RugbyRebels

ABs are just very very good.

Big D wrote:ABs are just very very good.

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.

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.

Good call oh rugby sage.

Big D wrote:They deserved that score.

Think some changes needed for next week.

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...

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Big D wrote:They deserved that score.

Think some changes needed for next week.

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...

Not saying I'd make all these changes:

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.

Big D wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Big D wrote:They deserved that score.

Think some changes needed for next week.

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...

Not saying I'd make all these changes:

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.

I would make exactly those changes

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

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.

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.

I don't thinking will but he has to try IMO. Bringing in Sexton shouldn't disrupt too much for example.

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.

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 wrote:

Big D wrote:ABs are just very very good.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

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.

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.

As expected.

cashead wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

Big D wrote:ABs are just very very good.

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.

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.

Haha.

Steady on.

cashead wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

Big D wrote:ABs are just very very good.

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.

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.

1. Go fuck yourself. 2. You'd have pulled that off better if you'd said New Zealand. 3. Go fuck yourself.

[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.

kk67 wrote:As expected.

Basically this.

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

Which Tyler wrote:

kk67 wrote:As expected.

Basically this.

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

Couple of line outs on their 5 too.

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.

Yeah, but I never felt that our maul was actually a threat against them. Gatland did, but I didn't

Big D wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

kk67 wrote:As expected.

Basically this.

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

Couple of line outs on their 5 too.

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.

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

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

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.

Anyone think Finn will see time on Tuesday.

whatisthejava wrote:Anyone think Finn will see time on Tuesday.

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.

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.