1st Lions Test Match Analysis by Amabokke

Amabokke

The Beast scrummed illegaly, the ref was rubbish, BOD's "crossing" and then pass to Tommy Bowe for try was a try, Phillips try attempt should've gone back for a penalty after he knocked on, Monye's poor finishing on first try should've been a scrum 5 metres after he spilt it, and so on.....

Just some of the very poor and biased responses here on boards from Lions supporters in thinking their team should've won, would've won and could've won! The point really is that it does not matter, what matters is the score at the end of the wistle.

So far I fail to agree or see anyone's point as to why the Beast scrummed illegally as there's a bit of "De Ja Vu" in their air....last week we heard all how Brussouw is playing illegally but no one could tell me exactly what was so illegal....instead it was a case of jumping on the bandwagon "he is getting away with murder" until I had to post a clip to show people the different between a ruck and loose ball. Now Beast is the culprit......except Vickery and Rowntree said in the newspapers this morning:

"We failed to keep a lid on 'The Beast' at engagement time and he got under us," said Rowntree. "We didn't dominate that engagement well enough and they had an incredibly powerful pack.
"Phil is a very honest guy and by his own admission he struggled. He is upset and sore this morning physically and mentally."

...that is not illegal but simply a case of power and tactic, which Vickery did not understand and could not handle. When Jones came on how come the scrum stabilised and Lions not giving anymore penalties away?

The referee was good. Some believe he should've given a yellow card to a bok player late in second half, I agree. But had he done so he should've yellow cardedVickery or another player after he gave the Lions captain a warning earlier on. Why spoil the game with yellow cards and turn it into a sour match?

Earlier in the week the coaches have met with Bryce and he said that he will be looking at illegal play a lot. So, there was no excuses. The fact that the Lions captain and Mcgeechan said after the game that the ref penalised them alot which they did not understand is a poor exuse if the ref tells you before a game he will be looking at illegal play then you should be prepared and be more aware of it.

His irritation at the French TMO was justified as the poor drunken French could not speak Eng or explain why it should've been a 5m scrum. Good call for 22 drop out as Monye took ball over the tryline. DV did not throw the ball away, he hacked it from Monye's hand and it spilt over the line, therefore 22 drop out. If DV brought ball over the line or if ball was held up it would've be a 5 m scrum to Lions.

Phillips should've taken that try, Fourie would've. Phillips reminds me of Joost vd Westhuizen in his built, gameplay, etc. and he had the strenght to go over as Bakkies was a metre away. So advantage was over after he attempt to score the try and he lost it, not the bok player so therefore knockon, scrum boks.

Like I said before good teams don't win matches even when playing bad and I have never seen a bok pack more brutal than Saturday when they steamroller the Lions pack. Our backline was weak with Jacobs being the main issue but our game plan was simply. Forward domination with tactical kicking by Du Preez, Pienaar and Steyn, which they did successfully.

Come next Saturday changes have to be made in Lions team, front row and on wing. Monye just does not deserve another chance as you cant butcher two tries on such an important match. Williams or Fitzerald should be given the opportunity but since it is the emerging boks tomorrow Fitz might start tomorrow with Williams on Sat. M Williams might have to be added too in the place of Wallace. Kearney did well and if Byrne is injured then he should start. Stephen Jones struggled but it's because his pack struggled. To start with ROG will be no different if your pack is going backwards.

Lions will take heart and play better come next week but then so will the boks. Last rugby match on Loftus was the Bulls hammering the Chiefs away and with the crowds constant noise it will be a very tough match.

toomevara

Amabokke wrote: »

Just some of the very poor and biased responses

Ho ho ho!!! Pot, kettle, black Amabokke!...However, aside from the usual partisan sideswipes which you just cant resist, I find myself in agreement with a lot of what you say in your post (possibly the most sensible, non tribal contribution you've made...).

The best team won on Saturday, no doubt, no question...but I saw enough to suggest that we may win in Loftus (assuming we cope with the altitude)..and the Boks certainly saw enough to make them think twice too. Surely even you would acknowledge that.....

Anyhoo, may the best team win...roll on saturday.

anonymous_joe

A lot of Boks fans seem to have missed out on the fact that the Boks pack's dominance was based on two things - one maul (a fantastic bit of skill) and the total failure of Phil Vickery.

After Vickery and Mears were hauled off the balance of power in the scrum shifted back the way of Lions.

A five point win against a team who missed 6 points and crossed your line six teams is a mark not of a good team, but a lucky one.

