South Africa vs British and Irish Lions - Test 3

[anderton46]

If Gatlands plan was pretty much ignore back play and just be good defensively

Agreed. I couldn't believe how slow Murray was to arrive at rucks in the last test. I'd have had Tomos Williams in the squad instead of Davies who at least would be more compatible with the likes of Russell and Simmonds. I guess Gatland likes Davies.

Well I'm not even sure he does like Davies. Given that he will have had 0 minutes in the 3 tests even after Murray has been pretty poor.

 

[Zerobound]

Sure, my point is simply that even though Biggar is far from the best ball in hand fly-half (and I've personally never been much of a fan), he's much better than he's showing and that's down to the plan. Russell would be kicking too.

Where it could get interesting is if we are significantly behind when Russell comes on, as we could have one of those moments where the players take matters into their own hands like Sexton and Farrell did last time

"Russell would be kicking too."

If the 6 nations test against England in 2019 is anything to go by, with Russell that game plan would only last 40mins.

I like to think that half time speech went something like this..



It gets to a point where game plan is only an excuse to play conservatively. Coaches these days want to win.

Whichever team is fearless will win this test.

 

[unrated]

Whichever team is fearless will win this test.

Whichever team is more conservative will win the test. If Lions tries to be fearless in the sense that you are advicating they will get klapped. The Rush defence eats attempts to throw it wide. Win the forward dominance battle and then earn the right to go wide. Its repeated every time yet the average rugby public want them to be more expansive everytime.

 

[BPM]

I'm not sure I agree. There's conservative and then there's outright negative …

My frustration (and I'm sure it's similar for others) is thr complete lack of ambition. Neither team is even really trying to play. I feel like the coaches are going in to the game telling their players 'you won't break down the opposition's defence, so you're better off taking your chances by kicking'.

I'm not expecting Barbarians rugby by any stretch of the imagination but resorting to kicking if you're unable to beat a blitz defence is a very different scenario to automatically kicking on the assumption that it's your only chance of success.

 

[mania]

It's easy BIL. don't fall for SAs prods and don't play their game. Keep your eye on the prize.

 

[unrated]

I'm not sure I agree. There's conservative and then there's outright negative …

My frustration (and I'm sure it's similar for others) is thr complete lack of ambition. Neither team is even really trying to play. I feel like the coaches are going in to the game telling their players 'you won't break down the opposition's defence, so you're better off taking your chances by kicking'.

I'm not expecting Barbarians rugby by any stretch of the imagination but resorting to kicking if you're unable to beat a blitz defence is a very different scenario to automatically kicking on the assumption that it's your only chance of success.

South Africa has a clear rule. When on the 50-meter mark or just before then the players are allowed to play. They have three chances, in the form of phases. If after three phases they have not won field position by running then they must kick. If they are winning field they may keep the ball in play.

When we play against teams like the BIL chances are their defence is good. Chances are most of our attempts will not breach the defensive line. If we do then great but if we don't they will not get sucked into a backwards battle for the advantage line. They will kick after phase 3, no ifs or buts this happens every time and ensures we can maintain our forward momentum, always. We are a team of momentum and forward dominance. People call it boring, people say play more expansive, each to their own I guess, we won't adapt our strategy to the opposition because it's a matter of execution not related to opposition tactics.

The BIL will make a mistake trying to be expansive or risky because The Springboks love playing WITHOUT the ball. Their game plan revolves around the other team keeping the ball in play. Then pushing them back on defence. If they kick to us we give our players three phases to push, if not we will kick it back to the opposition and rely on our defence to make field progress.

Some people call it boring, I love that we use our defence as an attacking weapon. There is no shame in playing a rugby game without the ball. It's our style. Yea maybe you are not happy that we don't play like New Zealand, so what? We have mercurial players and if they keep to rule one and keep making momentum (such as with weaker teams then we don't need to kick because we can easily breach defence by running).

I don't care that the new prospective fans have short attention spans and want constant fast-paced action like sevens or American football. That's World Rugbys problem, not ours. Our goal is to be the number one rugby side in the world on all levels from school to professional and to be better than New Zealand our toughest adversaries. The team is always building towards the next world cup.

Diversity in Rugby styles is more important then everyone playing like its Rugby Challenge 2.

 

[unrated]

It's easy BIL. don't fall for SAs prods and don't play their game. Keep your eye on the prize.

Keep your eye on the ball, maybe their eyes have strayed to the prize too much.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

.

South Africa has a clear rule. When on the 50-meter mark or just before then the players are allowed to play. They have three chances, in the form of phases. If after three phases they have not won field position by running then they must kick. If they are winning field they may keep the ball in play.

