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

Swiwi.

P.Walnuts wrote: »

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.

Ah come on! The Lions have spent more time together than the Aussies. I simply won't buy that explanation. Gatland has also been given all the resources he requires, including time off from coaching Wales.

Buer

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.

There's a huge difference though in opening up a game at HEC level and opening it up in a massive test is a huge difference. I think the only guys capable of turning in that standard of performance (that Sexton has delivered against lesser international sides or in the HEC) at this level in the past decade were Carter and Larkham.

Rightwing

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.

Well said.

This series is still there for the taking, and the Lions are lucky it is, they need to go out and grasp it.

P.Walnuts

Le vieux renard wrote: »

Ah come on! The Lions have spent more time together than the Aussies. I simply won't buy that explanation. Gatland has also been given all the resources he requires, including time off from coaching Wales.

You're being serious?

So bringing together players from 4 different countries and having 6 weeks to get them playing as a team makes no difference?

phog

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.

Well they certainly weren't going to get a try, I can't remember they managing to carry the ball inside the Aussie 22 during the game. At best they were hoping to keep ball in hand and hope for another penalty closer to the posts or attempt a DG, if they went and failed, we'd have posters questioning why not take the shot when on offer.

Had we ran it and turned it over I'd hate to have been the Lion that had coughed up the ball.

Buer

Buer wrote: »

There's a huge difference though in opening up a game at HEC level and opening it up in a massive test is a huge difference. I think the only guys capable of turning in that standard of performance (that Sexton has delivered against lesser international sides or in the HEC) at this level in the past decade were Carter and Larkham.

I'm pretty sure Sexton can do it, I think he's not been given the authority to do so though. Like your previous post, there are times when he's second guessing himself and his natural choice.

Swiwi.

P.Walnuts wrote: »

You're being serious?

So bringing together players from 4 different countries and having 6 weeks to get them playing as a team makes no difference?

Not really, no. It's not as if this is a novel concept. Otherwise, you might as well abandon the Lions altogether. These guys are professional rugby players, it's what they do, and in any case with a solid core of Welsh players who have now played for several years under Gatland, I don't think it can and should be offered as an excuse.

For Paws

P.Walnuts wrote: »

You're being serious?

So bringing together players from 4 different countries and having 6 weeks to get them playing as a team makes no difference?

Can you tell us how long the Australian national side normally gets together for, say when playing for the Bledisloe Cup, or even the Tri Nations ?

Any national side is composed of layers from different club sides, sometimes playing in different countries. I seriously doubt whether any national side has had the luxury of being all 'in camp' together for 6 weeks.

Rightwing

Le vieux renard wrote: »

Not really, no. It's not as if this is a novel concept. Otherwise, you might as well abandon the Lions altogether. These guys are professional rugby players, it's what they do, and in any case with a solid core of Welsh players who have now played for several years under Gatland, I don't think it can and should be offered as an excuse.

Absolutely.
Only excuses I'll be buying are:

Players not good enough / key injuries / over rating our own players / poor tactics.

who_me

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.

The odds of scoring in one period of possession (bearing in mind time was up) are fairly low. Even if Halfpenny's kick was 50/50, that's probably still more likely than a try/drop goal. If we had time to go for the lineout, then that surely have would been a better option, but from half-way with no set-piece to tie the Aussie pack in, it probably was as good a call as any.

Buer

Le vieux renard wrote: »

Ah come on! The Lions have spent more time together than the Aussies. I simply won't buy that explanation. Gatland has also been given all the resources he requires, including time off from coaching Wales.

Whilst Gatland has been absolutely given every opportunity and resource to deliver, it's fairly valid that the Aussies would be far, far more familiar with one another, in fairness. Moore and Alexander pack down next to each other every week and have done for years. Robinson is a 50 cap international who has packed down with them and trained with them a huge number of times in the past 5 years. Their back row has all played together at club level multiple times. It goes well beyond the time they have had in camp leading up to this series.

This is the challenge of the Lions so it's not an excuse and it's what needs to be overcome to be successful but I don't think it's reasonable to say that, in 6 weeks, the Lions have the same familiarity than guys that have trained and lined out together for years at international and S15 level.

awec

We had a lineout after the aussie try did we not, pretty close to their try line? But we ballsed it up.

That should have been the opportunity they went for the drop goal. There was no need to go long with that lineout, should have just gone to the first man and gone in to contact to work the ball across the pitch a bit before setting up Sexton.

Keeping possession down that end of the pitch could have ended up in a penalty too, one within kickable range. I think we were a bit over-eager to go for the try, I can only assume that's why they tried the the long lineout. Poor decision making IMO.

