Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Cymru Lions v Wallabies, 3rd Test Match Thread, Sat July 6, 1100am
Options
Comments
-
Also I was saying in the pub, literally before Leigh started ripping the Aussies up, that one of the big shames of the tour was Halfpenny not being used in attack at all. As I was saying it he broke through and setup a try. The other time he attacked the line he set up another try.
Massive highlight of wrong tactics used in the first two tests imo. Whenever Sexton or Halfpenny attacked the line they were ripping the Australians to shreds. Was this a change of tactics? Or did the players take it on themselves because it was do or die?0 -
Even if Frank o Driscoll was playing lions would have still won, it was a forwards game with a little input from the backsArtful_Badger wrote: »Humble pie is for those who were shown to be wrong. And most people were not wrong, Gatland made a mistake not to pick BOD, that much was clear by the fact the centre partnership was irrelevant to the overall game plan.0 -
-
Steady on.Yep, and there's plenty here that did and need to. Green tinted glasses are one thing; green blindfolds are something else.
The hysteria over BOD is irrational, emotional and pretty pathetic to be honest. He deserved his place in the squad and he made a useful stand in while the preferred center partnership was unavailable. He was busy in the first Test but did little in either of them that justifies the rants over his omission. If anything, Gatland's mistake was moving Davies to 12.
Four tries, a record margin and a first series win in 16 years. Yet we have people still whinging and performing cartwheels to justify their prejudice.
Have a second helping boys (you know who you are.)
Test 1 and 2 were won by a margin of 1 kick each.
The Lions scored 2 tries in the 1st 2 Tests. One of them was a solo counter-attack by North.
So in 160 minutes of Test Rugby, the entire backline engineered and scored 1 try. And let's be fair about this, Cuthbert finished it well but the Wallabies really messed up on their defensive line for it.
In Tests such as that, so close with little happening in the backline, BODs contribution in defence can't be underestimated. 23 tackles across the 2 Tests, only surpassed by Warburton. So you've got one of the best centres of all-time performing defensive heroics.
Also it's worth noting that 2 of those 23 tackles led either directly or indirectly to penalties which 1/2p kicked. When BOD smashed Adam Ashley Cooper backwards it led to a penalty 15 seconds later.
To say BOD did nothing to deserve retaining his place is complete and utter myopic nonsense. It's not green tinted glasses on either - the tackle stats speak for themselves.
The 2nd part of your point is correct, JD at 12 was a big mistake. I would really encourage people to compare 2 incidents that illustrate this well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VttNqKXu84o
In that clip, pause it at 8 seconds. Sexton has just passed the ball to BOD and runs a clever support line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xQFAZ0GwEc
In this clip, go to 1:22.27 and then pause it at 1:22.32
Sexton has just passed the ball to Bowe and runs the exact same drifting support line.
In the first instance JD is too flat and too ponderous, he didnt pick a line one way or the other and just sort of stood there not offering BOD a clear option. In the 2nd instance, JD chose a definitive line, received the ball from Bowe.
That to me shows that JD was a fish out of water playing at 12. Whether it was a lack of confidence or nervousness, he was poor in defence and attack in the first 2 Tests. Returned to his favoured no. 13 he grew in confidence and decision making.
In short the problem was not BOD at 13 nor BODs form. The problem was JD at 12 and the severe lack of ball the backline got.
That poor choice, i believe was the difference between 1-1 and 2-0. And i also firmly believe that if BOD was not at 13 we may well have been 2-0 down. You can't underestimate the importance of the shifts he put in. 23 tackles with 0 missed in tight games. Hugely important.
Did the Centre combination put a spell on Will Genia? As in "please drop the ball from the kickoff"?Yeah, only one of them scored, the other was involved in only two of the four tries. Hardly worth them togging out really.
Add some sour grapes to that pie of yours.