Amabokke

toomevara wrote: »

Ho ho ho!!! Pot, kettle, black Amabokke!...However, aside from the usual partisan sideswipes which you just cant resist, I find myself in agreement with a lot of what you say in your post (possibly the most sensible, non tribal contribution you've made...).

The best team won on Saturday, no doubt, no question...but I saw enough to suggest that we may win in Loftus (assuming we cope with the altitude)..and the Boks certainly saw enough to make them think twice too. Surely even you would acknowledge that.....

Anyhoo, may the best team win...roll on saturday.

Pot, kettle, black is not my style. If you want to give me an example I'd be happy to debate.

In bottom of my post I acknowledge that the Lions will be better but so will be boks. Think of the boks as Pearl Harbour, they Lions have just waken a giant in rugby......

BTW, "you'r not Stodders on www.keo.o.za" are you?

bigbadben

Good write up and a fair reflection of the match. You make your own luck and SA would have won by more if there hadn't been a raft of subs.

Only thing I disagree is regarding the five yard scrum/22 off Monye first **** up. Ball held up over the line is an attacking scrum , ripping the ball away after had no bearing on the call.

Jeez Berdos was frustrating when trying to explain why it was a scrum 5.

Amabokke

anonymous_joe wrote: »

A lot of Boks fans seem to have missed out on the fact that the Boks pack's dominance was based on two things - one maul (a fantastic bit of skill) and the total failure of Phil Vickery.

After Vickery and Mears were hauled off the balance of power in the scrum shifted back the way of Lions.

A five point win against a team who missed 6 points and crossed your line six teams is a mark not of a good team, but a lucky one.

As well as the breakdown (until Brussouw was sub), the lineouts, defence, etc.

It's not luck, it's persistance not to give up. Lions are unlucky for not scoring 3 tries, kick two penalties and missed few other opportunities.

Amabokke

bigbadben wrote: »

Good write up and a fair reflection of the match. You make your own luck and SA would have won by more if there hadn't been a raft of subs.

Only thing I disagree is regarding the five yard scrum/22 off Monye first **** up. Ball held up over the line is an attacking scrum , ripping the ball away after had no bearing on the call.

Jeez Berdos was frustrating when trying to explain why it was a scrum 5.

Ball wasn't held up. Ball was ripped off. If you believe that the ball was held up then it still would've been a 22 as Monye was over the line....see www.rugbydump.com for replay.

Amabokke

Amabokke wrote: »

As well as the breakdown (until Brussouw was sub), the lineouts, defence, etc..

Have to disagree about defence. SA never ever looked comfortable when the Lions got some degree of quick ball. I think the SA dominance at the breakdown was the key here. Whenever the ball came out quickly for the Lions they looked far superior in midfield in particular.

What was the count on line breaks? Lions have got the tools but if they don't get on top at the breakdown, or at least find parity, then SA will win this series without much drama.

Tim Robbins

Amabokke wrote: »

The Beast scrummed illegaly, the ref was rubbish, BOD's "crossing" and then pass to Tommy Bowe for try was a try, Phillips try attempt should've gone back for a penalty after he knocked on, Monye's poor finishing on first try should've been a scrum 5 metres after he spilt it, and so on......

Should we have a rule that people should have to state their involvement in the sport before they start giving out about the ref :-) ?

Mate, a number of us have gone through the game, decisions and critical moments etc and I think your post would have been better if you had read through those threads and then added on to them rather than create your own thread which makes it a bit a messy for everyone.

Jackz

Amabokke wrote: »

Ball wasn't held up. Ball was ripped off. If you believe that the ball was held up then it still would've been a 22 as Monye was over the line....see www.rugbydump.com for replay.

Explain the difference between held up and what happened.

The bok player ripped it away after held up should have been called, the REF was for whatever reason didn't see this or call it, the TMO could see that the ball was held up and gave a 5m red scrum decision.

Amabokke

Deleted User wrote: »

Have to disagree about defence. SA never ever looked comfortable when the Lions got some degree of quick ball. I think the SA dominance at the breakdown was the key here. Whenever the ball came out quickly for the Lions they looked far superior in midfield in particular.

What was the count on line breaks? Lions have got the tools but if they don't get on top at the breakdown, or at least find parity, then SA will win this series without much drama.

The Lions did look superior in mid-field and was better but did not finish it because of good bok defence, Monye's two tries and Phillips - boks had hands in all those.

