Lions
Moderator: OptimisticJock
- Edinburgh in Exile
- Posts: 931
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:52 am
Re: Lions
Lesson in finishing chances really. It's unreal how quickly the AIG's can run up a big score on you by just being clinical.Big D wrote:ABs are just very very good.
-
- Posts: 2285
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:10 pm
Re: Lions
Good call oh rugby sage.Edinburgh in Exile wrote:Blistering pace so far. Lions might want to ease off the kicking game for a bit, if they give the AIG's that much ball on the 10 meter line for the full 80 it's going to get painful.
- Eugene Wrayburn
- Posts: 2670
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:32 pm
Re: Lions
What though? It's too late to sack Gatland - who amusingly looked like he was shitting himself from the off. Player-wise it's difficult to see where we make a significant difference. For the game we were trying to play Hogg would have been perfect but...Big D wrote:They deserved that score.
Think some changes needed for next week.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
NS. Gone but not forgotten.
NS. Gone but not forgotten.
-
- Posts: 5576
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:49 pm
Re: RE: Re: Lions
Not saying I'd make all these changes:Eugene Wrayburn wrote:What though? It's too late to sack Gatland - who amusingly looked like he was shitting himself from the off. Player-wise it's difficult to see where we make a significant difference. For the game we were trying to play Hogg would have been perfect but...Big D wrote:They deserved that score.
Think some changes needed for next week.
I thought Vunipola was quiet.
Both second rows were differing levels of poor and could be replaced. As much as I think Kruis is good he shat the bed a bit. Itoje and Lawes could come into consideration.
We couldn't slow their ball down but I'm not sure I'd change the back row.
Farrell was poor, Sexton should come in IMO.
Teo was decent on D but if there aren't going to be runners off him and he can't pick a pass a different 12 could be considered. He was doing what was asked to be fair but did it really work? We have to say no.
-
- Posts: 3164
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:58 pm
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Lions
I would make exactly those changesBig D wrote:Not saying I'd make all these changes:Eugene Wrayburn wrote:What though? It's too late to sack Gatland - who amusingly looked like he was shitting himself from the off. Player-wise it's difficult to see where we make a significant difference. For the game we were trying to play Hogg would have been perfect but...Big D wrote:They deserved that score.
Think some changes needed for next week.
I thought Vunipola was quiet.
Both second rows were differing levels of poor and could be replaced. As much as I think Kruis is good he shat the bed a bit. Itoje and Lawes could come into consideration.
We couldn't slow their ball down but I'm not sure I'd change the back row.
Farrell was poor, Sexton should come in IMO.
Teo was decent on D but if there aren't going to be runners off him and he can't pick a pass a different 12 could be considered. He was doing what was asked to be fair but did it really work? We have to say no.
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
- Eugene Wrayburn
- Posts: 2670
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:32 pm
Re: Lions
Does either of you think that those changes will make a substantial difference? I'd probably make them as well but what you might gain from slightly better players you might lose from cohesion as you change the team again.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
NS. Gone but not forgotten.
NS. Gone but not forgotten.
-
- Posts: 5576
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:49 pm
Re: RE: Re: Lions
I don't thinking will but he has to try IMO. Bringing in Sexton shouldn't disrupt too much for example.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Does either of you think that those changes will make a substantial difference? I'd probably make them as well but what you might gain from slightly better players you might lose from cohesion as you change the team again.
-
- Posts: 1792
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:13 pm
Re: Lions
Ahhh the stage after patriotic hope but right before dispair that it's 12 years before we get another crack at this and then it will be 36 years since the lions won a test in NZ, that is unless they pick an utter dickhead as coach and we end up with 17 lions from a team that couldn't manage to score 4 try's against the worst Italy we have ever seen.
Honestly the only benefit is the old duffers currently in charge will all be rotting in the ground and we may well have a lions committee that isn't a bunch of old wankers.
Honestly the only benefit is the old duffers currently in charge will all be rotting in the ground and we may well have a lions committee that isn't a bunch of old wankers.
-
- Posts: 1792
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:13 pm
Re: Lions
And for me woodentop has now been replaced as the worst lions coach of the worst tour. Say what you want about woodentop but at least he picked has beens. I doubt Cory hill will ever be a lion but he will remembered as another nail in the coffin of the lions.
