Warm Up Match 2: Blues v British & Irish Lions (Auckland)

[Zootalaws]

You're missing where I've been coming from in terms of this thread. The lions are not in a great place and I'm worried about the rest of the tour. I expect a couple more losses to super rugby opposition, and yes we should have done better so far.

My overall thrust is just that we know where we can mend things, the most important thing being don't kick so loosely to talented runners. Because substantively the only thing that matters is winning the next game, rather than succumbing to people who just want to bask in the lions' failure. You say it's not helpful for the lions to put this in a brighter context but how is it helpful to be like "guys you know we we really are terrible, we lost to the weakest super rugby team from NZ AND THEY HAD A ROOKIE TEN!"

If things carry on the way they are, I can see the Lions giving away any chance of running rugby in favour of grunting it up the middle and setting up a Sexton/Farrell penalty. Kicking into open spaces only to have your backs ripped open by fancy foot and hand work on the return is only going to be allowed a few more times, until the word is that tactics are going to be based on denying the Kiwi teams any access to the ball.

The other question that is sitting, like the elephant in the room, is whether the whole ethos of rugby in the NH has lost its way and that SH rugby is the way forward.

Look to the Pumas over the next couple of years to see whether it's possible to change from forward-centric play to the situation we see here in NZ, with forwards and back mixed along the line, using their individual strengths and shoring up their weaknesses.

I'm not writing the Lions off yet, there's a way to go to the first test, but they need to play to their strengths and not think that they can suddenly develop gameplay based, not on forcing penalties, but on a positive strategy of a cracking sidestep and offload to run in tries, from players that have spent their careers building big, battering packs to excel at mauls, scrums and line outs and depend for points on some kid with a laser sight on his penalty-taking boot.

It's like the old story of the scorpion and the frog - no matter how much he might want to change, the nature of the scorpion is to sting. The nature of NH rugby isn't to be Pacific rugby. Stick to your strengths.

 

[Brigantine]

I see education standards are slipping... NZ is 1/3 larger than the British Isles + Ireland.

Citation needed... also the British Isles already include the emerald one.

 

[MikeTheNative]

Kicking the ball into space is clearly a tactic but there isn't the kick chase to back it up. After finally seeing the game this morning it wasn't as bad as the Barbarians game and had some positives but numerous negatives as well. Ball in hand Lions are looking like they are struggling to create anything, there are far too many one pass to runner to hits it up. Also the kicking from hand seemed to be poor, if they are going to kick it long the chase needs to be a lot faster otherwise just go for the up and under and have a chance of competing.

 

[ALJ]

If things carry on the way they are, I can see the Lions giving away any chance of running rugby in favour of grunting it up the middle and setting up a Sexton/Farrell penalty. Kicking into open spaces only to have your backs ripped open by fancy foot and hand work on the return is only going to be allowed a few more times, until the word is that tactics are going to be based on denying the Kiwi teams any access to the ball.

The other question that is sitting, like the elephant in the room, is whether the whole ethos of rugby in the NH has lost its way and that SH rugby is the way forward.

Look to the Pumas over the next couple of years to see whether it's possible to change from forward-centric play to the situation we see here in NZ, with forwards and back mixed along the line, using their individual strengths and shoring up their weaknesses.

I'm not writing the Lions off yet, there's a way to go to the first test, but they need to play to their strengths and not think that they can suddenly develop gameplay based, not on forcing penalties, but on a positive strategy of a cracking sidestep and offload to run in tries, from players that have spent their careers building big, battering packs to excel at mauls, scrums and line outs and depend for points on some kid with a laser sight on his penalty-taking boot.

It's like the old story of the scorpion and the frog - no matter how much he might want to change, the nature of the scorpion is to sting. The nature of NH rugby isn't to be Pacific rugby. Stick to your strengths.

All seems a bit odd to me tbh.