Stealdo

Jackz wrote: »

Explain the difference between held up and what happened.

The bok player ripped it away after held up should have been called, the REF was for whatever reason didn't see this or call it, the TMO could see that the ball was held up and gave a 5m red scrum decision.

Held up specifically means the ball was carried into the in goal area and became unplayable without being touched down by either side. JDV ripped the ball from Monye as he tried to put it down - it was in no way 'held up', Monye's momentum was still carrying him forward. If Monye had held onto the ball and managed to dot it down would you have still thought it was held up?

I actually agree with a lot of what Amabokke says above, even if it is a bit slanted to the SA view.

Amabokke

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Should we have a rule that people should have to state their involvement in the sport before they start giving out about the ref :-) ?

Mate, a number of us have gone through the game, decisions and critical moments etc and I think your post would have been better if you had read through those threads and then added on to them rather than create your own thread which makes it a bit a messy for everyone.

Sure. I play rugby since 6 years old. Mainly backline, wing was my strong area until secondary school where I settled on outside centre. I still play for a club. I do alot of reading on the rules, even new ones to farmiliar myself with the laws of the game so don't base my findings on assumptions or others views.

I've read through those posts and alot of it was just blah blah blah.....

Amabokke

Jackz wrote: »

Explain the difference between held up and what happened.

The bok player ripped it away after held up should have been called, the REF was for whatever reason didn't see this or call it, the TMO could see that the ball was held up and gave a 5m red scrum decision.

Held up is when a player take the ball into a loose scrum and the ball can't come out. The team that went forward will get the ball but the important part is that the ball is in such a position that you can't take it out.

With Monye the ball was not held up as he was still going forward in momentum and there was still an opportunity for him to score but the ball popped out so the ball was not in a position that it can be called held up.

Tim Robbins

Amabokke wrote: »

I've read through those posts and alot of it was just blah blah blah.....

If everyone created their own thread for the match, it would make a lot of work for the mods and make the forum difficult to read and use.

Amabokke

Stealdo wrote: »

Held up specifically means the ball was carried into the in goal area and became unplayable without being touched down by either side. JDV ripped the ball from Monye as he tried to put it down - it was in no way 'held up', Monye's momentum was still carrying him forward. If Monye had held onto the ball and managed to dot it down would you have still thought it was held up?

I actually agree with a lot of what Amabokke says above, even if it is a bit slanted to the SA view.

That's actually a better explanation than mine.

My slanted views are only from what I've seen. If the boks played like the Lions and made same mistakes my view would still be the same.

Amabokke

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If everyone created their own thread for the match, it would make a lot of work for the mods and make the forum difficult to read and use.

Are you a mod? The difference is that I'm not biased, straight views with good answers and backup and I do believe alot of readers agree with me not because of me but because of the match and what we've seen.

This forum is already difficult to read and use because of the amount of one-sided postings and posts from certain users that don't know the laws, the game or have a general idea about rugby.

anonymous_joe

Amabokke wrote: »

As well as the breakdown (until Brussouw was sub), the lineouts, defence, etc.

It's not luck, it's persistance not to give up. Lions are unlucky for not scoring 3 tries, kick two penalties and missed few other opportunities.

Dominant in defence? Your line was breached more times. That doesn't imply dominance.

The South African lineout was better, but it wasn't dominant, I actually anticipated it being much stronger than it was. O'Connell wasn't too bad at taking his own ball.

And it is of course luck. :P

Persistance is a silly way of looking at it - you said yourself you played wing and 13, a smarter winger would have carried the ball in the other hand than Monye.

As for the breakdown, I think South Africa were a bit better, but again, not dominant. I'd say the only areas they dominated were Mtwawarira's side of the scrum (bloody hell Zimbabwean names are tough to spell) if the truth be told. Dominance is pretty rare after all. The failure of Vickery was threefold -

1. The player himself in combating a much less experienced but more powerful player.
2. The referee for not doing anything - some would blame Vickery, others would say Tondai was boreing in. In my mind it was a mixture of both, but Lawrence didn't do much at all. In fact, when he told O'Connell and Vickery to speak to him at half time, when they did in fact do so, he clearly dismissed them both out of hand. Surely he could have come across to the other side to watch what was happening? If there's a question being raised he needed to answer it one way or the other.
3. The coaching team - they got a call wrong, badly wrong - why didn't they sub Vickery faster, as well as Mears?

