B&I Lions v Wallabies, Test 2 Match Thread, Sat June 29, 1105am

thomond2006

shuffol wrote: »

Anybody think it was a bad move for Halfpenny to take up the penalty opportunity at the end, I'm sure he would've known that it was probably out of his range, why not keep it in hand and try force something a bit closer.

It's a tricky one but I think they were better off going for it.

shuffol

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

I'm not saying the Australians have a stronger squad, they don't at all, but I never saw an easy 3-0 win for the Lions given that some people were talking about Australia like they were the same side that lost to Ireland in 2011. IN reality they're still a very good international side

The discussion you quoted me from was about the strength depth and quality of player in each squad

I think all 3-0 predictions were based heavily on the premise that the Lions would give the Australians a roasting at scrum time, Australia have had a pretty clear advantage in that area, in fact the entire Lions set piece has been very disappointing.

.ak

thomond2006 wrote: »

It's a tricky one but I think they were better off going for it.

Yep, playing percentages. Personally I would've have them tapped, but the lions were pragmatic all evening so it's understandable.

They'll just have to wait before erecting a statue of Halfpenny in Cardiff a little while longer.

Tox56

shuffol wrote: »

Anybody think it was a bad move for Halfpenny to take up the penalty opportunity at the end, I'm sure he would've known that it was probably out of his range, why not keep it in hand and try force something a bit closer.

Ah yeah but you just know if we tried a tap and go and nothing materialised (more than likely given the quality of the Aussie defence/the Lions non-existent backline threat) everyone would be questioning why we didn't give our kicker who couldn't miss a kick for the series. Maybe a tap and go immediately after the pen was awarded would have given us a chance, but it would have taken absolutely enormous balls to make that call, and even if 1/2p had confirmed it was out of his range by then we would have lost the element of surprise.

Tox56

shuffol wrote: »

I think all 3-0 predictions were based heavily on the premise that the Lions would give the Australians a roasting at scrum time, Australia have had a pretty clear advantage in that area, in fact the entire Lions set piece has been very disappointing.

We're down to our 4th choice loosehead in fairness (although Corbs wasn't on the original tour he would have started ahead of Vunipola, and personally I'd have had Vunipola 5th choice behind Grant for a starting place too).

What a difference Healy and Best circa 2011 would have made

Rightwing

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Paddy Power paid out on the Lions during the week, I know hindsight and all that, but after how close the first test was it seems an incredibly stupid move

Absolutely.

Lions played poorly, another key injury, Aussies missed a load of kicks, what were they thinking ?

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

PP are one of the most successful betting companies in the world, they always do things like this. It's a publicity stunt and one you're proving works by just discussing it

jamiedav2011

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Paddy Power paid out on the Lions during the week, I know hindsight and all that, but after how close the first test was it seems an incredibly stupid move

It's not, it's an excellent publicity stunt that in reality costs them little. They're masters at it.

P.Walnuts

Lads, everything a bookie does isn't a clever promo, PP are all over social media 7 days a week. The don't need to pay out hundreds of thousands of euro's just to get people talking about them.

Podge_irl

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Lads, everything a bookie does isn't a clever promo, PP are all over social media 7 days a week. The don't need to pay out hundreds of thousands of euro's just to get people talking about them.

Well more important than getting people talking about them, it gets people betting with them.

As far as they're concerned they may well have had to pay out on this anyway, and the majority of people who receive early pay-outs simply re-bet the money. Also these kind of payouts make people more likely to bet with PP in case they can be a beneficiary of one.

Rightwing

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Lads, everything a bookie does isn't a clever promo, PP are all over social media 7 days a week. The don't need to pay out hundreds of thousands of euro's just to get people talking about them.

Yep,,,let's hope they start doing loads more of these publicity stunts :rolleyes:

Anyway back to the match, B Fanning has a good article in the Indo, the key paragraph:

Now that the Wallabies have found a rhythm, if they can hang on to their inspirational leader James Horwill through another judicial process, they surely will have the third Test wrapped up before they turn into the final straight. Statistically, the Lions were blown out of the water everywhere bar the scoreboard. Two weeks running they have been neck and neck going to the line, despite circumstances suggesting they should have been done for.

thomond2006

Rightwing wrote: »

Absolutely.

Lions played poorly, another key injury, Aussies missed a load of kicks, what were they thinking ?

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Lads, everything a bookie does isn't a clever promo, PP are all over social media 7 days a week. The don't need to pay out hundreds of thousands of euro's just to get people talking about them.

They know what they're doing. Most of what is refunded will be recouped in the short to medium term, it's a goodwill gesture that punters will appreciate and therefore they would stay with PP. There's a regular poster on here who could tell you the ins and outs of a 'stunt' like this.

Almaviva

thomond2006 wrote: »

it's a goodwill gesture that punters will appreciate and therefore they would stay with PP.

I guess serious punters hate it because it spoils the purity of gambling. If you lose, you lose. The hardcore wouldnt even collect, but move to someone else the next time where such gimmicks are avoided.

Benny Cake

Almaviva wrote: »

I guess serious punters hate it because it spoils the purity of gambling. If you lose, you lose. The hardcore wouldnt even collect, but move to someone else the next time where such gimmicks are avoided.

