British and Irish Lions v Argentina - Friday, 20 June Kick-off: 20:00 BST

[Mr Mwenda]

Fair enough, well played Pumas. Too clinical.

I think as a work in progress that was fairly decent.

[Big D]

Well played Argentina, fully deserved win!

Any idea when you'll join the circus properly and host a tour?

I don't think they will. SNZAR won't give up the tour easily and I don't think the Lions brass want to either.

[Mr Mwenda]

Well played Argentina, fully deserved win!

Any idea when you'll join the circus properly and host a tour?

I don't think they will. SNZAR won't give up the tour easily and I don't think the Lions brass want to either. France would be a far more attractive and difficult tour.

It's a nice thought though, they could also play tests v Chile and Uruguay in the build up to the test series.

[Which Tyler]

It's a nice thought though, they could also play tests v Chile and Uruguay in the build up to the test series.

WT's proposed calendar

Sat 1: Canada in Ottawa
Wed 2: MLR Allstars in Boston
Sat 2: USA in New York

Sat 3: Uruguay in Montevideo
Wed 4: Chile in Santiago
Sat 4: Americas Invitational in Mendoza
Sat 5: Argentina in Buenos Aires
Wed 6: Brasil in Porto Alegre
Sat 6: Argentina in Cordoba
Sat 7: Argentina in Buenos Aires

Whilst it's a lot of air miles, there's no major time zone changes.
Presumably you'd set up camp initially somewhere around New York, and then somewhere around Buenos Aires; and travel to matches from those 2 camps. Only flights that's longer than 2 hours would be New York to Buenos Aires.

3.00pm KO in North America would be 8.00pm viewing time in B&I
3.00pm KO in Buenos Aires would be 7.00pm viewing time in B&I

[Big D]

Well played Argentina, fully deserved win!

Any idea when you'll join the circus properly and host a tour?

I don't think they will. SNZAR won't give up the tour easily and I don't think the Lions brass want to either. France would be a far more attractive and difficult tour.

It's a nice thought though, they could also play tests v Chile and Uruguay in the build up to the test series.

I don't think it is that an attractive tour compared to say France with Italy and Georgia thrown in and that won't happen either.

The Lions would smoke the Chiles, Uruguays and any other side they would play for warm ups to the point where it wouldn't be a worthwhile game.

[Sandydragon]

Awful ( actually excrable ) and certainly worst Lions performance I can remember

Where to start:

Itoje too taciturn and clueless for this job

Earl proved yet again that he doesn’t have the physicality or power to play no.8 in a test match

Pollock (one turnover aside) looked completely lost

Line out ropey and only Genge (in second half ) managed a carry

Center pairing less than the sum of its parts

Lions losing more pocession than a pub team with Lager for half time fuel

Worst of all a lot of this was predictable the split second Farrell’s squad was released and Farrell Senior making Steve Borthwick look like Carwyn James! Don’t want him anywhere near England job in future

Nah, I refer you to the opening match against the select team on the last New Sealand tour which was just fricking dire.

Lions very rusty but also missing a lot of players who will
Make a difference. Agree about Earls, he just doesn’t look like a No8. Centres looked better when Hansen came on and Williams added some spark at scrum half.

[Spiffy]

I would not be too concerned about the performance of a relatively scratch Lions team (and far from the test side) against a decent Pumas lineup. Backrow looked quite unbalanced. Don't be surprised if Beirne gets selected at 6. Freeman and Tuipolutu quite impressive. I would not have Duhan VDM in the squad at all. An overall lack of power and physicality, including the captain Itoje. Has he lost some bulk?

[Cameo]

Agree with most of what's been said. Lack of cohesion but no need to panic. Some of the time tried too much with the offloads, but a few needless kicks (commentators love the grubbers into touch, but I thought M Smith's one just before the last Argentina try was a waste of good ball.

It's always funny though with Lions tours the added scrutiny on individual mistakes. VDM had two great attacking moments early, lost a ball on the ground and lost a high ball contest and suddenly he's not good enough. Freeman looked sharp but also lost at least one aerial contest, put in a pointless chip that was easily marked, and dropped a sitter at the end. Basically, there is a danger of reading too much into everything.

[Sandydragon]

Agree with most of what's been said. Lack of cohesion but no need to panic. Some of the time tried too much with the offloads, but a few needless kicks (commentators love the grubbers into touch, but I thought M Smith's one just before the last Argentina try was a waste of good ball.