Deleted User wrote: »

Have to disagree about defence. SA never ever looked comfortable when the Lions got some degree of quick ball. I think the SA dominance at the breakdown was the key here. Whenever the ball came out quickly for the Lions they looked far superior in midfield in particular.

What was the count on line breaks? Lions have got the tools but if they don't get on top at the breakdown, or at least find parity, then SA will win this series without much drama.

4 clean line breaks for the Lions. For definite. None for South Africa.

And about 300 metres gained iirc?

Amabokke wrote: »

Are you a mod? The difference is that I'm not biased, straight views with good answers and backup and I do believe alot of readers agree with me not because of me but because of the match and what we've seen.

This forum is already difficult to read and use because of the amount of one-sided postings and posts from certain users that don't know the laws, the game or have a general idea about rugby.

Of course you're biased! There's nothing wrong with being biased, I enjoy seeing another perspective of the game. You're looking at very different things to us after all.

TarfHead

anonymous_joe wrote: »

The failure of Vickery was threefold -

Only 3 ?

What about ..
4 - Lee Mears
5 - Jones or O'Connell, whoever was packing directly behind him

The whole scrum fiasco was a systems failure. Replacing Vickery would not, on it's own, be enough. It could be a mistake to assume that Hair-Bear Jones would have the same effect from the kickoff in the second test.

anonymous_joe

TarfHead wrote: »

Only 3 ?

What about ..
4 - Lee Mears
5 - Jones or O'Connell, whoever was packing directly behind him

The whole scrum fiasco was a systems failure. Replacing Vickery would not, on it's own, be enough. It could be a mistake to assume that Hair-Bear Jones would have the same effect from the kickoff in the second test.

Well I mentioned the selection of Mears...

Didn't mention his lock in fairness which is pretty shameful having been one once upon a time. :pac:

Who was behind him actually?

Stealdo

TarfHead wrote: »

5 - Jones or O'Connell, whoever was packing directly behind him

Not to mention Wallace for some of them - there was one scrum that went down but wasn't penalised where Vickery got up and had words with Wallace about his driving.

All this talk of the referee also and what side of the scrum he was on is wrong too - after 1/2 scrums he was on the Lions TH side for the rest of the first half at least.

GymJim

Stealdo wrote: »

Not to mention Wallace for some of them - there was one scrum that went down but wasn't penalised where Vickery got up and had words with Wallace about his driving.

All this talk of the referee also and what side of the scrum he was on is wrong too - after 1/2 scrums he was on the Lions TH side for the rest of the first half at least.

To be fair it's the front 5 who are key in the scrum. What the hell was Wallace to do when Vickery kept popping up? Also of course Vickery tried to make it look like someone elses fault when he was getting annihilated.

Some blame would lie with the second rows if Vickery had the right hit but he didn't. Perhaps it was that Beast was hitting too hard but a quality TH would have the cuteness to at least make an attempt to counter this.

Stealdo

GymJim wrote: »

To be fair it's the front 5 who are key in the scrum. What the hell was Wallace to do when Vickery kept popping up? Also of course Vickery tried to make it look like someone elses fault when he was getting annihilated.

We're talking about the engagement here which is what the problems all stemmed from. The Wing Forward can have a very important role in this as does the lock.

Otacon

Stealdo wrote: »

We're talking about the engagement here which is what the problems all stemmed from. The Wing Forward can have a very important role in this as does the lock.

Vickery was being turned in though. For Wallace to have had a negative effect, he would have had to be pushing, which from the looks of things, he wasn't.

Stealdo

Otacon wrote: »

Vickery was being turned in though. For Wallace to have had a negative effect, he would have had to be pushing, which from the looks of things, he wasn't.

Maybe that was what PV was telling him - stop pushing me in. It was early in the game in fairness. I'm not blaming Wallace at all by the way for PV getting mangled, just pointing out that he had an issue with what Wallace was doing at the engagement and let him know it. Quite possibly just passing the buck.

tughfc

i have to agree with ambaokke here to say i do think south africa were dominant at times in the first half but they made a fatal error in even giving the chance for the lions to comeback. here in lies the danger and the contrast with new zealand four years ago where the kiwis put the game totally out of reach!! i said it earlier and ill say it again losing the first test is hugeeee and the lions are going to find it very difficult to comeback from this one, but there going to have to do there homework on tendai this week because all adam jones got was a tired man!! i also do and don't agree with the whole thing of reffing in the scrum, but at times vickery got screwed in the scrums but at other times tendai drove inwards which is illegal but i think bryce lawrence was frustrated with vickey at this stage and the benefit of the doubt went with tendai thats why there was such confusion at half time!!

at the end of the day the lions were beaten and people of course have the right to question certain decisions and obviously people are biased towards there team sure this is seen between our dreaded threads of munster leinster rivalries, it makes for interesting discussions!! ps people on these threads do know there rugby and at times i wonder do refs even know theres ( french international refferee calling for a decision that made no sence ) this is what the lions are up against.

d'Oracle

Amabokke wrote: »

Phillips should've taken that try, Fourie would've. Phillips reminds me of Joost vd Westhuizen in his built, gameplay, etc. and he had the strenght to go over as Bakkies was a metre away.