I don't think you really understand the mentality of a gambler tbh....

Podge_irl

Almaviva wrote: »

I guess serious punters hate it because it spoils the purity of gambling. If you lose, you lose. The hardcore wouldnt even collect, but move to someone else the next time where such gimmicks are avoided.

Then they're idiots.

Artful_Badger

Almaviva wrote: »

I guess serious punters hate it because it spoils the purity of gambling. If you lose, you lose. The hardcore wouldnt even collect, but move to someone else the next time where such gimmicks are avoided.

Does anyone really care about the purity of gambling though ? I'd say its pretty simple, you win you're happy, you lose and you're not. Bookies have it down to an art how to keep punters en masse in the right temperament to keep gambling. I'd doubt there would be many gamblers who'd prefer to lose than win or break even no matter how it happened.

thomond2006

Almaviva wrote: »

I guess serious punters hate it because it spoils the purity of gambling. If you lose, you lose. The hardcore wouldnt even collect, but move to someone else the next time where such gimmicks are avoided.

Those 'serious punters' of whom you speak are very rare I imagine. If you are a serious punter then it's all about winning money. So if you're given a handout, you wouldn't use it? That doesn't make much sense.

The only way I understand your logic is someone would want to prove themselves a better predictor than a bookie and therefore attempt to beat the market, meaning he would ignore any refund/premature winnings in order to prove he can beat the bookie on his own merits. That would be all well and good but it doesn't sound profitable!

serious punters refusing free money?

paulmcshane

bilston wrote: »

Just a couple of things. Please don't think Davies isn't that good based on what he does at 12, he's a 13 and also putting Tuilagi in at 12 wouldn't really solve the problem because he is a 13 as well. He could probably do the role a bit better than Davies, but to really fix the problem you throw in Roberts or even Barritt or Twelvetrees.

Anyway good post and welcome.

Roberts I agree on. But you can't honestly think Barritt would be more threatening to the Aussies than Tuilagi?

Hagz

I posted them back the money. #respectthegame #keepitpure

Swiwi.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

I'm not saying the Australians have a stronger squad, they don't at all, but I never saw an easy 3-0 win for the Lions given that some people were talking about Australia like they were the same side that lost to Ireland in 2011. IN reality they're still a very good international side but you still had some posters getting carried away after seeing the warm up games and rowing in with the Gatland love fest despite how obvious it was even at that stage how limited the Lions game plan was

The discussion you quoted me from was about the strength depth and quality of player in each squad

Sort of like the Aussies are much better than the sum of their parts and the Lions much worse? And the explanation is Gatland? Despite his impressive record, as Buer pointed out?

At some point, the question does need to be asked if the Lions squad is not actually as good as we (myself included) might have thought.

I'm still waiting for Sexton to dominate a match at international level, for example. This series was his big chance, and he only has 80 minutes left to show it. You could even argue (provided you are wearing a bullet-proof vest), that Farrell has been in better form on this tour.

I've been disappointed in Gatland's tactics, but I don't think you can purely blame sheep-like players blinding following Gatland without asking a few hard questions of the players themselves.

bilston

paulmcshane wrote: »

Roberts I agree on. But you can't honestly think Barritt would be more threatening to the Aussies than Tuilagi?

I think Barritt can threaten them more at 12 than Davies can because he is a 12. Maybe Tuilagi is a better option at 12 for the Lions than Barritt or Twelvetrees but at the moment the problem is we have two 13s in the centre and it's unbalanced. Tuilagi is also a 13 so Im not convinced playing him there will solve the imbalance. Maybe Tuilagi has played more at 12 than I'm aware of and to be fair I haven't followed his club career for Leicester all that closely.

Anyway you can rest assured that Garland will surely stick Tuilagi in at 12 ahead of either Barritt or Twelvetrees.

All that said they ideal scenario is that Roberts is fit and then I think we'll all be happy.

Swiwi.

bilston wrote: »

I think Barritt can threaten them more at 12 than Davies can because he is a 12. Maybe Tuilagi is a better option at 12 for the Lions than Barritt or Twelvetrees but at the moment the problem is we have two 13s in the centre and it's unbalanced. Tuilagi is also a 13 so Im not convinced playing him there will solve the imbalance. Maybe Tuilagi has played more at 12 than I'm aware of and to be fair I haven't followed his club career for Leicester all that closely.

Anyway you can rest assured that Garland will surely stick Tuilagi in at 12 ahead of either Barritt or Twelvetrees.

All that said they ideal scenario is that Roberts is fit and then I think we'll all be happy.

Has to be Roberts or Tualagi. I prefer more creative centres myself, but at the end of the day Gatland's tactics revolve around this style of centre, and Davies did not work at all in the weekend. Barritt shouldn't even be a Lion IMO, and I dont think he's done much in the mid-week games he's played in.

.ak

Le vieux renard wrote: »

Sort of like the Aussies are much better than the sum of their parts and the Lions much worse? And the explanation is Gatland? Despite his impressive record, as Buer pointed out?