- cashead
- Posts: 3946
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:34 am
Re: Lions
I know you think that referring to the All Blacks by one of their sponsors makes you look "edgy" and "cool," but all it does is make you look like an insufferable cunt instead. hth.Edinburgh in Exile wrote:Lesson in finishing chances really. It's unreal how quickly the AIG's can run up a big score on you by just being clinical.Big D wrote:ABs are just very very good.
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
-
- Posts: 3164
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:58 pm
Re: RE: Re: Lions
No but doing nothing is a worse option than trying something. There were some blinding moments today but only in broken play, no real game plan based cohesion so staying the same by way of worrying about cohesion seems a little pointless. The ABs will get better, so we need to change something.Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Does either of you think that those changes will make a substantial difference? I'd probably make them as well but what you might gain from slightly better players you might lose from cohesion as you change the team again.
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
- skidger
- Posts: 495
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:09 am
Re: Lions
We are one test in and its too early for that. Peoples memories are too short as 2005 was horrific from start to finish. Plus Gatland did not take Diane Abbot so still some way to go to beat mega twat's tour.whatisthejava wrote:And for me woodentop has now been replaced as the worst lions coach of the worst tour. Say what you want about woodentop but at least he picked has beens. I doubt Cory hill will ever be a lion but he will remembered as another nail in the coffin of the lions.
- Edinburgh in Exile
- Posts: 931
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:52 am
Re: Lions
Haha.cashead wrote:I know you think that referring to the All Blacks by one of their sponsors makes you look "edgy" and "cool," but all it does is make you look like an insufferable cunt instead. hth.Edinburgh in Exile wrote:Lesson in finishing chances really. It's unreal how quickly the AIG's can run up a big score on you by just being clinical.Big D wrote:ABs are just very very good.
Steady on.
- hp18
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:34 pm
Re: Lions
1. Go fuck yourself. 2. You'd have pulled that off better if you'd said New Zealand. 3. Go fuck yourself.cashead wrote:I know you think that referring to the All Blacks by one of their sponsors makes you look "edgy" and "cool," but all it does is make you look like an insufferable cunt instead. hth.Edinburgh in Exile wrote:Lesson in finishing chances really. It's unreal how quickly the AIG's can run up a big score on you by just being clinical.Big D wrote:ABs are just very very good.
The Coo is dead. Long live The Coo.
- Chunks Baws
- Posts: 647
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 9:22 am
Re: Lions
[quote="whatisthejava"]And for me woodentop has now been replaced as the worst lions coach of the worst tour. Say what you want about woodentop but at least he picked has beens.I doubt Cory hill will ever be a lion but he will remembered as another nail in the coffin of the lions.[/quote]
He's on the bench for the Hurricanes game. All 3 of the conveniently located Taffs are. Finn too. But he won't get on.
He's on the bench for the Hurricanes game. All 3 of the conveniently located Taffs are. Finn too. But he won't get on.
- Which Tyler
- Posts: 9378
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
- Location: Tewkesbury
- Contact:
Re: Lions
Basically this.kk67 wrote:As expected.
The kiwis coped with our power up front, which surely was only a surprise to Gatland.
Our power in midfield was making progress into the Kiwi defence, but not quite breaking it - which surely surprised nobody, or maybe made a little more progress than some expected.
Our broken field play from the back 3 was pretty exciting.
We couldn't keep up with the pace, intensity and daring that the AB's put on the game - we won't surprise anyone who actually follows rugby.
The Lions had 3-5* try scoring opportunities, and converted about 50% of them - which sounds about right (and very pleasing that we manufactured that many TBH).
The ABs had 3 try scoring opportunities, and converted 100% of them - which sounds about right.
In reaction Gatland calls for "more physicality" from the lions - which once again, is 100% expected from him.
*Daly in the opening minute, Te'o slipping going for the inside shoulder, Watson trying to force one more offload - personally I'd call 4 good opportunities
-
- Posts: 5576
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:49 pm
Re: RE: Re: Lions
Couple of line outs on their 5 too.Which Tyler wrote:Basically this.kk67 wrote:As expected.
The kiwis coped with our power up front, which surely was only a surprise to Gatland.
Our power in midfield was making progress into the Kiwi defence, but not quite breaking it - which surely surprised nobody, or maybe made a little more progress than some expected.
Our broken field play from the back 3 was pretty exciting.
We couldn't keep up with the pace, intensity and daring that the AB's put on the game - we won't surprise anyone who actually follows rugby.