No? Well then what people are rightly going to argue is that the centre combination was a peripheral aspect of the game. As soon as Genia dropped that ball and Bowe/Hibbard/SOB tanked it up towards the line, the Wallabies were chasing the game.
The centres both played well, there can be no doubt about that, but not to the point where either were pivotal figures. Other than Roberts sensational try (to me the pick of the bunch) and other than JD 2 kicks and offload, they weren't exactly doing a lot.
So, by every fair measure the decision to drop BOD was almost pointless. Thought it in no doubt galvanised the squad - to win it for Gatland with the abuse he was getting and to win it for BOD.
agree with nearly all of the above.Cracking game. Only sober now!
For me though the game only highlights how poor the Lions and Gatland were for the first two test games. In reality they're EXTREMELY lucky they didn't lose the test series in the first two games. We should've won the first two test games in similar fashion to yesterday. I think Gatland got a lot of selections wrong. It was clear yesterday that his tactics would only come good if he had strike runners. He picked the wrong backrow for the first two games, and in reality was only forced into this one due to injured players.
The BOD thing's been done to death, but it's safe to say Gatland wasn't 'vindicated' on that front, Davies had a decidedly average game and didn't effect the result what so ever. I said before the game it was a masterstroke PR move by Gatland. Drop the undroppable and if you win you'll be hailed a genius. But it was never going to make a difference because the 13 wasn't used effectively at all.
Yesterday showed a dominant scrum and strong ball carrying was more important than groundhog stuff at the breakdown. It took an injury to the Captain for Gatland to finally stumble on a powerful, balanced backrow.
To see Lydiate and SOB hunting in pairs like they were was a joy to behold, they seem to really click on and off the field. Maybe it's a farming thing!
Slightly harsh ratings and how you can give Phillips the same rating as Lydiate is beyond me , Lydiate/SOB/Faletau as a unit were absolutely unreal, so to give them 6, 7, 8 is harsh. In my book it'd be 8s and 9s across that backrow.thomond2006 wrote: »
I really think the key difference in all 3 Tests was the scrum and that is where Gatland got it massively wrong. He went for a weak scrummager, good in the loose for Test 2. Whereas yesterday showed it should have been a strong scrummager, feck the loose.Also I was saying in the pub, literally before Leigh started ripping the Aussies up, that one of the big shames of the tour was Halfpenny not being used in attack at all. As I was saying it he broke through and setup a try. The other time he attacked the line he set up another try.
Massive highlight of wrong tactics used in the first two tests imo. Whenever Sexton or Halfpenny attacked the line they were ripping the Australians to shreds. Was this a change of tactics? Or did the players take it on themselves because it was do or die?
The complexion of the game changed tremendously due to it. I really think our backline could have played like that in the First 2 Tests off the back of a dominant scrum.0 -
I did not say he did nothing to justify his retention. I said he did little to justify the rants over his omission. Of course it was a tight call and I would not have been unhappy if he had been in. My problem is with the hysterical nonsense that surrounded the selection and that has continued in defiance of reality.0
-
Advertisement
-
I did not say he did nothing to justify his retention. I said he did little to justify the rants over his omission. Of course it was a tight call and I would not have been unhappy if he had been in. My problem is with the hysterical nonsense that surrounded the selection and that has continued in defiance of reality.
The problem with this post is your trying to discount all of the discussion for BOD to be included in the test as hysterical nonsense or rants, when in fact there was plenty of level headed posts discussing the merits of his selection.0 -
For all the stick Phillips got, was he actually that bad? I haven't rewatched the game, but he did exceptionally well for Corbs try, he literally sold a dummy long pass to the entire oz defence. His breaks and tempo were good also.0
-
For all the stick Phillips got, was he actually that bad? I haven't rewatched the game, but he did exceptionally well for Corbs try, he literally sold a dummy long pass to the entire oz defence. His breaks and tempo were good also.