When we play against teams like the BIL chances are their defence is good. Chances are most of our attempts will not breach the defensive line. If we do then great but if we don't they will not get sucked into a backwards battle for the advantage line. They will kick after phase 3, no ifs or buts this happens every time and ensures we can maintain our forward momentum, always. We are a team of momentum and forward dominance. People call it boring, people say play more expansive, each to their own I guess, we won't adapt our strategy to the opposition because it's a matter of execution not related to opposition tactics.

The BIL will make a mistake trying to be expansive or risky because The Springboks love playing WITHOUT the ball. Their game plan revolves around the other team keeping the ball in play. Then pushing them back on defence. If they kick to us we give our players three phases to push, if not we will kick it back to the opposition and rely on our defence to make field progress.

Some people call it boring, I love that we use our defence as an attacking weapon. There is no shame in playing a rugby game without the ball. It's our style. Yea maybe you are not happy that we don't play like New Zealand, so what? We have mercurial players and if they keep to rule one and keep making momentum (such as with weaker teams then we don't need to kick because we can easily breach defence by running).

I don't care that the new prospective fans have short attention spans and want constant fast-paced action like sevens or American football. That's World Rugbys problem, not ours. Our goal is to be the number one rugby side in the world on all levels from school to professional and to be better than New Zealand our toughest adversaries. The team is always building towards the next world cup.

Diversity in Rugby styles is more important then everyone playing like its Rugby Challenge 2.

Yep, we've known exactly what we'd facing for about 30 years . It's just what to do about it.....

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Whichever team is more conservative will win the test. If Lions tries to be fearless in the sense that you are advicating they will get klapped. The Rush defence eats attempts to throw it wide. Win the forward dominance battle and then earn the right to go wide. Its repeated every time yet the average rugby public want them to be more expansive everytime.

It might be a good way but, Problem is, only one team can win that way. If BIL plays that way they probably lose. Therefore they need to try something else. If the boks play thst way, they win, therefore they should play that way. I know BIL won game one that way, but im not sure they will agains

 

[bargepole]

South Africa has a clear rule. When on the 50-meter mark or just before then the players are allowed to play. They have three chances, in the form of phases. If after three phases they have not won field position by running then they must kick. If they are winning field they may keep the ball in play.

When we play against teams like the BIL chances are their defence is good. Chances are most of our attempts will not breach the defensive line. If we do then great but if we don't they will not get sucked into a backwards battle for the advantage line. They will kick after phase 3, no ifs or buts this happens every time and ensures we can maintain our forward momentum, always. We are a team of momentum and forward dominance. People call it boring, people say play more expansive, each to their own I guess, we won't adapt our strategy to the opposition because it's a matter of execution not related to opposition tactics.

The BIL will make a mistake trying to be expansive or risky because The Springboks love playing WITHOUT the ball. Their game plan revolves around the other team keeping the ball in play. Then pushing them back on defence. If they kick to us we give our players three phases to push, if not we will kick it back to the opposition and rely on our defence to make field progress.

Some people call it boring, I love that we use our defence as an attacking weapon. There is no shame in playing a rugby game without the ball. It's our style. Yea maybe you are not happy that we don't play like New Zealand, so what? We have mercurial players and if they keep to rule one and keep making momentum (such as with weaker teams then we don't need to kick because we can easily breach defence by running).

I don't care that the new prospective fans have short attention spans and want constant fast-paced action like sevens or American football. That's World Rugbys problem, not ours. Our goal is to be the number one rugby side in the world on all levels from school to professional and to be better than New Zealand our toughest adversaries. The team is always building towards the next world cup.

Diversity in Rugby styles is more important then everyone playing like its Rugby Challenge 2.

Nothing wrong with that gameplan if it gets results. Similar tactics were employed by Saracens in the English Premiership, which they won for several consecutive years (before they got thrown out for breaching the salary cap).

The BIL really need to be watching videos of NZ wins over SA. The All Blacks do not try to out-muscle the Boks at their own game, they keep the ball moving, with constant changes of the direction of attack, and offloads at every opportunity. The Boks want to play a controlled, structured game, The way to beat that is to break the game up, keep the ball in play, and make the game as unstructured as possible.

But I'm not sure that will be the message from WG on Saturday.

 

[ncurd]

.

Yep, we've known exactly what we'd facing for about 30 years . It's just what to do about it.....

Hitting Ctrl+C then Ctrl+V isn't it though.

 

[BPM]

South Africa has a clear rule. When on the 50-meter mark or just before then the players are allowed to play. They have three chances, in the form of phases. If after three phases they have not won field position by running then they must kick. If they are winning field they may keep the ball in play.

When we play against teams like the BIL chances are their defence is good. Chances are most of our attempts will not breach the defensive line. If we do then great but if we don't they will not get sucked into a backwards battle for the advantage line. They will kick after phase 3, no ifs or buts this happens every time and ensures we can maintain our forward momentum, always. We are a team of momentum and forward dominance. People call it boring, people say play more expansive, each to their own I guess, we won't adopt our strategy to the opposition because it's a matter of execution not related to opposition tactics.