Recent times have seen the NH sides improve and the SH (with the exception of NZ) go backwards (although not saying it will stay that way).
The ABs are the standard but that's been the case for pretty much my whole life.
Imho you're talking about the Pumas from a few years ago - if anything the Pumas problem now is that, having found some exciting backs, they lack forward power. Seemed they peaked in the 2015 RWC and have regressed since.

On the one hand you say 'stick to your strengths' but on the other you appear to bemoan that the Lions might revert to (perceived) type and play a tight, territory game - I'm a bit confused as to what you think they should actually be doing?

Probably the other point I'd make is that I don't think you can judge the health of NH rugby on two Lions games (or even the whole series for that matter).
As has been mentioned many times, rugby sides are so well organised these days, pulling a scratch side together and getting results is increasingly difficult - particularly so in NZ.
The first couple of weeks of this tour is an incredibly tough environment to be creating a team (as opposed to a collection of rugby players) - Final judgement is the text series but even partial judgement probably needs to be reserved for another 9-10 days imho.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

If things carry on the way they are, I can see the Lions giving away any chance of running rugby in favour of grunting it up the middle and setting up a Sexton/Farrell penalty. Kicking into open spaces only to have your backs ripped open by fancy foot and hand work on the return is only going to be allowed a few more times, until the word is that tactics are going to be based on denying the Kiwi teams any access to the ball.

The other question that is sitting, like the elephant in the room, is whether the whole ethos of rugby in the NH has lost its way and that SH rugby is the way forward.

Look to the Pumas over the next couple of years to see whether it's possible to change from forward-centric play to the situation we see here in NZ, with forwards and back mixed along the line, using their individual strengths and shoring up their weaknesses.

I'm not writing the Lions off yet, there's a way to go to the first test, but they need to play to their strengths and not think that they can suddenly develop gameplay based, not on forcing penalties, but on a positive strategy of a cracking sidestep and offload to run in tries, from players that have spent their careers building big, battering packs to excel at mauls, scrums and line outs and depend for points on some kid with a laser sight on his penalty-taking boot.

It's like the old story of the scorpion and the frog - no matter how much he might want to change, the nature of the scorpion is to sting. The nature of NH rugby isn't to be Pacific rugby. Stick to your strengths.

This isn't an accurate understanding of northern hemisphere rugby. All the six nations teams have exciting players who can score wonderful tries. You need to look at pro 12 winners the scarlets and premiership runners up Wasps to see the rugby that is being successfully played. And their is plenty of attacking talent in this lions squad.

The problem here is that loads of people from New Zealand are going to look at how the lions are playing and see it as confirmation of every stereotype of northern hemisphere rugby as turgid, slow, set-piece based. In truth, there's enough of that but it's overall a more rounded game, and the recent successes of both England and Ireland attest to teams adding facets to their game, being able to put pressure on up front but also score tries. The game that sealed Englands 3 - 0 series victory against Australia ended 44 - 40, some change from the multiples of 3 victory in the 2007 World Cup. The situation with the lions is different though, they are trying to forge a coherent team in short time and the baseline skills of the average player is not high enough to be playing basketball rugby right away. New Zealand are probably the only nation of players who could in theory be flung together from different clubs having not played together and ply successful expansive rugby within a week. For the purposes of this tour, I would agree to an extent that the lions need to ensure their traditional strengths remain as such, up front and in set-piece. But they need to score tries in their backline, and to be fair if you look back at 2013 the lions played some really good rugby.

 

[MikeTheNative]

Is anyone else a bit worried about Stander? He was bulldozing people for fun in the 6 nations but the last few games I've seen him play he's not be as effective as he was earlier in the year. Don't get me wrong he played ok yesterday but i've seen him have a lot more of an impact before.

 

[Nubiwan]

Is anyone else a bit worried about Stander? He was bulldozing people for fun in the 6 nations but the last few games I've seen him play he's not be as effective as he was earlier in the year. Don't get me wrong he played ok yesterday but i've seen him have a lot more of an impact before.

