RugbyRebels

WaspInWales wrote:ESPN has Farrell down as missing two tackles. I thought he missed at least 4.

Those walesonline ratings are a piss take.

Adam_P wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Adam_P wrote:Lawes had to be involved in the next test. He has been the form lock in the previous Lions fixtures and Kruis and AWJ were average to poor today. Yet again, the omission of Lauchbury is made to look laughable.

Though Teo went well at 12, especially defensively in the second half. Sinckler looked good when he came on, and I would have brought him on far earlier.

wouldn't underestimate Kruis's influence on the lineout, but he turned it over badly today.

A good argument if our line out was faultless, but it wasn't particularly great today. He coughed up a lot of ball around the park too. Having said that though I'd still go with Kruis paired with Lawes and Itjoe on the bench.

morepork wrote:RETALLICKA

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

morepork wrote:RETALLICKA

On a seek and destroy mission tonight.

jared_7 wrote:Good test match, I thought there were periods when it looked like the ABs were going to run away with it but the Lions kept going and surprised me. I don't think the injuries to Smith and Crotty helped the ABs, Cruden has stagnated and isn't a patch on Barrett and Crotty was looking solid.

The Lions try was something special and there was another break, eventually breaking down when Watson pushed a pass, that was magical as well.

In the end it probably came down to the fact the Lions had maybe 3 opportunities and converted just one, while the ABs took their 3. I suspect this may be the closest the Lions get, at least in terms of performance. The ABs are usually rusty first test and as we gel hopefully those periods of dominance will get longer and longer.

Read and Smith my two ABs MOTM. Great to see Smith back to his best and Read leading from the front.

Beasties wrote:I can't see the sense in dropping Te'o to pay Farrell there at all. The Lions backline visibly wilted when Te'o went off. Either play Farrell at 10 or not.

NZ's pace that they put on the game in the first half was stunning, I was shocked that the Lions managed to just about compete at that point. There were wave upon wave of incisive lightning attacks with amazing skill levels on display. I take my hat off to Aaron Smith (who has hardly been mentioned). What a player. Every breakdown was shifted on at breakneck speed, the guy's an absolute firefly. One mistake I counted by him. I'd defy any international team to not improve 20% with him at SH. Imagine those NZ players with Youngs at 9. They'd not look so clever then would they?

Wonderful first try for the Lions though. Absolute belter.

Beasties wrote:I can't see the sense in dropping Te'o to pay Farrell there at all. The Lions backline visibly wilted when Te'o went off. Either play Farrell at 10 or not.

Adam_P wrote:

Beasties wrote:I can't see the sense in dropping Te'o to pay Farrell there at all. The Lions backline visibly wilted when Te'o went off. Either play Farrell at 10 or not.

Absolutely agreed, was pretty unimpressed (though not surprised) when I saw Sexton coming on that it was Teo coming off rather than Farrell. I just don't get why everyone is so keen to shoe horn him into the side at all costs.

Banquo wrote:

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

morepork wrote:RETALLICKA

On a seek and destroy mission tonight.

Nothing else matters

Digby wrote:The Lions tried to fight fire with fire, but in the end we were left to watch their performance fade to black, sad but true.

dk4 wrote:So whats the info for AB injuries?
-B Smith HIA?
-Kaino concussion?
-Crotty hamstring?

cashead wrote:

Banquo wrote:Has Bin Smuff had problems with concussion before?

He's had more than his share of them.

cashead wrote:

Matt Ha wrote:I feel Russel should come onto the bench. He brings an attacking swagger to a game (check highlights of Scotland's test against Italy and Wallabies) that others can't, and replacing Farrell with Sexton, or visa versa, always seems to be pretty much swapping like with like.

I'd say Gatland should go big or go home and start Russell in the next test. Sexton's been shit, Biggar's been shit, and the best 10 that had started until this point, Farrell, was well below the standard that he'd set for himself.

I don't rate Marler as a scrummager, so I'd put McGrath in at 1 (Vunipola on the bench), probably go with Owens or Best at 2 (I'd lean towards Owens at the moment. Best is a fine player, and adds a lot particularly at the breakdown, but when it comes to lineouts, he couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat), and maybe give Furlong another chance at 3 with Sinckler on the bench again.

If Lawes is fit to play, I'd put him in the second row with Itoje, with Kruis on the bench - Kruis should have built up enough good will on this tour to give him the benefit of the doubt that his poor performance in test 1 was a blip.

Back row - to be honest, O'Mahony would've been the 6 I'd picked if I were in Gatland's shoes. Doing a double openside may work once with the All Blacks, maybe, before they get ripped apart by the ABs backrow in subsequent fixtures (see: the Wallabies and Hoopcock - worked once, has never worked again). I don't think Faletau should be dropped either, when he was by far the most effective of the loose forwards, and O'Brien worked all night and got some key turnovers. I'd perhaps bring Tipuric on to the bench in place of Warburton, who added fuck-all, or maybe Stander - although his lack of pace has been exposed a few times on tour, most notably against the Blues.

Halfbacks - Murray, if fit and Webb if not. Both played well. I suppose Laidlaw would be the next cab off the rank.

First-five - As I said, Russell to start, Farrell at 22.

Midfield - Te'o and Davies, whom despite the antipathy towards him from some (I'm looking in your direction, Eugene). Why Joseph was nowhere near the test team, I don't know, so I'd put him on the bench.

Back three - Generally played OK, and Liam Williams didn't do anything stupid so I'd retain them. No idea what Halfpenny added, so I'd swap him out with Seymour or Payne.

cashead wrote:

Banquo wrote:Thought George went ok- great darts- what did you see?

Offered a fair amount in the lineouts, sure. I'll grant that one. And while he wasn't lazy or anything, he was comprehensively outplayed elsewhere by Taylor, and gave up a few turnovers when the Lions could ill afford them.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:Much better team won by not as much as I feared, but the score reflected the game. We kicked too much ball away and didn't chase it well enough. I can't think when I've seen the ABs ahead by significant margins on territory and posession. That partly reflects that we slowed their normal rate of scoring, but we barely looked like troubling them consistently from phase play. Couple of great bits of counter-attacking. Crappy levels of support for most breaks as is all too common in the NH.

that's probably as good as it gets for us. Rieko will get even better. Read will get even better. SBW will get better. Losing Ben Smith and Crotty disrupted the ABs shape in this game but even if they don't return the ABs have more than adequate replacements for them.

Digby wrote:The Lions tried to fight fire with fire, but in the end we were left to watch their performance fade to black, sad but true.

Cameo wrote:

Digby wrote:The Lions tried to fight fire with fire, but in the end we were left to watch their performance fade to black, sad but true.

Afraid that is slightly the Lions trying to rewrite history. Yes, they counter attacked which was good to see but in general play I think the plan was as we all expected