It's always funny though with Lions tours the added scrutiny on individual mistakes. VDM had two great attacking moments early, lost a ball on the ground and lost a high ball contest and suddenly he's not good enough. Freeman looked sharp but also lost at least one aerial contest, put in a pointless chip that was easily marked, and dropped a sitter at the end. Basically, there is a danger of reading too much into everything.

There is, and that’s a recognition of the level of competition for each place. With the tour so short any poor performance can be the one which loses a player a test position.

[UKHamlet]

Farrell's style of rugby is old fashioned and mechanistic. A bit like Gatland on steroids. The game has evolved in the last few years and grinding teams down doesn't work as well as it used to. France and NZ play a different sort of game, and they've done that by keeping the ball moving. There is an element of positionless rugby, but not to the extent mad Eddie wanted to play it. It's more like having no rucks, just keep the ball moving. England have adopted this style, albeit belatedly. They're starting to get some success with it, and I'm willing to predict they will develop into a seriously good side over the next couple of years if they continue with it. Crucially, Australia have also taken it to their bosom. They will score a lot of tries against a static, Farrell inspired, big-men-smashing-it-up-the-middle-trying-to-create-gaps, style of rugby. South Africa can get away with it, because South Africa, but even they have started popping the ball up from rucks rather than rolling it back to the 9. This is going to be an interesting test series. The old vs the new. I seriously doubt Farrell has the ability or willingness to change his style, and the series will be won or lost on how well Australia have adapted to this style of play. If they try to compete in muscularity with an almost completely Irish pack, they will lose. If they move the ball quickly and unpredictably, they're in with a shout. For the good of the game, I'm hoping Australia back their talent and run the legs off the Lions.

[Danno]

including the captain Itoje. Has he lost some bulk?

Itoje looked knackered, which isn't surprising considering he is already over the limit for a season and that was the first match he didn't play all 80mins

[Banquo]

Some odd reactions. A scratch team with loads of new combos dominated a very good international side in territory and possession, and lost by dint of gifting at least two tries - and fair play Argentina finished well; imo had the Lions not tried to play so much, eg mad levels of offloads, they’d have won comfortably… and that’s despite a very shabby lineout and ill balanced selections in the back five of the pack, midfield and back 3. We were pummelled in the air, so bye to Marcus at 15 imo. We need a big partner for Itoje, tight carrying in the back row, a centre pairing with better balance and an actual 15; and that’s before we get to the fact that it was nowhere near first choice in say half backs….
Cheer up lads.

[Mikey Brown]

Farrell's style of rugby is old fashioned and mechanistic. A bit like Gatland on steroids. The game has evolved in the last few years and grinding teams down doesn't work as well as it used to. France and NZ play a different sort of game, and they've done that by keeping the ball moving. There is an element of positionless rugby, but not to the extent mad Eddie wanted to play it. It's more like having no rucks, just keep the ball moving. England have adopted this style, albeit belatedly. They're starting to get some success with it, and I'm willing to predict they will develop into a seriously good side over the next couple of years if they continue with it. Crucially, Australia have also taken it to their bosom. They will score a lot of tries against a static, Farrell inspired, big-men-smashing-it-up-the-middle-trying-to-create-gaps, style of rugby. South Africa can get away with it, because South Africa, but even they have started popping the ball up from rucks rather than rolling it back to the 9. This is going to be an interesting test series. The old vs the new. I seriously doubt Farrell has the ability or willingness to change his style, and the series will be won or lost on how well Australia have adapted to this style of play. If they try to compete in muscularity with an almost completely Irish pack, they will lose. If they move the ball quickly and unpredictably, they're in with a shout. For the good of the game, I'm hoping Australia back their talent and run the legs off the Lions.

Is this your assessment of Farrell in general or what you saw yesterday? I was surprised at just how loose and frantic it was, with such a willingness for (loose, often just bad) offloads you’d think Farrell stated that as the plan. It feels unlikely they all decided to play like that on a whim.

Understandably he didn’t seem happy with the amount of lost possession after the game though.

If anything I’d say (as Banquo suggests) we need some more heavyweight players up front. Unfortunately McCarthy and Conan are the only real options in the squad that fill the lock enforcer and ball carrying 8 roles, which doesn’t really leave much room for form or balance.

It’s odd because I’d say Farrell has geared this squad very much towards what you describe as the current/future trend in rugby, but we’re actually quite lacking in the smash-it-up department, leaving that all to the 3/4 line for some reason.

Maybe I’d made my mind up this already before the game but really don’t want to see Aki/Tuipulotu pairing again - which I would agree felt like a real Gatland selection.

Still, there’s a lot of room for building this play style and tweaking the balances of the team (sticking with a more mobile pack to keep the ball alive) once everyone is available.