There were more than a couple times where he took so long to pass the ball he made Ben Mowen look like a sprinter. Sometimes he seems to pick his man after picking up the ball, allowing the opposition to simply cut off his options and force him into carrying.0 -
For all the stick Phillips got, was he actually that bad? I haven't rewatched the game, but he did exceptionally well for Corbs try, he literally sold a dummy long pass to the entire oz defence. His breaks and tempo were good also.
Theft were times I thought I was watching Tomas O'Leary on a bad day with those boxkicks.
Very slow ball off the rucks too I thought0 -
Box kicks are something I think are pointless unless, A, you are in real trouble or B are high and can be contested.
Other wise you give cheap possession away. and mostly give it away to good counter attacking teams.0 -
Advertisement
-
I thought Phillips was very good. The Lions went 27 phases on 30 minutes. He's the only scrum half on tour who seemed capable of managing those kinds of possessions. They looked comfortable enough to go 40 phases then if Sexton hadnt gone for a drop goal.0
-
Micky Dolenz wrote: »Box kicks are something I think are pointless unless, A, you are in real trouble or B are high and can be contested.
Other wise you give cheap possession away. and mostly give it away to good counter attacking teams.
They're great for pushing territory if you have a 9 who can put it deep. You give your chasers an extra 10 meters and a running start.0 -
irishbucsfan wrote: »They're great for pushing territory if you have a 9 who can put it deep. You give your chasers an extra 10 meters and a running start.
If you play against inferior opposition then maybe. Play a top side and you will certainly end up where you started or lose ground.
I don't see deep box kicks as positive rugby at all.0 -
irishbucsfan wrote: »I thought Phillips was very good. The Lions went 27 phases on 30 minutes. He's the only scrum half on tour who seemed capable of managing those kinds of possessions. They looked comfortable enough to go 40 phases then if Sexton hadnt gone for a drop goal.
Could this be down to his lack of speed? Not much happened with him off the back of the ruck, when you play quickly you are more likely to make a mistake or lose it, but at the same time you are more likely to actually do something.
In those 27 phases how far forward did the Lions go? Was this the period where they went from one side of the pitch to the other but barely went forward at all?0 -
Could this be down to his lack of speed? Not much happened with him off the back of the ruck, when you play quickly you are more likely to make a mistake or lose it, but at the same time you are more likely to actually do something.
In those 27 phases how far forward did the Lions go? Was this the period where they went from one side of the pitch to the other but barely went forward at all?
No it's down to his ability and intelligence. But also down to his experience playing in a system like this, which is something none of the other 9s have.
The Lions went from inside their own half to the Aussie 22 and would have kept going probably. Never really lost their control.0 -
Philips, like O'Driscoll, is in his last days as a top class player. No point in comparing him with Genia simply because they were facing each other. Genia is currently the best 9 in the world. But despite that Australia were rarely on the same level as the Lions.
Over the course of one week, the Lions scrum learned to utterly dominate the same opposition they couldn't contend with the previous Saturday. Hmmm ....
Forget Gatland, 3 cheers for Mr Poite & his 21 point friend 1/2p.
Now in fairness, before anyone says the ref was biased, he did his best to give his Aus friend 21 points as well, but the nasty Mr Horwill wouldn't let him kick.0 -
irishbucsfan wrote: »I thought Phillips was very good. The Lions went 27 phases on 30 minutes. He's the only scrum half on tour who seemed capable of managing those kinds of possessions. They looked comfortable enough to go 40 phases then if Sexton hadnt gone for a drop goal.
I'd say this was more due to the forwards than him. I found Phillips to be infuriatingly slow and indecisive at times. He got wrapped up twice from the base, and even though once the Aussie was a mile offside - it still shouldn't happen.
That being said, he had one cracking game before the first test where everyone was shouting for his immediate inclusion (and rightly so, he was brilliant and the in-form 9 then) for the first test. He went on to be mediocre at best. I see he is now debating his international career: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/232181480 -
Deliverance XXV wrote: »I'd say this was more due to the forwards than him. I found Phillips to be infuriatingly slow and indecisive at times. He got wrapped up twice from the base, and even though once the Aussie was a mile offside - it still shouldn't happen.