The BIL will make a mistake trying to be expansive or risky because The Springboks love playing WITHOUT the ball. Their game plan revolves around the other team keeping the ball in play. Then pushing them back on defence. If they kick to us we give our players three phases to push, if not we will kick it back to the opposition and rely on our defence to make field progress.

Some people call it boring, I love that we use our defence as an attacking weapon. There is no shame in playing a rugby game without the ball. It's our style. Yea maybe you are not happy that we don't play like New Zealand, so what? We have mercurial players and if they keep to rule one and keep making momentum (such as with weaker teams then we don't need to kick because we can easily breach defence by running).

I don't care that the new prospective fans have short attention spans and want constant fast-paced action like sevens or American football. That's World Rugbys problem, not ours. Our goal is to be the number one rugby side in the world on all levels from school to professional and to be better than New Zealand our toughest adversaries. The team is always building towards the next world cup.

You seem to have interpreted my post solely as a criticism of SA. It wasn't …

My comments apply to both, but if anything were primarily directed at the Lions. Any team where the fly half only makes 3 passes in 60+ minutes is showing 0 ambition or intent IMO. At least the Boks played some reasonable rugby.

Ultimately, you've eloquently articulated why I can't stand this brand of rugby. SA are undeniably very good at it, but it's not the kind of rugby I like to watch. I'm a Quins fan so I guess my mindset is that I'd generally prefer to see entertainment and skill prevail than grind it out rugby with a win at all costs mentality. As NZ have shown, you can still win games in the modern era by playing effective, intelligent attacking rugby so I don't think playing conservatively is the only route to success.

You may be happy with the way SA play but it is disappointing to see talented skilful players like Kolbe given such minimal involvement.

 

[bargepole]

. I'm a Quins fan so I guess my mindset is that I'd generally prefer to see entertainment and skill prevail than grind it out rugby with a win at all costs mentality.

And, if anyone wants to see how Rugby can be skilful and entertaining, just download any video of a Harlequins v Wasps game from the past 5 years. As the commentator said at their last meeting, 'I wish these two could play each other every week'.

 

[General Melchett]

My frustration (and I'm sure it's similar for others) is thr complete lack of ambition. Neither team is even really trying to play. I feel like the coaches are going in to the game telling their players 'you won't break down the opposition's defence, so you're better off taking your chances by kicking'.

I'm not expecting Barbarians rugby by any stretch of the imagination but resorting to kicking if you're unable to beat a blitz defence is a very different scenario to automatically kicking on the assumption that it's your only chance of success.

When the squad was originally selected people looked at the Lions backrow (smaller, quicker and more mobile than SA e.g. Simmonds) and came to the conclusion that the faster 8's would be used out wide to try and get around the SA wall. I think there probably an intention to play that way but Gatland changed his mind mid tour thinking the Boks were undercooked and that the Lions could beat them at their own kicking game after the Boks ran out of steam in the second half in the A game. Perhaps Gatland got spooked with a couple of intercepts in the warm up games and just couldn't commit to playing a fast expansive game and decided to change the game plan. It looks like the original game plan is being saved for the last 20 minutes on Saturday when/if Russell and Simmonds come on.

 

[BPM]

Maybe. That's a fairly kind interpretation.

My feeling is that there is one gameplan (albeit not really worthy of that description) which is to kick to compete. If that doesn't work, Russell, Simmonds etc. will be thrown on and just told to go for it. That's not really a 'plan' and TBH, it may be too late come 60mins anyway.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Hitting Ctrl+C then Ctrl+V isn't it though.

Unfortunately Gatland's keyboard looks something like this:

 

[ncurd]

I suppose the one good thing from this tour with Townsend going is he must be the heir apparent to Gatland. So the next tour to Australia won't be anywhere near as Conservative in selection or tactics.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I suppose the one good thing from this tour with Townsend going is he must be the heir apparent to Gatland. So the next tour to Australia won't be anywhere near as Conservative in selection or tactics.

Surely that would rely on Scotland actually performing over the next 4 years? Not sure people would be overly keen on that if Scotland slide and are finishing 4th/5th again. Got to remember that what the Scots have been calling great 6Ns for them would be disappointing to every nation except Italy.

 

[ncurd]

Surely that would rely on Scotland actually performing over the next 4 years? Not sure people would be overly keen on that if Scotland slide and are finishing 4th/5th again. Got to remember that what the Scots have been calling great 6Ns for them would be disappointing to every nation except Italy.

Who else are we going to call up? We also have to think are Scotland achieving the best with resources they have (which I think few would argue).

 

[Which Tyler]

Who else are we going to call up? We also have to think are Scotland achieving the best with resources they have (which I think few would argue).

Eddie Jones...