[Banquo]

Farrell's style of rugby is old fashioned and mechanistic. A bit like Gatland on steroids. The game has evolved in the last few years and grinding teams down doesn't work as well as it used to. France and NZ play a different sort of game, and they've done that by keeping the ball moving. There is an element of positionless rugby, but not to the extent mad Eddie wanted to play it. It's more like having no rucks, just keep the ball moving. England have adopted this style, albeit belatedly. They're starting to get some success with it, and I'm willing to predict they will develop into a seriously good side over the next couple of years if they continue with it. Crucially, Australia have also taken it to their bosom. They will score a lot of tries against a static, Farrell inspired, big-men-smashing-it-up-the-middle-trying-to-create-gaps, style of rugby. South Africa can get away with it, because South Africa, but even they have started popping the ball up from rucks rather than rolling it back to the 9. This is going to be an interesting test series. The old vs the new. I seriously doubt Farrell has the ability or willingness to change his style, and the series will be won or lost on how well Australia have adapted to this style of play. If they try to compete in muscularity with an almost completely Irish pack, they will lose. If they move the ball quickly and unpredictably, they're in with a shout. For the good of the game, I'm hoping Australia back their talent and run the legs off the Lions.

Is this your assessment of Farrell in general or what you saw yesterday? I was surprised at just how loose and frantic it was, with such a willingness for (loose, often just bad) offloads you’d think Farrell stated that as the plan. It feels unlikely they all decided to play like that on a whim.

Understandably he didn’t seem happy with the amount of lost possession after the game though.

If anything I’d say (as Banquo suggests) we need some more heavyweight players up front. Unfortunately McCarthy and Conan are the only real options in the squad that fill the lock enforcer and ball carrying 8 roles, which doesn’t really leave much room for form or balance.

It’s odd because I’d say Farrell has geared this squad very much towards what you describe as the current/future trend in rugby, but we’re actually quite lacking in the smash-it-up department, leaving that all to the 3/4 line for some reason.

Maybe I’d made my mind up this already before the game but really don’t want to see Aki/Tuipulotu pairing again - which I would agree felt like a real Gatland selection.

Still, there’s a lot of room for building this play style and tweaking the balances of the team (sticking with a more mobile pack to keep the ball alive) once everyone is available.

Aye, stick McCarthy with Itoje, Sheehan at 2, poss Beirne at 6, someone at 8JGP and Russell at 10 (and the style indicated playing around Russell ) Tuipuloto and Ringrose, with a back three of Lowe/duhan/daly (lions suits him ) Freeman and Kinghorn…


Area where it looks tricky to sort with balance and three lineout options looks to be back 5 of scrum, need ballast in the second row, a tight carrier in the back row… and not that obvious how you do that.

Contrary to what our back row expert thought, one missed tackle to one side,Pollock looked at home to me.

[jngf]

The one positive thing I will say is that Farrell’s at least being open in after match conference that this was not good enough: rather than trying to spin - which makes a refreshing change!

I do think though that Itoje comes across as rather too laconic for captaincy, has he the fire to grab a game and team by the scruff of the neck if it’s all going wrong? Will be more than happy to be proved wrong but this is my honest reaction in his captaincy style ( and that includes 6 Nations).

On a selection basis, I’m far from convinced on moving Beirne to 6 being the answer - rather pair Chessum with Itoje in the second row - keep Curry and Morgan as starting flanks and if Doris is not fit I’d give serious thought to inviting CCS or T Willis to join the party with a view to finding a convincing starting 8 - we’ll get knowhere with sticking to Earl or substituting him for Conan imo

Plus Pollock is not yet Lions class imo and it may well have been wiser to have had him tour with England? Again time will tell

[Mikey Brown]

The Pollock situation is hard to judge because of the insane hype. I still can’t believe the noise every time he’s on camera or the hoards of fans waiting for him after every game. It’s like he’s from a boy band or something. He certainly looks the part.

He looked full of energy and had a good rip in the tackle, but I don’t really know what it was people were so impressed with to be honest. A bit like Ludlam or Moody he bounds around like a Labrador and it certainly catches the eye, but I struggle to be sure when he’s actually being effective in his core role, outside of the fantastic steals and linebreaks.

That’s not to say he won’t develop, but the things that concern me like his physicality and heft in the tackle area (Albornoz miss really was poor, leading directly a try) aren’t things that are going to develop in the next few weeks surely.

This might be the making of him and he’ll be able to use all of his incredible strengths to really impact these games, but I just don’t think he’s a better player than Darge right now. Not that another 7 is really what this squad needs anyway.