That being said, he had one cracking game before the first test where everyone was shouting for his immediate inclusion (and rightly so, he was brilliant and the in-form 9 then) for the first test. He went on to be mediocre at best. I see he is now debating his international career: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/23218148
Oh really?
In T1 the Lions managed 23 phases at most with Phillips managing possession.
In T2 it was something like 8/9.
He comes back in for T3 and they manage 27 phases in their top possession.
I don't know how a pack are supposed to manage a drive like that without a 9 who is switched on and playing well. He wasn't super, but he did exactly what was needed and he played well. Not every 9 has to play that quick game, and Phillips can get the ball away quickly when it suits.0 -
2007 we couldn't claim the ball from a French restart in the dying minutes. Clerc cut inside Neil Best and John Hayes, and scored a try he should never have scored. When Best got done for drink driving in 2009 I said to myself "Karma is a bitch"
I don't think the sheer idiocy of this post has been properly acknowledged0 -
irishbucsfan wrote: »Oh really?
In T1 the Lions managed 23 phases at most with Phillips managing possession.
In T2 it was something like 8/9.
He comes back in for T3 and they manage 27 phases in their top possession.
I don't know how a pack are supposed to manage a drive like that without a 9 who is switched on and playing well. He wasn't super, but he did exactly what was needed and he played well. Not every 9 has to play that quick game, and Phillips can get the ball away quickly when it suits.
Using that logic, you could say that his not being there in the second match was the reason the Lions lost.
I think there is a lot more to it than that. Opposition, form, team players, conditions, tactics, luck... not solely because of the choice 9. He certainly is in a position to change the flow of play but he must have the breakdown and decent ball first. Anyway, much of a muchness and too many variables to consider!
Which brings me to one of Murrays minor flaws - he seems to get caught in the bottom of a lot of rucks.0 -
Advertisement
-
irishbucsfan wrote: »I thought Phillips was very good. The Lions went 27 phases on 30 minutes. He's the only scrum half on tour who seemed capable of managing those kinds of possessions. They looked comfortable enough to go 40 phases then if Sexton hadnt gone for a drop goal.irishbucsfan wrote: »No it's down to his ability and intelligence. But also down to his experience playing in a system like this, which is something none of the other 9s have.
The Lions went from inside their own half to the Aussie 22 and would have kept going probably. Never really lost their control.
I'm sorry but i have to disagree with you here, partially because you are wrong.
The scrum took place on 27:59 and was in the Wallaby half of the field 10 metres outside their 22. The drive lasted 27 phases ending with a Sexton missed drop goal on 31:01.
The 1st 4 phases Phillips didnt touch the ball. On the 7th phase he dithered, didnt pass to anybody and got wrapped up causing the Lions to go backwards 5 metres in the next few phases. During the next 16 phases we went from side-to-side for a gain of, well, nothing. Then Corbisiero picked up the ball and drove 6 metres by running over Is'rael Folau.
The whole 27 phases of play we only made 14 metres. We were going nowhere fast. All that passage of play did was to kill 3 minutes off the clock.
As for Phillips being good in that passage of play, again disagree. In 27 phases he hit Hibbard 5 times with a flip pass, he hit Corbisiero 4 times with a pop etc. He only went wide 4 times hitting Sexton as the 1st receiver.
IMO any scrumhalf (including Murray and Youngs) can pass the ball 2 feet to a prop to bish-bash-bosh.
Contrast that to Murray when he came on. He was dynamic, quicker to the breakdown, quicker to get the ball in his hands and quicker to go wide to Sexton. IMO Phillips had a decent game but no more than decent and i can't buy into any argument that either Murray or Youngs couldnt have ran that 27 phase drive when all Phillips was doing was popping it out to props and backrows to slam it up the middle (and as i said they were going nowhere).
