Brumbies vs Lions, Match Thread

Christy42

jm08 wrote: »

I guess people see what they want to see. For instance, Murray is getting a lot of criticism for attempting a break, but when you see the big hole in the defence, it wasn't a bad decision. Lions support was too slow though.

The gap was there but for the stage of the game I felt it the wrong option. The lions had a few minutes and had an advantage up front at that stage. They could have bashed looking for a penalty/try or taken a drop goal. Either way would have given the Lions higher odds of winning than Murray's run. It was good that he had the confidence as it would have been the right call in a lot of situations but not here. Just because the gap is there doesn't mean it is the best idea.

SOB is a great player but this site really seems to have several pairs of green glasses on for him. Tupiric was also a constant at the breakdown (maybe even more as O'Brien was quite rightly making himself available to run the ball at times) and he didn't give away penalties. One of the calls was wrong so O'Brien wasn't giving away that many penalties but he wasn't the only one getting stuck into the breakdown.

This reads slightly harsher on the Irish players than it is meant to. They both did a lot right in the evening and were two of the brighter players on the park but what they did right has been said already.

Tox56

jm08 wrote: »

I guess people see what they want to see. For instance, Murray is getting a lot of criticism for attempting a break, but when you see the big hole in the defence, it wasn't a bad decision. Lions support was too slow though.

The Lions support was no slower/less effective clearing out on this occasion than it had been all night, this should have been very clear to Murray who was sitting on the sidelines for most of the game. There were at least 3 Brumbies who would have got to Murray before he even got near the tryline, and the nearest supporting Lions player was about 5 metres away. If he was playing for Ireland he would probably have got away with it, in the disorganised mess that Lions team was it was too big a risk, he was never going to score and he simply didn't have the support. I'm not going to dwell on it as this 1 decision is not going to cost him either way, I suggest you do similar

jm08

Like I said Tox, people will find the bit that suits their own view so its not worth getting uptight about (though while I'm at it now - I'd be surprised if all the subs who came on with Murray would not have been aware that they needed to improve their support.

phog

jm08 wrote: »

I guess people see what they want to see. For instance, Murray is getting a lot of criticism for attempting a break, but when you see the big hole in the defence, it wasn't a bad decision. Lions support was too slow though.

I missed the game but saw here and on twitter about the terrible decision from Murray, saw this screenshot earlier and couldn't see what all the fuss was about.

Swan Curry

phog wrote: »

I missed the game but saw here and on twitter about the terrible decision from Murray, saw this screenshot earlier and couldn't see what all the fuss was about.

It's difficult to see in the still photo but the three nearest players were ready for Murray to break,and as soon as he did,they swamped him.It was a stupid mistake,but all the scrum halves have been making stupid mistakes on this tour and while I do think Philips/Youngs is the best test combination,it's not a mistake that I'd hold against him as a reason to not start him ahead of Youngs if Philips was injured.

Swiwi.

From what LVR has seen of Murray he might just edge Youngs for the bench spot. It would be nice to have another Irish player to support! He seems to get a fairly hard time on this forum, but Murray has been quite good on this tour. BOD, Sexton, POC, and would probably have been Bowe and Healy as well, which is not bad when one considers Ireland's 6N campaign. More players in the team than France, anyway!

Podge_irl

I think Murray has been better than Youngs over the course of the tour, but it really depends on whether Gatland view Murray as too similar to Phillips and whether he would rather a change of pace 9 on the bench.

Swiwi.

Podge_irl wrote: »

I think Murray has been better than Youngs over the course of the tour, but it really depends on whether Gatland view Murray as too similar to Phillips and whether he would rather a change of pace 9 on the bench.

Interesting, Podge_irl. Youngs seemed quite slow against the Brumbies, but then the Lions pack was struggling a bit, whereas I guess Murray came on with the front 5 calvary replacements in aid, but he seemed quite speedy.

sydthebeat

Podge_irl wrote: »

I think Murray has been better than Youngs over the course of the tour, but it really depends on whether Gatland view Murray as too similar to Phillips and whether he would rather a change of pace 9 on the bench.

if the pack is under pressure, youngs may not be the best option... It's a toss of a dice at this stage I think, though murrays experience with sexton might just earn him the bench spot

Podge_irl

Le vieux renard wrote: »

Interesting, Podge_irl. Youngs seemed quite slow against the Brumbies, but then the Lions pack was struggling a bit, whereas I guess Murray came on with the front 5 calvary replacements in aid, but he seemed quite speedy.