WOAH THERE!

Lets not get carried away here.
He may be strong, fast and happy to snipe, but like Joost? REALLY?

Its like comparing a luxury Mondeo with a Maybach.

Oh and on the Monye thing...... Coaches don't say carry the ball in two hands to stop you looking cool. Criminal.

Amabokke

d'Oracle wrote: »

WOAH THERE!

Lets not get carried away here.
He may be strong, fast and happy to snipe, but like Joost? REALLY?

Its like comparing a luxury Mondeo with a Maybach.

Yes, he reminds me of Joost. His built and lenght, the way he runs with ball in one hand, his passing, his breaks around the breakdowns, etc.

Fourie did not become the worlds best scrumhalf over night, it took years and consistent selection and performance for him to achieve that. Same can be said of Phillips in a few years he is selected all the time and continue to play well.

d'Oracle

Amabokke wrote: »

Yes, he reminds me of Joost. His built and lenght, the way he runs with ball in one hand, his passing, his breaks around the breakdowns, etc.

No, just no.

Nilther

What are peoples opinions on the fact that JDV ripped the ball for Monye's first missed attempt while off his feet?

anonymous_joe

Nilther wrote: »

What are peoples opinions on the fact that JDV ripped the ball for Monye's first missed attempt while off his feet?

It's only a crime if you're caught...

d'Oracle

Nilther wrote: »

What are peoples opinions on the fact that JDV ripped the ball for Monye's first missed attempt while off his feet?

Looks to me like Monye was actually in touch by the time the ball was flipped away. Touch-in-goal 5m Scrum.

Law 14

or even 22 for reasons in the Laws thread

Amabokke

Nilther wrote: »

What are peoples opinions on the fact that JDV ripped the ball for Monye's first missed attempt while off his feet?

:rolleyes:

Seainin

In fairness they didn't come out of the blocks early enough or hard enough, and wouldn't have gotten out of the blocks at all if it wasn't for foolish (arrogant..)tactics by the Boks management.
The lions were pushed and shoved and muscled off the pitch in every quarter, and there was a telling moment when one of the springboks stood over O'Driscoll and feigned a punch, Jones was alongside and walked away from it, if that was the '97 squad there would have been four men piled on top of the cheeky springbok in aid of their team mate.

At the end of the day they lost, but there's a few things to bear in mind;
- of The last four internationals at Loftus Versfield the lions have won three.
- High Veld/High Altitude matches is not going to have the impact they let on, 50 percent of the boks squad play their rugby down low on the coast and the lions have a nice few weeks training done at altitude.
- The Lions got the kick in the backside they needed in playing a serious international outfit, instead of end of season super 14 middle of the road squads. They now know exactly how much its going to take to win this, the question is have they got it?

(I'm' getting off the fence and saying that they do.)

Amabokke

Seainin wrote: »

In fairness they didn't come out of the blocks early enough or hard enough, and wouldn't have gotten out of the blocks at all if it wasn't for foolish (arrogant..)tactics by the Boks management. The lions were pushed and shoved and muscled off the pitch in every quarter

You were just simply outmuscled, nothing to do with arrogance. Arrogance and foolishness will let you lose concentration and focus. The bok pack was simply better.

and there was a telling moment when one of the springboks stood over O'Driscoll and feigned a punch, Jones was alongside and walked away from it, if that was the '97 squad there would have been four men piled on top of the cheeky springbok in aid of their team mate.

Like the cheap shot from Croft on Du Preez. It was nothing, BOD should not provoke the opposition.

- High Veld/High Altitude matches is not going to have the impact they let on, 50 percent of the boks squad play their rugby down low on the coast and the lions have a nice few weeks training done at altitude.