[Danno]

I quite like Itoje's calm captaincy style. He's measured, doesn't lose his temper, communicates with the ref very well. He's got plenty of characters around him to gee the team up on the pitch while he keeps his head and his cool.

[Banquo]

The Pollock situation is hard to judge because of the insane hype. I still can’t believe the noise every time he’s on camera or the hoards of fans waiting for him after every game. It’s like he’s from a boy band or something. He certainly looks the part.

He looked full of energy and had a good rip in the tackle, but I don’t really know what it was people were so impressed with to be honest. A bit like Ludlam or Moody he bounds around like a Labrador and it certainly catches the eye, but I struggle to be sure when he’s actually being effective in his core role, outside of the fantastic steals and linebreaks.

That’s not to say he won’t develop, but the things that concern me like his physicality and heft in the tackle area (Albornoz miss really was poor, leading directly a try) aren’t things that are going to develop in the next few weeks surely.

This might be the making of him and he’ll be able to use all of his incredible strengths to really impact these games, but I just don’t think he’s a better player than Darge right now. Not that another 7 is really what this squad needs anyway.

He's imo more talented than all you mention tbh, but obviously lacks experience; he's box office because he is young, quick and has some outrageous talent ball in hand. He's getting hyped because its perceived that the game needs a player like him to attract new audiences...and I think some are backlashing on that. He's pretty good now, and without injury suspect he'll be very good soon. I wasn't however saying he was impressive, just that he looked at home/not out of place, which is amazing given his age and the stage he was playing on.

[Which Tyler]

I'm starting to think I watched a different match to Hammy and Jngf.
I know I struggled to get S4C to work properly, and seemed to have the Irish commentary team where others had English or Welsh, but I'm sure I saw the same players doing different things to what's being claimed. I'm very sure that I didn't see any mindless grinding away like the worst of Gatland, or the worst Lions performance I've watched.

[Banquo]

The one positive thing I will say is that Farrell’s at least being open in after match conference that this was not good enough: rather than trying to spin - which makes a refreshing change!

I do think though that Itoje comes across as rather too laconic for captaincy, has he the fire to grab a game and team by the scruff of the neck if it’s all going wrong? Will be more than happy to be proved wrong but this is my honest reaction in his captaincy style ( and that includes 6 Nations).

On a selection basis, I’m far from convinced on moving Beirne to 6 being the answer - rather pair Chessum with Itoje in the second row - keep Curry and Morgan as starting flanks and if Doris is not fit I’d give serious thought to inviting CCS or T Willis to join the party with a view to finding a convincing starting 8 - we’ll get knowhere with sticking to Earl or substituting him for Conan imo

Plus Pollock is not yet Lions class imo and it may well have been wiser to have had him tour with England? Again time will tell

On the back 5, I agree its tricky; Beirne looks a bit underpowered as a lock alongside Itoje, but he's a class 6 and gives you decent carrying and good lineout. Morgan was anonymous to be kind yesterday bar one dodgy turnover; 7 is definitely up for grabs. Has CCS ever started an international at 8?

[Banquo]

I'm starting to think I watched a different match to Hammy and Jngf.
I know I struggled to get S4C to work properly, and seemed to have the Irish commentary team where others had English or Welsh, but I'm sure I saw the same players doing different things to what's being claimed. I'm very sure that I didn't see any mindless grinding away like the worst of Gatland, or the worst Lions performance I've watched.

well yes, see my comments above. IMO the Lions lost because they were trying 'stuff' and too much of it (badly)

[Donny osmond]

Banquo and WT - 100%

I can see what Hamlet means tho, as rugby tactics go Farrell's Ireland team is very successful without being what you would call multi-dimensional, and are similar in that respect to what we saw from Gatland's Wales.

If Farrell is trying to get the same from the Lions, then Schmidt should know exactly what's coming, whatever personnel are selected, and have a plan to stop it.