At some point, the question does need to be asked if the Lions squad is not actually as good as we (myself included) might have thought.

I'm still waiting for Sexton to dominate a match at international level, for example. This series was his big chance, and he only has 80 minutes left to show it. You could even argue (provided you are wearing a bullet-proof vest), that Farrell has been in better form on this tour.

I've been disappointed in Gatland's tactics, but I don't think you can purely blame sheep-like players blinding following Gatland without asking a few hard questions of the players themselves.

There's a reason he hasn't come off the bench.

Because he hasn't.

Sorry if I'm sounding like a 'home fan', but Sexton's been the best 10 on show in Australia at the moment. The games just haven't opened up for him, but he put in a tactical master class in the 1st match to show he isn't just a one trick pony.

Swiwi.

.ak wrote: »

There's a reason he hasn't come off the bench.

Because he hasn't.

Sorry if I'm sounding like a 'home fan', but Sexton's been the best 10 on show in Australia at the moment. The games just haven't opened up for him, but he put in a tactical master class in the 1st match to show he isn't just a one trick pony.

Yeah, he probably is .ak. But I don't know how many times I've read how amazing Sexton is, and I've always countered that he has never done internationally what he has achieved at HEC level. And so far, that's still the case. He played well in Test 1, the general consensus seemed to be a 7/10, but he (like the whole Lions backline) was pretty quiet in Test 2.

I would like to see him do a "Genia" and take the game away from the opposition, much like Carter did in 2005.

I'm only asking the Q about the players because I think it needs asking, even if it's not a popular Q.

Tox56

Le vieux renard wrote: »

Sort of like the Aussies are much better than the sum of their parts and the Lions much worse? And the explanation is Gatland? Despite his impressive record, as Buer pointed out?

At some point, the question does need to be asked if the Lions squad is not actually as good as we (myself included) might have thought.

I'm still waiting for Sexton to dominate a match at international level, for example. This series was his big chance, and he only has 80 minutes left to show it. You could even argue (provided you are wearing a bullet-proof vest), that Farrell has been in better form on this tour.

I've been disappointed in Gatland's tactics, but I don't think you can purely blame sheep-like players blinding following Gatland without asking a few hard questions of the players themselves.

Farrell was a 4/10 in his first game and 7 or 8/10 in most games after. Sexton has been a solid 7 or 8/10 throughout, you could argue he could be a 9/10 player but it really depends on what the tactics are. If Gatland primarily wanted pin point kicking to capitalise on Aussie mistakes, Sexton was superb on Saturday, if the plan was to run the ball more you have to hold Sexton at least partly responsible for the failure to do that effectively (a misfiring centre partnership and poor 9 in both tests didn't help). Farrell ironically could do what Sexton did just as well, I just hope to god we settle on a decent 9 and a proper 12, that will be the test of what Sexton is capable of (and what seperates him from Farrell).

.ak

.ak wrote: »

There's a reason he hasn't come off the bench.

Because he hasn't.

Sorry if I'm sounding like a 'home fan', but Sexton's been the best 10 on show in Australia at the moment. The games just haven't opened up for him, but he put in a tactical master class in the 1st match to show he isn't just a one trick pony.

This has happened in the past and he's just opened them up himself. We are waiting on him to do it again.

Buer

Le vieux renard wrote: »

I'm still waiting for Sexton to dominate a match at international level, for example. This series was his big chance, and he only has 80 minutes left to show it. You could even argue (provided you are wearing a bullet-proof vest), that Farrell has been in better form on this tour.

I've been disappointed in Gatland's tactics, but I don't think you can purely blame sheep-like players blinding following Gatland without asking a few hard questions of the players themselves.

Sexton has enough experience now to change things when it's on. The kick yesterday that he stuck out on the full is an example of when he knew running the ball was on, hesitated and tried to stick to the tactics and the delay made it impossible to get an effective kick away.

These guys need to step up and deliver even if the game plan dictates specific things. I don't think Gatland will crucify a player for having a go when it's on. The halfbacks, in particular, have been extremely rigid in their adherence to the set plan. Kick, kick, kick.

Swiwi.

Deleted User wrote: »

This has happened in the past and he's just opened them up himself. We are waiting on him to do it again.

Exactly - he has to make the games open up, not wait for them to open up for him. Please note, I think Sexton is a great player, but he hasn't yet left an indelible mark on the Lions Tour 2013.

P.Walnuts

Le vieux renard wrote: »

Sort of like the Aussies are much better than the sum of their parts and the Lions much worse? And the explanation is Gatland? Despite his impressive record, as Buer pointed out?

At some point, the question does need to be asked if the Lions squad is not actually as good as we (myself included) might have thought.

I'm still waiting for Sexton to dominate a match at international level, for example. This series was his big chance, and he only has 80 minutes left to show it. You could even argue (provided you are wearing a bullet-proof vest), that Farrell has been in better form on this tour.

I've been disappointed in Gatland's tactics, but I don't think you can purely blame sheep-like players blinding following Gatland without asking a few hard questions of the players themselves.

Is that not blatantly obvious?

Lions have about 6 weeks to knit together as a team, of course Australia will be the more cohesive team.