If the altitude is not going to have an impact why did the Lions train for a few weeks at altitude as you say?

anonymous_joe

Amabokke wrote: »

Seainin wrote: »

You were just simply outmuscled, nothing to do with arrogance. Arrogance and foolishness will let you lose concentration and focus. The bok pack was simply better.



Like the cheap shot from Croft on Du Preez. It was nothing, BOD should not provoke the opposition.


If the altitude is not going to have an impact why did the Lions train for a few weeks at altitude as you say?

Because not all the Boks are used to it either.

lankylock

I don't get the gener al feeling that the lions only came back due to the SA subs. Surely the benchof the current world champions of rugby, in a country with a huge, rugby mad population, would be almost as good as the first 15. They'd also be fresher than those whod been on from the start, so surely having subs come on should make the team better, not worse (and the lions did the same. Why does no-one say 'oh the lions could have won if only they'd kept xxx on

Also, why was Bowes try disalowed. I heard something about obstruction, but the tacklers were not obstructed, they simply commited to tackling the guy who offloaded to BOD. When the referee made that call it made it a lot easier to see him as biased in the 50-50 decisions because it was just ridiculous to disallow the try.

GymJim

lankylock wrote: »

I don't get the gener al feeling that the lions only came back due to the SA subs. Surely the benchof the current world champions of rugby, in a country with a huge, rugby mad population, would be almost as good as the first 15. They'd also be fresher than those whod been on from the start, so surely having subs come on should make the team better, not worse (and the lions did the same. Why does no-one say 'oh the lions could have won if only they'd kept Phil Vickery on

Also, why was Bowes try disalowed. I heard something about obstruction, but the tacklers were not obstructed, they simply commited to tackling the guy (Lee Byrne - who never touched the ball in the move) who did not offload to BOD. When the referee made that call it made it a lot easier to see him as biased in the 50-50 decisions because it was just ridiculous to disallow the try.

Of the subs only Steenkamp for Smit would be a player-for-player improvement but nullified by lack of leadership from taking off captain.

Disallowed Bowe try was correct. Byrne ran a line straight into 2 SA defenders and blocked them tackling BOD who ran behind him...thus creating space for Bowe to get in. Byrne at no point in this move touched the ball. If you were to pick out issues with the ref there are far clearer examples to work off however I would base both as boks being cuter than lions at blindsiding him.

tommy57

end of the day lions did,nt know what hit them and seemed in shock for most of the match. the forwards have to be alot harder next test and the usual improvements eg lineout, scrum if they can get the ball to backs they could cause a bit of bothar. did,nt think steven jones kicked particuarly well either.

shanagarry

I'm SA based at the moment and have been having regular analysis sessions with the lads in work for the past few weeks. There was, of course, a postmortem today, so here are a selection of their comments to add to the 'Bok view' here:

The overall view was that the two coaches battled it out to see who could throw away the game. McGeechan criticised for leaving Vickery on, PdV for running his bench.

Phil Vickery had a 'mare, but the Beast's scrummaging was questionable from a legality point of view

Mears contributed to Vickery's problems, and the locks to a certain extent, although the view was more that Bakkies and Matfield were much better, than AWJ and POC being bad

Spies went AWOL. Did nothing going forward and didn't defend the 9-10 channel

Ongoing concern about Adi Jacobs' defence, both the direct effects and the fact that it took from JdV's game as he was constantly trying to shield him

Question marks over JdV's match fitness


Not keen on any of the bench running, save Jacques Fourie, but in particular, Danie Roussouw, a converted lock coming into the back row, Januarie, and playing two inside centres together

Think the altitude thing has been blown out of all proportion - Sharkes and WP players play at sea level, Boks prepared in Durban, Lions have sufficient altitude work done, less of an issue with professional athletes

Worried about all the line breaks, and lack of communication at times

Deon Carsten's 'injury' suspect as Smit was warming up before the 'injury' and bellowed at the bench to get him back on.

As I said, these are my Bok colleague's views, not mine!

Tim Robbins

lankylock wrote: »

I don't get the gener al feeling that the lions only came back due to the SA subs. Surely the benchof the current world champions of rugby, in a country with a huge, rugby mad population, would be almost as good as the first 15. They'd also be fresher than those whod been on from the start, so surely having subs come on should make the team better, not worse (and the lions did the same. Why does no-one say 'oh the lions could have won if only they'd kept xxx on

Also, why was Bowes try disalowed. I heard something about obstruction, but the tacklers were not obstructed, they simply commited to tackling the guy who offloaded to BOD. When the referee made that call it made it a lot easier to see him as biased in the 50-50 decisions because it was just ridiculous to disallow the try.