Here is the full match link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xQFAZ0GwEc0 -
wonderfullife wrote: »I'm sorry but i have to disagree with you here, partially because you are wrong.
The scrum took place on 27:59 and was in the Wallaby half of the field 10 metres outside their 22. The drive lasted 27 phases ending with a Sexton missed drop goal on 31:01.
The 1st 4 phases Phillips didnt touch the ball. On the 7th phase he dithered, didnt pass to anybody and got wrapped up causing the Lions to go backwards 5 metres in the next few phases. During the next 16 phases we went from side-to-side for a gain of, well, nothing. Then Corbisiero picked up the ball and drove 6 metres by running over Is'rael Folau.
The whole 27 phases of play we only made 14 metres. We were going nowhere fast. All that passage of play did was to kill 3 minutes off the clock.
As for Phillips being good in that passage of play, again disagree. In 27 phases he hit Hibbard 5 times with a flip pass, he hit Corbisiero 4 times with a pop etc. He only went wide 4 times hitting Sexton as the 1st receiver.
IMO any scrumhalf (including Murray and Youngs) can pass the ball 2 feet to a prop to bish-bash-bosh.
Contrast that to Murray when he came on. He was dynamic, quicker to the breakdown, quicker to get the ball in his hands and quicker to go wide to Sexton. IMO Phillips had a decent game but no more than decent and i can't buy into any argument that either Murray or Youngs couldnt have ran that 27 phase drive when all Phillips was doing was popping it out to props and backrows to slam it up the middle (and as i said they were going nowhere).
Here is the full match link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xQFAZ0GwEc
You're right about the starting position, my mistake.
However to say the only thing 27 phases did is kill 3 minutes is one of the most ridiculous thing I have read on this tour. Have you ever tried to defend for 20+ phases in a row?! I would guess not. I also guess you don't really comprehend why achieving those phase counts have been a massive part of the success of Gatland's sides.
And even more ridiculous is your attempt to belittle the importance of what he was doing there. What's the point, you clearly have your mind made up. If you want a lesson in how poor 9 management can kill a team through poor management of phase play look at Murray/Reddan last autumn against South Africa.
This place was incredibly frustrating during the tour actually. The quality of posts regarding certain issues (the game plan, Warburton amongst others). Hopefully well be back to normal in September.
Although I must say that Murray was excellent. He really thrived and looked brilliant on tour. I'm not comparing the two. I just think the criticism of Phillips on here has been way OTT.0 -
irishbucsfan wrote: »You're right about the starting position, my mistake.
However to say the only thing 27 phases did is kill 3 minutes is one of the most ridiculous thing I have read on this tour. Have you ever tried to defend for 20+ phases in a row?! I would guess not. I also guess you don't really comprehend why achieving those phase counts have been a massive part of the success of Gatland's sides.
And even more ridiculous is your attempt to belittle the importance of what he was doing there. What's the point, you clearly have your mind made up. If you want a lesson in how poor 9 management can kill a team through poor management of phase play look at Murray/Reddan last autumn against South Africa.
This place was incredibly frustrating during the tour actually. The quality of posts regarding certain issues (the game plan, Warburton amongst others). Hopefully well be back to normal in September.
Although I must say that Murray was excellent. He really thrived and looked brilliant on tour. I'm not comparing the two. I just think the criticism of Phillips on here has been way OTT.
Look, of course big phase counts are important. Teams cant put in huge tackle shifts without dropping off the pace eventually. And the Wallabies did fade in the 2nd Half. So yes they achieved a lot more than "killing time".
I thought it was a given that big phase counts have an attritional nature, so my comment was purely down to the fact we didnt actually make many yards or score points off the drive.
You're trying to tell me that Murray could not have orchestrated that phase. I disagree. In fact i can point you to examples in the 2nd half of the same test where he did just that. You can't compare apples with oranges. But i can compare apples with apples. Same game, same pack, 2 different 9s and both were able to run phases. The difference is Murray was more incisive, crisper with his passing and generally better.