P.Walnuts

Buer wrote: »

Whilst Gatland has been absolutely given every opportunity and resource to deliver, it's fairly valid that the Aussies would be far, far more familiar with one another, in fairness. Moore and Alexander pack down next to each other every week and have done for years. Robinson is a 50 cap international who has packed down with them and trained with them a huge number of times in the past 5 years. Their back row has all played together at club level multiple times. It goes well beyond the time they have had in camp leading up to this series.

This is the challenge of the Lions so it's not an excuse and it's what needs to be overcome to be successful but I don't think it's reasonable to say that, in 6 weeks, the Lions have the same familiarity than guys that have trained and lined out together for years at international and S15 level.

I have no idea how it can be argued that the Aussie's wouldn't have some kind of advantage in this department. The core of their team Moore, Horwell, Palu, Genia, AAC and Barnes/Beale have been playing together for years,

Rightwing

awec wrote: »

We had a lineout after the aussie try did we not, pretty close to their try line? But we ballsed it up.

That should have been the opportunity they went for the drop goal. There was no need to go long with that lineout, should have just gone to the first man and gone in to contact to work the ball across the pitch a bit before setting up Sexton.

Only problem is that would have required a bit of leadership, something I didn't see much of.

Buer

awec wrote: »

We had a lineout after the aussie try did we not, pretty close to their try line? But we ballsed it up.

That should have been the opportunity they went for the drop goal. There was no need to go long with that lineout, should have just gone to the first man and gone in to contact to work the ball across the pitch a bit before setting up Sexton.

I think they should have just mauled the f*ck out of them. I cannot understand that call. Australia have struggled with the Lions maul throughout. They've conceded several penalties there. If they had secured at the front, with Cole and Hibbard in there (19 and 18 stone respectively), they'd have been well placed to march them back.

If they'd managed to secure it, they would, at the very worst, have been looking at a great position for the drop goal. It would have been a good chance of moving it closer or drawing the penalty.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

I'd be willing to bet that 9 times out of 10, when someone here talks about leadership or a lack thereof they really haven't a bulls notion what they're talking about. I mean, can they pin point any real bit of factual evidence to attest to this supposed lack of leadership?

Awful tactics and poor selections were the reason the Lions lost that game, not some bull**** sound byte about a lack of leadership

sydthebeat

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

I'd be willing to bet that 9 times out of 10, when someone here talks about leadership or a lack thereof they really haven't a bulls notion what they're talking about. I mean, can they pin point any real bit of factual evidence to attest to this supposed lack of leadership?

Awful tactics and poor selections were the reason the Lions lost that game, not some bull**** sound byte about a lack of leadership

while i agree completely about the tactics and selection being awful...

if POC was on the pitch, with all his munster experience, he would have called the simple throw to teh front of the line out... to croft.... with the two second rows as decoys to the back....

parling called the line out on himself, lifts were ok, the throw was overshot, and horwill did enough to contest against parling.

hibbards throwing was suspect all the time he was on the field.

first rule of lineout when its at the death and your down by two is to secure the bloody possession.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

sydthebeat wrote: »

while i agree completely about the tactics and selection being awful...

if POC was on the pitch, with all his munster experience, he would have called the simple throw to teh front of the line out... to croft.... with the two second rows as decoys to the back....

parling called the line out on himself, lifts were ok, the throw was overshot, and horwill did enough to contest against parling.

hibbards throwing was suspect all the time he was on the field.

first rule of lineout when its at the death and your down by two is to secure the bloody possession.

POC was on the field last week and more or less made very similar lineout calls, only difference was the Aussies didn't contest for some reason

The Lions lineout has been awful, and right throughout the warmup games too

Turgid, predictable and unimaginative, and then you have to factor in the fact that none of the three hookers on the tour are top class throwers of a ball

Much as I hate to say it, Dylan Hartley would have been a serious asset in that regard

OldRio

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

POC was on the field last week and more or less made very similar lineout calls, only difference was the Aussies didn't contest for some reason

The Lions lineout has been awful, and right throughout the warmup games too

Turgid, predictable and unimaginative, and then you have to factor in the fact that none of the three hookers on the tour are top class throwers of a ball

Much as I hate to say it, Dylan Hartley would have been a serious asset in that regard

Burn him
Burn him


Actually I agree

Buer

sydthebeat wrote: »

while i agree completely about the tactics and selection being awful...

if POC was on the pitch, with all his munster experience, he would have called the simple throw to teh front of the line out... to croft.... with the two second rows as decoys to the back....

parling called the line out on himself, lifts were ok, the throw was overshot, and horwill did enough to contest against parling.

hibbards throwing was suspect all the time he was on the field.

first rule of lineout when its at the death and your down by two is to secure the bloody possession.

Whilst POC would definitely have improved the situation, I would say that more often than not, in similar essential wins in the opposition 22, POC calls the ball on himself. I'd say he would have 100% called it on himself in that scenario yesterday.