A runner ran in front of the ball carrier. That's usually pinged.

toomevara

Amabokke wrote: »

BTW, "you'r not Stodders on www.keo.o.za" are you?

Nope.

jank

Deon Carsten's 'injury' suspect as Smit was warming up before the 'injury' and bellowed at the bench to get him back on.

Isn't that illegal?

Requiem4adream

Amabokke wrote: »

Are you a mod? The difference is that I'm not biased, straight views with good answers and backup and I do believe alot of readers agree with me not because of me but because of the match and what we've seen.

Hopefully you have a thick enough skin to take this on the chin, otherwise i'll delete it. In the spirit of Lions v Boks i'll go ahead!

I'll agree a lot of your posts are good, with forthright views but definitely from a Bok perspective. Still, there's a lot of contradictions in evidence.

Amabokke wrote: »

Well, destroyed Lions in every facet, 1*made 5 changes and then gave up to give Lions 2 soft tries. Credit to BOD and Roberts, got nervous when they got the ball, De Villiers and Fourie to start next match for better defence.

Didn't see much of the "rustiness" or "matchfitness" as we've heard. 2*I believe the Lions were made look good against weak provincial sides and got a wake-up call today.

Ref was good and fair to both sides. Could've been a yellow to either sides too.

Our front row destroyed the scrum in first 40 mins as Vickery was not up for the fight. John Smith held his ground.

Pienaar and Steyn proved their critics wrong.

No more January.

Higher altitude next week, expect boks to take series 3-0

So, basically the Lions were murdered and that the subs were the reason the Lions were allowed back into it. Interestingly though, you singled out 4 of the 7 players who came onto the field as massive assets before the tour started.

1*

Amabokke wrote: »

Bekker and Rossouw are ferocious players and their physicality will cause problems for any Lions second-row. Johan Muller and Albert vd Berg would also be up there. SA have an abundance of flankers, we have more than enough to share, Baywatch Grobbelaar, Pedrie Wannenburg, Jacques Botes, Keegan Daniel, Jean Deysel, Francois Louw,

.............

You probably not watching too much S14 or currie cup but all of the players above have decent enough seasons to warrant selection and any of them selected could give the Lions problems.

Someone mentioned about Schalk Burger's form, it's tough playing in a team that keeps losing every week and that the rest of the team does not play as hard as you. Come springbok time he will not hold back and have never seen him on a off day in the bok jersey.

Amabokke wrote: »

As said before the boks play a very defensive game and only conceded 1 try during the Nov internations so running themselves out of trouble will be difficult especially since the boks are good and quick from broken play / loose ball.
Your centres might be good but they will definitely not be given the chance to be a thorn against De Villiers/Jacobs/Steyn/Fourie who are defensively all very good.

....

By all means trumpet the strength in depth of your team but if you're gonna do that then it's a bit churlish to fall back on the subs as a reason for the comeback. In your own opinion the Boks brought on 4 class players who could have started in their own right.

Bringing on 4 class players with 20 minutes left after the physicality of the 1st half...come on, how can that be used as an excuse? Anything lost in cohesion should have been more than made up for in other respects.

Also the views on the centres were clearly a little on the cocky side in retrospect?!



2* As for the "weak provincial teams" making the Lions look good, again a pre-tour assessment:

Amabokke wrote: »

The SA provincial teams are not any different than the boks, they play hard, intimidating, quick and will definitely cause some bruising and injuries to the Lions players.

If you look at the schedule, the Lions play 6 matches before the first test and after 6 tests of real physical games will the Lions be tired and bruised come the first test?

Secondly, the Lions does not have an awful lot of backup for each position. Yea, sure you can field a good Lions first team but when an important player like O'Connell and BOD gets injured, then what?

The boks on the other hand have 2/3 phenomenal backup players in each position so even with injuries it would not make too much of a difference.

The Bulls and Sharks that will produce most of the boks will also be in the semi-finals for S14 around end of May and would still be fresh from playing rugby come the first test.

On the positive side Ian has won in SA before and have experience but I believe the series will be won by the boks 3-0 and the Lions will definitely get hammered in 1 (if not more) of the test matches.

There's nothing in that to indicate to me that you felt pre-tour that the provincial sides would be a weak pushover even without their Boks. On the contrary, you clearly expected them to provide tough competition. Then the Lions go 6 for 6 and suddenly they're weak opposition?