The Lions had 3-5* try scoring opportunities, and converted about 50% of them - which sounds about right (and very pleasing that we manufactured that many TBH).
The ABs had 3 try scoring opportunities, and converted 100% of them - which sounds about right.
In reaction Gatland calls for "more physicality" from the lions - which once again, is 100% expected from him.
*Daly in the opening minute, Te'o slipping going for the inside shoulder, Watson trying to force one more offload - personally I'd call 4 good opportunities
It was a fairly enjoyable game to watch. The main concern is the same as always though. Gatland and Howley can't produce an attacking game plan to make holes. A lot of the good Lions play was broken field, on the hoof type play.
- Which Tyler
- Posts: 9378
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
- Location: Tewkesbury
- Contact:
Re: Lions
Yeah, but I never felt that our maul was actually a threat against them. Gatland did, but I didn't
-
- Posts: 2852
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 9:14 pm
Re: RE: Re: Lions
Agree with most of that but I dont actually think the AB's were thst clinical. I think they had plenty of other chances that were the equal of the Watson attempted offload. Maybe not in dramatic moments but in terms of having play on the Lions 5 metre. For example, there was at least one stolen lineout on the five, there was Barret's chip that Watson caught and there was Perenara's fumble as he picked up and dived for the lineBig D wrote:Couple of line outs on their 5 too.Which Tyler wrote:Basically this.kk67 wrote:As expected.
The kiwis coped with our power up front, which surely was only a surprise to Gatland.
Our power in midfield was making progress into the Kiwi defence, but not quite breaking it - which surely surprised nobody, or maybe made a little more progress than some expected.
Our broken field play from the back 3 was pretty exciting.
We couldn't keep up with the pace, intensity and daring that the AB's put on the game - we won't surprise anyone who actually follows rugby.
The Lions had 3-5* try scoring opportunities, and converted about 50% of them - which sounds about right (and very pleasing that we manufactured that many TBH).
The ABs had 3 try scoring opportunities, and converted 100% of them - which sounds about right.
In reaction Gatland calls for "more physicality" from the lions - which once again, is 100% expected from him.
*Daly in the opening minute, Te'o slipping going for the inside shoulder, Watson trying to force one more offload - personally I'd call 4 good opportunities
It was a fairly enjoyable game to watch. The main concern is the same as always though. Gatland and Howley can't produce an attacking game plan to make holes. A lot of the good Lions play was broken field, on the hoof type play.
- Which Tyler
- Posts: 9378
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
- Location: Tewkesbury
- Contact:
Re: RE: Re: Lions
I thought I was missing a decent AB chance (Peranara). Out of interest, I'd call the Watson one the least like a genuine chance for the Lions - probably the only one of those 3 that were as low as 50:50, whilst the chip, wasn't as high as 50:50, and Peranara's fumble was probably about 50:50 (for an AB/PI, less for anyone else), and caled our conversion rate at 2 from 4 - TBH 50% is a genuinely good conversion rate for anyone other than the ABs. I don't know the stats, but instinctively I'd suggest that about 35-40% for most teams, but about double that 70-80% for the ABs is what I'd expect to see.Cameo wrote:Agree with most of that but I dont actually think the AB's were thst clinical. I think they had plenty of other chances that were the equal of the Watson attempted offload. Maybe not in dramatic moments but in terms of having play on the Lions 5 metre. For example, there was at least one stolen lineout on the five, there was Barret's chip that Watson caught and there was Perenara's fumble as he picked up and dived for the line
-
- Posts: 1792
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 12:13 pm
Re: Lions
Anyone think Finn will see time on Tuesday.
- hp18
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:34 pm
Re: Lions
I reckon hell get 10/15 so garland can say he's given him a shot after recent criticism. Won't matter a fuck if he single handily defeated the canes though.whatisthejava wrote:Anyone think Finn will see time on Tuesday.
The Coo is dead. Long live The Coo.
-
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Re: Lions
I hope so. In fact he should be benching for the test squad. The whole is-Farrel-better-than-Sexton debate is getting on my wick a bit as neither has been on sparkling form (despite what Barnes and other pundits claim). They are also too similar so swapping one for the other doesn't really seem to change anything. Finn showed against the Wallabies and Italy that he is the form European fly half in the southern hemisphere. Having said that all, as others have said Gatland might give him 10 minutes, and that will be that.whatisthejava wrote:Anyone think Finn will see time on Tuesday.