Most obvious example was the grand slam. That ball was not being called on anyone but POC by himself. He took it in the middle and had a Welsh jumper up with him who was a fraction too slow or would have had a hand in. For BOD's try also in that game at a vital point when we'd nothing on the scoreboard, we'd line out in their 22 and he called it on himself at the tail.

I don't blame Parling for calling the ball on himself at all; the best jumper is always going to be the most likely receiver. I do think they made a mess of the the choice of how to use the line out though.

toomevara

P.Walnuts wrote: »

You're being serious?

So bringing together players from 4 different countries and having 6 weeks to get them playing as a team makes no difference?

Yeah, but that kind of is the job description is it not? You can't be the Lions manager, or for that matter a Lion, and whinge about that aspect of the job. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Gatland and his team have had excellent preparation, particularly compared to other tours, especially in the amateur era where they essentially met up as a group in the airport car-park...I would say that the rugby they've produced (certain individual performances and limited purple-patches apart)has been exceptionally poor/one-dimensional and with one game left I still await anything resembling a decent/complete performance.

The Aussies were, if anything, undercooked going into this series. Their error rate has been uncharacteristically high (the reason why we managed to sneak the first test and stay in the second) but you can see that that situation is being rapidly remedied. They seem to have it over us where it matters i.e. the top two inches, while the Lions patently seem to lack the ability to adapt to the challenge the wallabies are putting up. We played some deeply, deeply daft rugby yesterday. Say what you like about Deans (and I'm not his greatest fan) but he has looked at the Lions, analysed the way they're trying to play and put 15 guys on the field who know what they need to do to beat them. Management 101, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of Gatland to do the same...

Swiwi.

Buer wrote: »

I think they should have just mauled the f*ck out of them. I cannot understand that call. Australia have struggled with the Lions maul throughout. They've conceded several penalties there. If they had secured at the front, with Cole and Hibbard in there (19 and 18 stone respectively), they'd have been well placed to march them back.

If they'd managed to secure it, they would, at the very worst, have been looking at a great position for the drop goal. It would have been a good chance of moving it closer or drawing the penalty.

Fairplay to Australia, though. After conceding the front of the lineout for much of the time, Horwill apparently moved himself to the front for that crucial last lineout, forcing Hibbards to go to the tail. If it's true, that's smart tactics from Horwill.

P.Walnuts

toomevara wrote: »

Yeah, but that kind of is the job description is it not? You can't be the Lions manager, or for that matter a Lion, and whinge about that aspect of the job. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Gatland and his team have had excellent preparation, particularly compared to other tours, especially in the amateur era where they essentially met up as a group in the airport car-park...I would say that the rugby they've produced (certain individual performances and limited purple-patches apart)has been exceptionally poor/one-dimensional and with one game left I still await anything resembling a decent/complete performance.

The Aussies were, if anything, undercooked going into this series. Their error rate has been uncharacteristically high (the reason why we managed to sneak the first test and stay in the second) but you can see that that situation is being rapidly remedied. They seem to have it over us where it matters i.e. the top two inches, while the Lions patently seem to lack the ability to adapt to the challenge the wallabies are putting up. We played some deeply, deeply daft rugby yesterday. Say what you like about Deans (and I'm not his greatest fan) but he has looked at the Lions, analysed the way they're trying to play and put 15 guys on the field who know what they need to do to beat them. Management 101, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of Gatland to do the same...

I agree with you, it is an essential part of the tour, i'm not using it as an excuse at all!

But saying that it doesn't exist is just nonsense!

sydthebeat

Buer wrote: »

Whilst POC would definitely have improved the situation, I would say that more often than not, in similar essential wins in the opposition 22, POC calls the ball on himself. I'd say he would have 100% called it on himself in that scenario yesterday.

Most obvious example was the grand slam. That ball was not being called on anyone but POC by himself. He took it in the middle and had a Welsh jumper up with him who was a fraction too slow or would have had a hand in. For BOD's try also in that game at a vital point when we'd nothing on the scoreboard, we'd line out in their 22 and he called it on himself at the tail.

I don't blame Parling for calling the ball on himself at all; the best jumper is always going to be the most likely receiver. I do think they made a mess of the the choice of how to use the line out though.

the big difference is though, he trusted the darts.

no one could have had any degree of certainty about hibbards throwing, therefore the least risky throw would have been to the front.
With two locks and croft in the lineout, and with croft mopping up everything to the front the week before, the right call should have been to croft at the front.

Leadership doesnt mean doing it all yourself, but trusting in the bigger picture.

neilmulvey

Buer wrote: »

Whilst POC would definitely have improved the situation, I would say that more often than not, in similar essential wins in the opposition 22, POC calls the ball on himself. I'd say he would have 100% called it on himself in that scenario yesterday.