And the highlighted part "2/3 phenomenal backup players in each position" just re-inforces the fact that the subs bench should not be looked to for an excuse.


Not picking on ya man, i look forward to your posts but to claim to be a beacon of unbiased straight talking is a little wide of the mark!!! Very few, if any, could make that claim on here and definitely not you imo!

Amabokke

jank wrote: »

Isn't that illegal?

The team doctor called him off, which is the legal part to replace him.

Amabokke

Requiem4adream wrote: »

Hopefully you have a thick enough skin to take this on the chin, otherwise i'll delete it. In the spirit of Lions v Boks i'll go ahead!

I'll agree a lot of your posts are good, with forthright views but definitely from a Bok perspective. Still, there's a lot of contradictions in evidence.

So, basically the Lions were murdered and that the subs were the reason the Lions were allowed back into it. Interestingly though, you singled out 4 of the 7 players who came onto the field as massive assets before the tour started.

1*

By all means trumpet the strength in depth of your team but if you're gonna do that then it's a bit churlish to fall back on the subs as a reason for the comeback. In your own opinion the Boks brought on 4 class players who could have started in their own right.

Bringing on 4 class players with 20 minutes left after the physicality of the 1st half...come on, how can that be used as an excuse? Anything lost in cohesion should have been more than made up for in other respects.

Also the views on the centres were clearly a little on the cocky side in retrospect?!

2* As for the "weak provincial teams" making the Lions look good, again a pre-tour assessment:

There's nothing in that to indicate to me that you felt pre-tour that the provincial sides would be a weak pushover even without their Boks. On the contrary, you clearly expected them to provide tough competition. Then the Lions go 6 for 6 and suddenly they're weak opposition?

And the highlighted part "2/3 phenomenal backup players in each position" just re-inforces the fact that the subs bench should not be looked to for an excuse.

Not picking on ya man, i look forward to your posts but to claim to be a beacon of unbiased straight talking is a little wide of the mark!!! Very few, if any, could make that claim on here and definitely not you imo!

Well, thank you so much for taking the time to read intensily through all my posts.

I'm not going to write an answer for everyone of your observations on my posts but well spotted.

First, our subs are not the excuse for us winning the match! They are quality players that should've hold their ground, no arguments. The problem however is with our management and their subbing tactics. In the space of 8 minutes all the subs were on, Brussouw went off for Roussouw (different type of players) so the Lions started to win ball at the breakdown. Then Bakkies and De Villiers and were replaced with Bekker and Fourie. So we had two no.4 slots and two outside centres on. Jacobs was terrible on 13 and when he went to 12 that made it worse against Roberts. Then Carstens went on for Smith and January for Du Preez. Pienaar left field with bloody injury then. Carstens and Bekker are not good scrummers yet were both playing on tighthead side, which made it weak. Jones also helped stabilised the Lions scrum. I believe that you can't change all your pivotal positions in the space of 8 min, this is not an excuse it is simply an observation and credit to the Lions for climbing back. If our subs were brought on 1 at a time over longer period the continuity would've been better. Our coach and media thought he made a mistake with that.

If the Lions played like the did in the last 20 min for the whole game from start to finish we know what the outcome would've been and know that the Lions are here for winning the series.

As for the weak provincial sides, I believed before the tour that the provincial sides would provide quality and physical games especially after the scare from the Royals. That was even more inforced as none of us knew what the Lions teams were going to play like. Bar the Golden Lions and Sharks whose defense was atrocious all the other teams put it up to the Lions but I thought defensively they were weak. Cheetahs almost took it but still their defence was weak leading to soft tries. So the dig that the provincial sides made Lions look good was more a dig at our own teams, not the Lions as I knew come first test it'll be a different story. I thought that if the provincial sides could defend better it would've been a better preparations for the Lions come first test.

I'm not biased, I've given credit to your centres and your backline, which was clearly better than ours. Somewhere I mentioned got nervous everytime BOD and Roberts got the ball. Our pack was simply better at the breakdown, scrums and lineouts. I've also mentioned that Monye & Phillips should've scored.

Oh, and I forgot to mention just in case the Lions win second match regardless of what he does I will not be blaming the ref!

jank

Amabokke wrote: »

The team doctor called him off, which is the legal part to replace him.

But this is open to exploitation?

Amabokke

jank wrote: »

But this is open to exploitation?

This is not a real issue. Doesn't matter if he was genuinely hurt or not, team doctor called him off. They can do scans all they like that won't change a thing.