I was really hoping to see how Vunipola would make out at 8 in NZ. A largely dominating force in the 6N and at club level, I was really wondering if that would translate for the Lions. Shame we will never know. Thought Stander was alright, but I find the Lions forwards tend to get isolated at times, and the turnover or penalties are a problem. Moriarty also had a decent game at 8. Be interesting to see if things come together for them.

 

[Zootalaws]

Citation needed... also the British Isles already include the emerald one.

My mistake, I didn't realise Ireland was part of the BI. In which case, they are 30% larger. Do the Irish know they are part of Britain???

"The Government of Ireland does not recognise or use the term and its embassy in London discourages its use."

Seems I'm overtly influenced by my Irish parents on this

 

[Nubiwan]

I have sat down and thought about which players would get in a European team from France and virtually changed the players each time apart from Guirado who was ever present, this then got me thinking about how a Northern Hemisphere v Southern Hemisphere series would appeal to the masses, might prove an interesting topic for debate and maybe more of a money spinner for the various unions. Not being a fan of the November tests maybe a North v South series would be an interesting concept.

Don't they call that the World Cup? I mean - really?

Why not make it every 2 years instead of every 4. Dilute the comp into A and B conferences with 2nd tier sides being promoted or something like that. Why do world tournaments have to be every 4 years?

Be very interesting to see a club tournament too IMHO. Saracens, Munster Leinster, Scarlets, French Clubs taking on Southern provincial sides. Obviously, travel and cost are issues.

 

[Zootalaws]

All seems a bit odd to me tbh.

Recent times have seen the NH sides improve and the SH (with the exception of NZ) go backwards (although not saying it will stay that way).
The ABs are the standard but that's been the case for pretty much my whole life.
Imho you're talking about the Pumas from a few years ago - if anything the Pumas problem now is that, having found some exciting backs, they lack forward power. Seemed they peaked in the 2015 RWC and have regressed since.

On the one hand you say 'stick to your strengths' but on the other you appear to bemoan that the Lions might revert to (perceived) type and play a tight, territory game - I'm a bit confused as to what you think they should actually be doing?

Probably the other point I'd make is that I don't think you can judge the health of NH rugby on two Lions games (or even the whole series for that matter).
As has been mentioned many times, rugby sides are so well organised these days, pulling a scratch side together and getting results is increasingly difficult - particularly so in NZ.
The first couple of weeks of this tour is an incredibly tough environment to be creating a team (as opposed to a collection of rugby players) - Final judgement is the text series but even partial judgement probably needs to be reserved for another 9-10 days imho.

I'm bemoaning nothing, it was an observation. I'm certainly not prepared to predict the rest of the tour on these first two games.

I've no idea what Gatland's tactics are, but i would expect he's not concerned about the lead-up matches, if those hard games give him a team capable and desiring the chance of making a fist of it. And if a close, territorial game is what they need to play to win, that's what they should do. I can't see them matching us on open play, you are too far behind to try new tricks on tour. Maybe against a different side, but not the ABs.

Much has been written about this tour, I suspect that there was much anticipation that they would win the early matches and have a hard time with the ABs, and that has caused some viewers to become disheartened. For me it's an entertaining lead-up to the tests - really the only games that matter (although you could view the Maori game as a fourth test - they will certainly view it as such).

I'm not a big media follower, so I haven't been infected by the hype, from either side. Journalists are in the business of creating controversy, because that's what sell papers. With a tiny market, the NZ journos have been making a lot of noise, probably hoping they get quoted in a big paper overseas. Don't take their bashing to heart - if the past two games have shown anything, it's that actual followers are keeping their powder dry, expecting the Lions to step up when the big games kick off.

Of course I would like to see open, flowing, attacking rugby from both sides, but I'm not sure it's in the Lions DNA.

 

[Car]

I don't think it makes sense to turn it into an NH versus SH debate - just look at how NZ dominates Super Rugby these days. They're simply that much better. Also, I don't think the Blues are as bad as they're made to be. I've watched them quite a lot lately and they definitely have a couple of great players or talents, but the problem is that the other NZ teams are even better.