Most obvious example was the grand slam. That ball was not being called on anyone but POC by himself. He took it in the middle and had a Welsh jumper up with him who was a fraction too slow or would have had a hand in. For BOD's try also in that game at a vital point when we'd nothing on the scoreboard, we'd line out in their 22 and he called it on himself at the tail.

I don't blame Parling for calling the ball on himself at all; the best jumper is always going to be the most likely receiver. I do think they made a mess of the the choice of how to use the line out though.

Ive seen many games, munster and ireland, when POC has called the lineouts to wallace or o'callaghan at crucial moments. Sometimes its about making the right call at he right time, if that happens to be calling the ball on himself then so be it.

The problem yesterday was once the ball was going beyond 4th man in the lineouts it was turned over. As was said earlier in the thread, they had two really big maul successes then stopped mauling. That to me is a lack of leadership on the field. Identify the weakness as the game develops and exploit it. It would also have been a way for the Lions to retain possession, get go forward ball, possibly win penalties to keep the scoreboard ticking over and reduce the possession that the Aussies have to get back into the game.

Buer

sydthebeat wrote: »

the big difference is though, he trusted the darts.

no one could have had any degree of certainty about hibbards throwing, therefore the least risky throw would have been to the front.

You could have said the exact same about POC calling on Best in that game for the grand slam when plenty of people have had issues with his throwing and would have wanted it thrown to the front.

The big difference is POC is the most explosive jumper in the world. Nobody gets into the air more quickly to my knowledge. POC trusts himself. I'm sure Parling does the same. The execution was wrong but I really wouldn't have any issue with him calling it on himself.

To me, it seems Parling absolutely trusted in the bigger picture and, perhaps, that was part of the issue.

sydthebeat

Buer wrote: »

You could have said the exact same about POC calling on Best in that game for the grand slam when plenty of people have had issues with his throwing and would have wanted it thrown to the front.

The big difference is POC is the most explosive jumper in the world. Nobody gets into the air more quickly to my knowledge. POC trusts himself. I'm sure Parling does the same. The execution was wrong but I really wouldn't have any issue with him calling it on himself.

To me, it seems Parling absolutely trusted in the bigger picture and, perhaps, that was part of the issue.

i know we are talking hypotheticals here, but that last sentence makes no sense. Calling the line out to the middle to yourself shows great confidence in your own abilities and the throwers... but doesnt exactly scream confidence in your team mates.

Buer

neilmulvey wrote: »

Ive seen many games, munster and ireland, when POC has called the lineouts to wallace or o'callaghan at crucial moments. Sometimes its about making the right call at he right time, if that happens to be calling the ball on himself then so be it.

The problem yesterday was once the ball was going beyond 4th man in the lineouts it was turned over. As was said earlier in the thread, they had two really big maul successes then stopped mauling. That to me is a lack of leadership on the field. Identify the weakness as the game develops and exploit it. It would also have been a way for the Lions to retain possession, get go forward ball, possibly win penalties to keep the scoreboard ticking over and reduce the possession that the Aussies have to get back into the game.

I entirely agree. As I posted, the maul was by far the most preferable option. I was merely pointing out that, if POC was on the field, that by no means indicates he'd call the ball to someone else. In the biggest moments previously, he has done the opposite such as the grand slam match or the England match in 2007. I'd say, if we went back through Irish matches forensically over the past 6 years and examined tries scored beginning with line outs in opposition 22, we'd see about 80% of them being taken by POC.

Buer

sydthebeat wrote: »

i know we are talking hypotheticals here, but that last sentence makes no sense. Calling the line out to the middle to yourself shows great confidence in your own abilities and the throwers... but doesnt exactly scream confidence in your team mates.

I'd have thought it clearly shows trust. It's implicitly trusting the thrower to go beyond the front of the line out when others are doubting him. The calls the Lions have generally used in the line out to the front continually shows a lack of faith in the line out overall. They clearly have huge doubts about Youngs ability to throw straight beyond 4.

sydthebeat

Buer wrote: »

I entirely agree. As I posted, the maul was by far the most preferable option. I was merely pointing out that, if POC was on the field, that by no means indicates he'd call the ball to someone else. In the biggest moments previously, he has done the opposite such as the grand slam match or the England match in 2007. I'd say, if we went back through Irish matches forensically over the past 6 years and examined tries scored beginning with line outs in opposition 22, we'd see about 80% of them being taken by POC.

but your completely missing the points that:
1. the lions had THREE good lineout jumpers on the field
2. croft hooved up EVERY front line out the previous week
3. POC called the lion outs the previous week... the locks took 4, the back row took 8.
If you look to last weeks game at 70 mins with the lions 2 points up, croft takes the throw.