As for your subtle dig on the quality of posting here, you were in a low but vocal minority about Warburton and the "balance of the 2nd row", yet the very backrow you felt would be unbalanced (Lydiate, SOB, Faletau) worked tremendously well together and outperformed any of the other Test backrow combinations.
Just because the majority disagreed with you doesn't give you a right to slate posters as a whole. You're no more an expert on rugby than any of the rest of us, whether you played for Ireland or never picked up a rugby ball.0 -
and for the record i was not belittling the importance of what he was doing.
I was arguing Murray and Youngs would have been able to do it.
If you disagree that's fine, but citing examples of Murray/Reddan v SA is futile. Different game , weaker irish side, stronger opposition etc
The best comparison is same test and even that is flawed with substitutions and tiredness.
So it's a matter of opinion and we disagree clearly.0 -
wonderfullife wrote: »Look, of course big phase counts are important. Teams cant put in huge tackle shifts without dropping off the pace eventually. And the Wallabies did fade in the 2nd Half. So yes they achieved a lot more than "killing time".
I thought it was a given that big phase counts have an attritional nature, so my comment was purely down to the fact we didnt actually make many yards or score points off the drive.
You're trying to tell me that Murray could not have orchestrated that phase. I disagree. In fact i can point you to examples in the 2nd half of the same test where he did just that. You can't compare apples with oranges. But i can compare apples with apples. Same game, same pack, 2 different 9s and both were able to run phases. The difference is Murray was more incisive, crisper with his passing and generally better.
No I never said that at all. In fact I said I am not comparing Phillips and Murray, very clearly.
I think Murray is getting close to being able to do it as well as Phillips. But this is the first time he has ever played for a team who are looking to do it. So tell me, if you are looking to compare apples with apples, what were our phase counts on with Murray on the field compared to Phillips?
(also ignoring the fact that you absolutely cannot compare a replacement scrum half's performance with a starting scrum half's performance for extremely obvious reasons).As for your subtle dig on the quality of posting here, you were in a low but vocal minority about Warburton and the "balance of the 2nd row", yet the very backrow you felt would be unbalanced (Lydiate, SOB, Faletau) worked tremendously well together and outperformed any of the other Test backrow combinations.
I never discussed that back row. If you can find a post where I even mentioned that combination I'd be surprised. I wasn't even considering Faletau at all because I thought Heaslip deserved quite clearly to be playing ahead of him, which I still think was the case.
Well how much any of the posters here know about the game really isn't something you have any idea about. But I certainly wasn't disagreeing with the majority of people I spoke to, maybe the majority of posters on here... which is a big difference of course.Just because the majority disagreed with you doesn't give you a right to slate posters as a whole. You're no more an expert on rugby than any of the rest of us, whether you played for Ireland or never picked up a rugby ball.0 -
irishbucsfan wrote: »No I never said that at all. In fact I said I am not comparing Phillips and Murray, very clearly.
I think Murray is getting close to being able to do it as well as Phillips. But this is the first time he has ever played for a team who are looking to do it. So tell me, if you are looking to compare apples with apples, what were our phase counts on with Murray on the field compared to Phillips?
(also ignoring the fact that you absolutely cannot compare a replacement scrum half's performance with a starting scrum half's performance for extremely obvious reasons).
I never discussed that back row. If you can find a post where I even mentioned that combination I'd be surprised. I wasn't even considering Faletau at all because I thought Heaslip deserved quite clearly to be playing ahead of him, which I still think was the case.
Well how much any of the posters here know about the game really isn't something you have any idea about. But I certainly wasn't disagreeing with the majority of people I spoke to, maybe the majority of posters on here... which is a big difference of course.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85331463&postcount=6276And Warburton proved in the first test that he plays an important part in the way the Lions like to attack. And it's a part that SOB won't play. Warburton being out creates a major issue for Gatland in finding an attacking balance for his pack.
