions aren't going to try to just out-muscle the Aussies. Hibbard is the better scrummager and he would have fit that type of game better. What Youngs offers is a more athletic carrying option and a huge work rate in and around the ruck (and a better lineout throw judging on the Lions tour alone). I see this as a positive step by Gatland to play a more rounded , fast tempo game.

We may not quite see the best out of Adam in the scrums without Hibbard, but it will probably mean there will be almost no let-up in intensity when the front-row replacements come on. I wouldn't be surprised is the front row as a unit is replaced as a whole, with Vunipola, Hibbard and Cole expected to come on and really pile on the pressure, in terms of scrummaging and carrying, late on.

For this reason, I also understand the selection of Corbisiero ahead of Vunipola. Vunipola has done everything right, but his impact from the bench could really sway this game late on. We really don't want to slip-up in the final few minutes like Wales have done so many times over the past couple of years against Aus. Lydiate also fits into this. If we are leading heading into the final quarter, expect Lydiate to come on with a sole purpose, stop Austrailia in their tracks, because they will up the tempo and will apply pressure.

I'm not quite sure I agree with the Lydiate selection though. If we don't experience any backrow injuries in the game, it will prove a good selection, but if Warburton or Heaslip get injured early on, it could really mess up our balance in the backrow. It's a bit of a gamble imo, especially when we have the versatility of SOB and possibly Faletau (could easily play on the blindside), and the brilliance of Tipuric in the squad.

I think this is absolutely right, and Ducks point about the refereeing down under last time is very valid: I think Gatland by picking Tom Youngs is also acknowledging that scrum dominance the way its refereed in the south, is unlikely to yield as much change as scrum dominance in the north. I think Gatlands very aware of this and doesn't want to put all his eggs into that basket - whilst ensuring that the scrum will still be strong.

Yoe, I see your point, but I think there's no coincidence that with an improved scrum (Australia had parity with england apart from in one scrum in that match), they were able to win that game and others on the tour.
Look at this debate in terms of the brumbies game - the first time we're not regularly winning scrums/penalties at scrums, and we go on to lose the game. The brumbies were no tougher than the Reds as opposition, yet we won against the latter.

 

[dullonien]

"Forwards win games, backs decide by how much" is a fairly limited concept these days.
Italy smashed Samoa in the scrum, even with a pen. try to prove it, and got absolutely thrashed by the Pac. Islanders. Australia consistently came to Europe during Nov. tours to get beaten noticeably in the scrum, concede penalties, easy tries off huge opposition scrums in their 22m, or even downright penalty tries - and would still come away with a comfortable win.

BUT: this is the Lions, a composite team with many quality backs, pure power, height and pace. They'll (Aus) have their hands full just containing the Norths/Tuilagis/Cuthberts alone...
I think it's just not a fair fight. I know the Lions have to come every 12 years, but just by circumstances this year doesn't work imo.
Lions in NZ or SA would be fair, against the Aussies it's really a huge challenge for Australia.

Anybody think Adam Jones is the best scrummager in the world ?

EDIT: oh yeah, and I got Lions 2-1 for the series.

There's more to forwards than the scrum. Austrailia may sometimes struggle in that aspect of the game, but their forwards are generally excellent in all the others. They always have a strong lineout, and their breakdown work is among the best in the world. Those forwards are also excellent in open field.

Sometimes their weakness at the scrum can be enough to loose them the game, but on others it doesn't have a huge bearing, partly because their first choice front row aren't as poor as some think, and partly because sometimes scrums only play a bit-part role in a game.

 

[Peat]

PD - Completely agreed - notice I didn't say I'd bet on him either!

 

[Big Ewis]

Yoe, I see your point, but I think there's no coincidence that with an improved scrum (Australia had parity with england apart from in one scrum in that match), they were able to win that game and others on the tour.

ah, absolutely. No doubt.

That adage doesn't refer to set piece exclusively.
And it's as true today as it ever has been.

wow, "adage" ?!...that is pretty sexy, and even if I disagreed with your point, I'd still let this one go...but be wary, it won't work every single time !!

There's more to forwards than the scrum. Austrailia may sometimes struggle in that aspect of the game, but their forwards are generally excellent in all the others. They always have a strong lineout, and their breakdown work is among the best in the world. Those forwards are also excellent in open field.

Sometimes their weakness at the scrum can be enough to loose them the game, but on others it doesn't have a huge bearing, partly because their first choice front row aren't as poor as some think, and partly because sometimes scrums only play a bit-part role in a game.

well sure yeh, the loose forwards are forwards too and they do their own work...of course the scrum isn't all the forwards do, no problem with that.
I suppose my point was more largely that quality backs will sometimes not only decide "by how much" their team wins the match, but whether they win at all. That 2010 match in Twickenham for e.g., but I guess if one took the 2010 France end-of-year tour match as another example, ppl would mention not only the backs scoring the tries but a guy like Pocock at the breakdown....but they still actually conceded a penalty-try that match, and it was almost all backs.

But yeh if they make it alright in this series, the Wallabies will not win because of their forwards. It looks clear to me it will all be about try-scoring for them and the wide game, while of course some work at the breakdown will be required by some forwards...and the defense of course...