I only saw highlights but I was surprised by that. Then again its possible Youngs was slow simply because his backs were taking too long to align because half of them were straight off a plane. He definitely offers something different - in some situations it will be useful but if you're trying to protect a lead he's probably not what you want. But such is the gamble of selection.

.ak

Well there's a continuity argument too. Rather than having the 21 as the 'impact' sub, perhaps Gatland will view him as an someone who can take over and keep the same flow to the game.

Rightwing

Le vieux renard wrote: »

Interesting, Podge_irl. Youngs seemed quite slow against the Brumbies, but then the Lions pack was struggling a bit, whereas I guess Murray came on with the front 5 calvary replacements in aid, but he seemed quite speedy.

Ya, Gatland won't judge it solely on 1 or 2 games. I'd say Murray is number 3.

Swiwi.

.ak wrote: »

Well there's a continuity argument too. Rather than having the 21 as the 'impact' sub, perhaps Gatland will view him as an someone who can take over and keep the same flow to the game.

More of the same, I like it .ak! If the gameplan is a Phillips style gameplan, and its working well, then why not bring on a fresh Murray to see out the victory.

Podge_irl

.ak wrote: »

Well there's a continuity argument too. Rather than having the 21 as the 'impact' sub, perhaps Gatland will view him as an someone who can take over and keep the same flow to the game.

I doubt it with Gatland tbh. I remember back in the 6N a couple years ago when he changed both his halfbacks without fail at 60 mins. I truly despise preplanned subs at the best of times, but to change both your halfbacks regardless of the situation strikes me as outright stupidity. I think Gatland likes a change up at 60 mins.

Grandpa Hassan

.ak wrote: »

Well there's a continuity argument too. Rather than having the 21 as the 'impact' sub, perhaps Gatland will view him as an someone who can take over and keep the same flow to the game.

Why would you change a 9 for more of the same? Bringing on a like for like impact player in the forwards is sensible as they've battered themselves, and fresh legs make an impact. But a 9, unless he's been hitting rucks, shouldn't need to be replaced. Other than for injury. So your bench replacement surely should bring something new

.ak

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Why would you change a 9 for more of the same? Bringing on a like for like impact player in the forwards is sensible as they've battered themselves, and fresh legs make an impact. But a 9, unless he's been hitting rucks, shouldn't need to be replaced. Other than for injury. So your bench replacement surely should bring something new

Well you hit the nail on the head. What happens if Phillips is injured and the gameplan was working until then? Do you a) bring on a different style SH and try and change the game tempo? or b) bring on a clone and carry on? I know most teams rarely have like or like replacement SH's in their armory so it's a difficult question, but I reckon Gatland would prefer B. I reckon Murray to bench.

Tox56

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Why would you change a 9 for more of the same? Bringing on a like for like impact player in the forwards is sensible as they've battered themselves, and fresh legs make an impact. But a 9, unless he's been hitting rucks, shouldn't need to be replaced. Other than for injury. So your bench replacement surely should bring something new

It has to be the most tiring position in the pitch in terms of metres covered, and the fact Phillips would play more like a '4th backrow' (as we are constantly reminded) he would probably feel this more than most. I would probably look for something different on the bench but I can see the other side, if we are going well and if Murray's style suits Gatland's system I can understand why you would want some continuity

Swiwi.

One thing for sure is that Genia will play the full 80, or at least very close to it.

Grandpa Hassan

.ak wrote: »

Well you hit the nail on the head. What happens if Phillips is injured and the gameplan was working until then? Do you a) bring on a different style SH and try and change the game tempo? or b) bring on a clone and carry on? I know most teams rarely have like or like replacement SH's in their armory so it's a difficult question, but I reckon Gatland would prefer B. I reckon Murray to bench.