I responded with:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85331689&postcount=6280I'm sorry, what?
We barely got our backline moving all day, so if he played an important part in that then yes i'd rather SOB battering a few holes in midfield instead.
You'd be hard pressed to argue the backrow was unbalanced. Lydiate and SOB hunted in pairs and were everywhere. Rucks, collisions, carries, lineout....Faletau complimented them with a superb display.
There was nothing unbalanced about the backrow whatsoever.
More to the point the Lions were more dynamic with the additional ball carrying and brute strength offered by SOB. He flat-out delivered a more complete performance than Warbs did in Test 1 at least.
I believe you over-egged the importance of Warburton in the way the Lions wanted to play. You believed he was vital to the plan. You even cited the fact that we built 21 phases before Genias counter-attack and Warburton was key to that. Well, we built 27 phases without Warbs.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85332339&postcount=6291What good are ball carriers without guys who can get through the work in support. We're losing those guys like flies. SOB is a top class player but Warburton was more valuable to the side in the first two tests than he would have been.
I disagree and i think the display of Lydiate and Faletau showed that we did indeed have the correct balance and we had the support players we needed to get through the work.
In short, Warburton blossomed into this Tour. It took a while but by Test 2 he was in top form. I still maintain SOB could have offered more from Test 1. The final Test , whilst not conclusive "proof", certainly does nothing to harm that opinion.
The Wallabies must have been sick of the sight of SOB by half time he was literally hitting anything that moved in attack and defence, and he had a brilliant understanding with Lydiate and Faletau too.0 -
So I didn't ever discuss that back row then? Great to know.
Bottom line is Warburton was great 3 games in a row. It was very clear how well he was playing. Some people really didn't want to see it unfortunately. SOB was never even competing with him anyway and I said all along I would have started with SOB in the test side. Completely different players who filled completely different roles for the side.0 -
You said SOB couldn't offer what Warbs could and that would create a problem in finding a balanced backrow. Given your reply was in response to a suggested Tipuric-SOB-Faletau backrow, it's close enough. But no you didn't mention that backrow.irishbucsfan wrote: »So I didn't ever discuss that back row then? Great to know.
Bottom line is Warburton was great 3 games in a row. It was very clear how well he was playing. Some people really didn't want to see it unfortunately. SOB was never even competing with him anyway and I said all along I would have started with SOB in the test side. Completely different players who filled completely different roles for the side.
You still don't want to admit that he was not as "vital" to the gameplan as you were saying.
We did better without him and that's a stone cold fact. This was the best backrow performance of the Tour.
We even built more phases without him. It's one thing arguing Warburton played well in the Tests (i agree) and another arguing he was vital to the gameplan - because it was shown very clearly he wasn't.
No facet of our gameplan suffered in his absence. We actually improved on many of them. And that can't all be down to Corbisiero and the scrum because Corbs started Test 1 too.0 -
Great win in the end up.
I was one of the many who thought it was a mistake to drop BOD.
In the end though, as others mentioned, it was due to the scrum
I actually thought Poite had a strange enough game. He seemed to completely ignore offsides and tacklers not rolling away and people going off their feet for the most part. Maybe I'm wrong but he was taking an interpretation that if the scrum half could get to the ball that the tackler was not interfering. Very lenient in comparison to other refs.
Phillips unfortunately for him had another poor game. Far more than BOD / Davies, that was THE baffling selection decision.
Was there any other position where the replacement (Murray) looked so much better than the starter?0 -
Advertisement
-
irishbucsfan wrote: »So I didn't ever discuss that back row then? Great to know.
Bottom line is Warburton was great 3 games in a row. It was very clear how well he was playing. Some people really didn't want to see it unfortunately. SOB was never even competing with him anyway and I said all along I would have started with SOB in the test side. Completely different players who filled completely different roles for the side.
This is certainly not a bottom line.
Remember Sky's half time highlight reel?0
Advertisement