 

[j'nuh]

On Croft: I think he gets a hard time for not being a hard-grafting flanker in the tight and that people assume he's being lazy in the backline. But I would argue that having a flanker which has the pace to be able to support the backline, provide carries and ruck within the backline, is very powerful. A few points:

First, where does play break down the most? The players that concede the most turnovers are usually backs. That's why Twelvetrees at one point had the highest turnover rate in the Premiership - because he was positioned where the play kept breaking down. Having a forward stood in the backline to capitalise on this, as well as helping ball retention by clearing out rucks in your backline, is very helpful for disruption and attack. Let's say North hits on the gainline but is slightly isolated. Who do you prefer for contact support: one of the other backs, or Croft?

Second, on defence. With all those forwards defending in the tight and racking up their tackle count, you can afford for one forward to play away from the contact zone. Defending in the loose is much more difficult though - more space for players to go around you. Croft has the perfect mixture of pace and power to be able to defend well in the backline. Sure, he doesn't rack up as many tackles this way, but he makes many vital tackles.

The trick should be to offload the work that Croft would be doing onto the front row forwards. Too many times, front rowers go missing in games. Props have some fantastic abilities, but they're not quite as versatile as other players. Tight tackling, tight carrying and ruck fringe work should be emphasis of what they do, and they have to be close to adjacent to the contact zone to do it. If you have your 6, 7, 8, locks etc., all working close to the breakdown, then it may end up being that your front rowers drift away from the breakdown and become a little anonymous. I would much prefer a tackle count that looks like: Corbisiero 8 Jones 7 Croft 5 than Corbisiero 3 Jones 3 Croft 14.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The way I see it is this...

There are some players like, for example, Dan Cole in the England set up.
He is a pretty well rounded player in his skill set and his athletic abilities, so there are no real tactical considerations to me made regarding his selection.

Croft's skillset is not quite as balanced, his tight work is average (not bad) but he's obviously honed his ability to make breaks through defensive lines, and his line-out steals are great.
All that means is that there are certain situations where you may want someone with greater ability in the tight.
I will concede that it's possibly a little unfair to call him a luxury, as he has certainly improved his weaknesses throughout his career.
I guess it just depends on what you want from your 6.

I generally prefer them in the mould of O'Brien or Moriarty (for people watching the U20 JWC).
I think Croft is the right pick on form and from a tactical perspective, for this match.

 

[Dougydeluxe]

I am more worried about the locks, if either get injured i am not convinced with Gray or Evans. I would of liked Hamilton or Launchbury in there. Sure JL tailed of but he is on great form in Argentina and his overall game is better than Evans/Gray and he is more consistent. Gatland as i said before played to much emphasis on the 6N wales vs england game.

I really like the way Launchbury plays rugby at Lock. But I disagree that he is a better option than Gray. Gray has played for bad teams his whole life and has still come out looking like a real talent. ( Scotland, Sale) He works hard and when he has a good game, it is great. I would agree that he is not always consistent. But even an average game from Gray is equal to many locks at their peak.

It comes down to the lock partnerships that can really change the quality of their game.

 

[Peat]

Personally, most of the extreme accusations that people level at Croft, I find true about Ritchie Gray.

But really, that's for another topic called "Players you think are really overrated" aka "This is how we all got banned at once"

 

[Jaguares]

Wallabies leaves great players out of the team as Matt Giteau and Quade Cooper, James O'Connor is a great player but not played many games as first five in Wallabies. I would like to see this new Wallabies Team, last year they missed James Horwill and Will Genia, while Michael Hooper was the revelation of the team.

Lions should attack Folau's side, he isn't good on defense and has little time in Rugby Union, they should test the defense of this player.

Regards

 

[ratsapprentice]

North will test Folau's defense, as Ioane will Cuthbert's.

 

[McTallshort]

I really like the way Launchbury plays rugby at Lock. But I disagree that he is a better option than Gray. Gray has played for bad teams his whole life and has still come out looking like a real talent. ( Scotland, Sale) He works hard and when he has a good game, it is great. I would agree that he is not always consistent. But even an average game from Gray is equal to many locks at their peak.

It comes down to the lock partnerships that can really change the quality of their game.

Am really really not convinced by Gray, I know its easy to notice his big blond head charging around but I have not seen a really great performance by him but then I didnt see the Aus Scotland game last year which I hear he was outstanding in.

 

[Ospreylian]

Relatively pleased with this team, although the ommission of Tipuric is a massive mistake. Imo he's been the most consistent Welsh player all season and is a fantastic dynamic link between the forwards and backs. I know Croft's abilities in open play are similar, so that makes up for his absence in certain open-field situations, but in terms of work rate at the breakdown Tips is by far the best in the Northern hemisphere atm imo. I think the coaches may regret not playing him, and not even having him on the bench. Warburton can consider himself extremely lucky.

At the start of the tour I would have been shocked to have seen Croft's name on the team-sheet, but after seeing his recent form I think he thoroughly deserves his place and brings a good bit of balance to that back row. With Warbs and Heaslip both being quite bulky, ball-carrying types in the loose you need somebody with a bit more pace for when play breaks up a bit. Also, if he isn't playing well on the day, they've got Lydiate on the bench who puts in the same amount of tackles as Croft and has a great workrate.

I have been a big supporter of Vunipola, but fair play to Corbisiero for pushing his way into the starting lineup. He gives some stability to the scrum.