I guess open, flowing, attacking rugby simply requires more understanding for each other, something you can't develop over night. But the kicking without a chance of catching the ball needs to stop, that's just handing over possession to the opponent and NZ teams know how to exploit that well.

 

[ALJ]

I guess open, flowing, attacking rugby simply requires more understanding for each other, something you can't develop over night. But the kicking without a chance of catching the ball needs to stop, that's just handing over possession to the opponent and NZ teams know how to exploit that well.

I would go slightly further insofar as we're handing possession over in broken play - the worst thing you can do against NZ sides imho (it's not great against any side to be fair).

If we're going to hand the ball over, get it off the park so we can reset or failing that, at least get the sodding thing on the ground.

 

[MikeTheNative]

I would go slightly further insofar as we're handing possession over in broken play - the worst thing you can do against NZ sides imho (it's not great against any side to be fair).

If we're going to hand the ball over, get it off the park so we can reset or failing that, at least get the sodding thing on the ground.

That's what i didn't understand, kicking the ball long and infield happened way too often to too many players that it had to been the game plan but as you said that seems to be playing to NZ's strengths. If you are going to kick at has to be to touch or to compete in the air.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Neither Youngs or Care are anywhere near as good as Webb

Care no, Youngs yes. Webb's passing game is better but Youngs' box kicking is head and shoulders above and I'd say he has a slightly better running game. Really not much between them though and I couldn't confidently say which is better. But Youngs is definitely as good as him.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I can't see any other southern hemisphere players I'd want to put into the AB's.
Not one.
They would only dilute the sacred purity of what we create in the shaky isles.

When Pocock returns, surely him. Cane and Todd are both quality but neither has necessarily put their hand up above the other, I'd say that Pocock has. I'd also say that both Aussie props as well as potentially Jaco Kriel over Cane all have a decent shot. After that though I agree, no one comes close to what you have going on.

 

[The Jones Boy]

When Pocock returns, surely him. Cane and Todd are both quality but neither has necessarily put their hand up above the other, I'd say that Pocock has. I'd also say that both Aussie props as well as potentially Jaco Kriel over Cane all have a decent shot. After that though I agree, no one comes close to what you have going on.

Cane's days are numbered, he reminds me of Tame Jandal.
Ardie Savea is waiting on the bench. Dynamic and quick.
Pocock has spent too many seasons at no.8 now, he doesn't have the speed of old.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Cane's days are numbered, he reminds me of Tame Jandal.
Ardie Savea is waiting on the bench. Dynamic and quick.
Pocock has spent too many seasons at no.8 now, he doesn't have the speed of old.

Ardie has to be the best 7 in the world on form, I get that Hansen likes him as an impact sub but just let the kid start...

 

[MikeTheNative]

Ardie has to be the best 7 in the world on form, I get that Hansen likes him as an impact sub but just let the kid start...

Kind of like Jones with Hartley and George.

 

[The Jones Boy]

The Lions can plod along getting quietly better, then vault out of the starting blocks in the first test and strangulate (yes, strangulate) the All Blacks with powerhouse forward play and sharp kicking from the tee and the hand to dominate, territory, possession and the scoreboard.
It's rugby, it can happen.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Just decided to finally rewatch this game to try and spot individual problems. I'm only 2 minutes in so far because I keep having to pause it. It's just really infuriating to see because after 2 minutes, the lions should have had their first try.

Bigger has the ball with 5 men outside him. He needs to quickly shift to to Owens who then takes it and draws before giving it to Henshaw. Instead, Biggar delays a little then loops it to Henshaw who loses his window and steps back inside. To be fair, with a bit more awareness Henshaw could probably still get a pass away to Halfpenny who he should be aware of outside him, and you can argue that Henshaw should have kept a greater distance from Owens. Either way this should have been a 7 pointer. It's early in the tour to go overboard with this criticism but this is Dan Bigger all over. With Ford at 10, the lions score this. Just saying.