[UKHamlet]

Farrell's style of rugby is old fashioned and mechanistic. A bit like Gatland on steroids. The game has evolved in the last few years and grinding teams down doesn't work as well as it used to. France and NZ play a different sort of game, and they've done that by keeping the ball moving. There is an element of positionless rugby, but not to the extent mad Eddie wanted to play it. It's more like having no rucks, just keep the ball moving. England have adopted this style, albeit belatedly. They're starting to get some success with it, and I'm willing to predict they will develop into a seriously good side over the next couple of years if they continue with it. Crucially, Australia have also taken it to their bosom. They will score a lot of tries against a static, Farrell inspired, big-men-smashing-it-up-the-middle-trying-to-create-gaps, style of rugby. South Africa can get away with it, because South Africa, but even they have started popping the ball up from rucks rather than rolling it back to the 9. This is going to be an interesting test series. The old vs the new. I seriously doubt Farrell has the ability or willingness to change his style, and the series will be won or lost on how well Australia have adapted to this style of play. If they try to compete in muscularity with an almost completely Irish pack, they will lose. If they move the ball quickly and unpredictably, they're in with a shout. For the good of the game, I'm hoping Australia back their talent and run the legs off the Lions.

Is this your assessment of Farrell in general or what you saw yesterday? I was surprised at just how loose and frantic it was, with such a willingness for (loose, often just bad) offloads you’d think Farrell stated that as the plan. It feels unlikely they all decided to play like that on a whim.

Understandably he didn’t seem happy with the amount of lost possession after the game though.

If anything I’d say (as Banquo suggests) we need some more heavyweight players up front. Unfortunately McCarthy and Conan are the only real options in the squad that fill the lock enforcer and ball carrying 8 roles, which doesn’t really leave much room for form or balance.

It’s odd because I’d say Farrell has geared this squad very much towards what you describe as the current/future trend in rugby, but we’re actually quite lacking in the smash-it-up department, leaving that all to the 3/4 line for some reason.

Maybe I’d made my mind up this already before the game but really don’t want to see Aki/Tuipulotu pairing again - which I would agree felt like a real Gatland selection.

Still, there’s a lot of room for building this play style and tweaking the balances of the team (sticking with a more mobile pack to keep the ball alive) once everyone is available.

In general. I didn't see the match last night, I was in a seminar. Have to admit, if they played it fast and loose, that would be a huge surprise.

[Mikey Brown]

Farrell's style of rugby is old fashioned and mechanistic. A bit like Gatland on steroids. The game has evolved in the last few years and grinding teams down doesn't work as well as it used to. France and NZ play a different sort of game, and they've done that by keeping the ball moving. There is an element of positionless rugby, but not to the extent mad Eddie wanted to play it. It's more like having no rucks, just keep the ball moving. England have adopted this style, albeit belatedly. They're starting to get some success with it, and I'm willing to predict they will develop into a seriously good side over the next couple of years if they continue with it. Crucially, Australia have also taken it to their bosom. They will score a lot of tries against a static, Farrell inspired, big-men-smashing-it-up-the-middle-trying-to-create-gaps, style of rugby. South Africa can get away with it, because South Africa, but even they have started popping the ball up from rucks rather than rolling it back to the 9. This is going to be an interesting test series. The old vs the new. I seriously doubt Farrell has the ability or willingness to change his style, and the series will be won or lost on how well Australia have adapted to this style of play. If they try to compete in muscularity with an almost completely Irish pack, they will lose. If they move the ball quickly and unpredictably, they're in with a shout. For the good of the game, I'm hoping Australia back their talent and run the legs off the Lions.

Is this your assessment of Farrell in general or what you saw yesterday? I was surprised at just how loose and frantic it was, with such a willingness for (loose, often just bad) offloads you’d think Farrell stated that as the plan. It feels unlikely they all decided to play like that on a whim.

Understandably he didn’t seem happy with the amount of lost possession after the game though.

If anything I’d say (as Banquo suggests) we need some more heavyweight players up front. Unfortunately McCarthy and Conan are the only real options in the squad that fill the lock enforcer and ball carrying 8 roles, which doesn’t really leave much room for form or balance.

It’s odd because I’d say Farrell has geared this squad very much towards what you describe as the current/future trend in rugby, but we’re actually quite lacking in the smash-it-up department, leaving that all to the 3/4 line for some reason.

Maybe I’d made my mind up this already before the game but really don’t want to see Aki/Tuipulotu pairing again - which I would agree felt like a real Gatland selection.

Still, there’s a lot of room for building this play style and tweaking the balances of the team (sticking with a more mobile pack to keep the ball alive) once everyone is available.

In general. I didn't see the match last night, I was in a seminar. Have to admit, if they played it fast and loose, that would be a huge surprise.

Aha! That makes more sense. I was surprised too, to be fair, and it's hard to guage how on-script it actually was judging by Farrell's reaction.

[Sandydragon]

We really didn’t look after the ball last night, almost a barbarians feel at times. And everyone was at it, so it must have been a game plan.

I’m hoping the team will gel and this will work, but there is something to be said for simple game plans which can be picked up by the squad in the limited time available.