I don't think injury worries should dictate the bench. Strategy and options first. Unless you have an injury prone player for whom you want cover, and as I said, a like for like makes zero sense to me

Kiwi_knock

Le vieux renard wrote: »

One thing for sure is that Genia will play the full 80, or at least very close to it.

Fully agree, no chance Genia is coming off unless Australia have a commanding lead.

Tox56

Le vieux renard wrote: »

One thing for sure is that Genia will play the full 80, or at least very close to it.

Will be interesting if the same is true for Sexton

phog

Swan Curry wrote: »

It's difficult to see in the still photo but the three nearest players were ready for Murray to break,and as soon as he did,they swamped him.It was a stupid mistake,but all the scrum halves have been making stupid mistakes on this tour and while I do think Philips/Youngs is the best test combination,it's not a mistake that I'd hold against him as a reason to not start him ahead of Youngs if Philips was injured.

I've watched it on TV and the pillar defence was after been cleared out, so a natural gap was created, it was pick and go movement anyway, all Murray needed was support. It was worth the chance, didn't work but I certainly wouldn't call it a stupid mistake. Had he passed and the receiver was turned over some posters would be complaining that Murray didn't spot the gap. The thing about these options is hindsight will usually be right.

.ak

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I don't think injury worries should dictate the bench. Strategy and options first. Unless you have an injury prone player for whom you want cover, and as I said, a like for like makes zero sense to me

Really? I'd say both reasons should come into it, both injury cover and strategy. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much debate over the 23 jersey...

.ak

phog wrote: »

I've watched it on TV and the pillar defence was after been cleared out, so a natural gap was created, it was pick and go movement anyway, all Murray needed was support. It was worth the chance, didn't work but I certainly wouldn't call it a stupid mistake. Had he passed and the receiver was turned over some posters would be complaining that Murray didn't spot the gap. The thing about these options is hindsight will usually be right.

It wasn't a stupid mistake, but it was a mistake that in a test match we would be very much be made pay for, hence why some people pointed it out.

Swiwi.

Tox56 wrote: »

Will be interesting if the same is true for Sexton

I see no logic in taking off Sexton for the sake of it. He seems the most important player in the Lions backline, although maybe BOD has something to say about that. I was impressed with the difference Farrell made though when he replaced Hogg yesterday, at least he looked purposeful. I like Hogg, but I think this is a Lions tour too soon to play 10.

.ak

Le vieux renard wrote: »

I see no logic in taking off Sexton for the sake of it. He seems the most important player in the Lions backline, although maybe BOD has something to say about that. I was impressed with the difference Farrell made though when he replaced Hogg yesterday, at least he looked purposeful. I like Hogg, but I think this is a Lions tour too soon to play 10.

Yeah, that's one thing I noticed. Everyone was talking about how the forward subs made a difference coming on. They did, yes, but it was having an actual fly-half coming on that made most of the difference. Had Farrell started that game we'd have won I reckon. Bit more cohesion and less lateral movement is all it called for.

Grandpa Hassan

.ak wrote: »

Really? I'd say both reasons should come into it, both injury cover and strategy. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much debate over the 23 jersey...

I'm not saying it shouldn't be a consideration when picking the bench. But I don't see why for an injury free, fit SH, who is well able to last 80 minutes, you'd go with the injury cover option rather than an the alternative option

.ak

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I'm not saying it shouldn't be a consideration when picking the bench. But I don't see why for an injury free, fit SH, who is well able to last 80 minutes, you'd go with the injury cover option rather than an the alternative option

Because injuries can happen to anyone. So it's worth weighing up for Warren. Does he want someone there to cover him, or someone there to spring from the bench after 60 or 70 minutes. It's the same for flyhalf really. You want someone that can step in there and cover should the 10 suffer a knock and hopefully pick up from where he left off.

jm08

Some stat comparisons for the SHs (someone over on the Guardian message board has been compiling the stats from game to game for everyone. They are from the Lions Official site).



Not a huge difference between Phillips & Murray. Youngs defence isn't as good.

Phillips had a great game against the BaBas (he bossed it well). He didn't look himself at all with Sexton when they played together.

Hogg did much better at 10 when Murray was his scrumhalf. He didn't do half as well when paired with Youngs.