Lions 2013 Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

Rightwing · 02-07-2013 10:28AM

.ak wrote: »

The players aren't as good as SH players. There's elements of genetics, rugby background and all sorts that put NZ, Oz and SA players head and shoulders above the rest of the world.

However, in recent years I firmly believe that gap has lessoned. The pro game is only around a wet week when you think about it and the game is pushing players to be bigger, stronger, fitter.

I think the players are good. But at the end of the day, a game of rugby is rarely decided by how good the players are compared to the other 15. That's far too simplistic. It's down to game plan, coaching, mentality, home or away advantage etc., etc.

1 to 22 the Oz players were better than Ireland's in the WC. But we beat them because we brought the right game plan with us, and probably an element of wanting it more than they did.

At the moment, the Lions game plan just isn't working. Simple as. The players are more than capable of the performances they put in last Saturday or even the Saturday before that.

I largely agree with that, but go back to the world cup, and Gatland seemed to have wales flying.

I thought Gatland was the right man for the Lions a year ago, & I looked at the Aussies thought they were very beatable, and the series would be won. If it's won, it's more by default than anything. Questions need to be asked.

In fairness injuries have depeleted the team, but the Aussies have had misfortune too.

Hippo · 02-07-2013 10:28AM

The real difficulty with the IRB appeal system is that it's not really a full appeal, it's more like the judicial review process in this country where the decision of an arm of the state can only be challenged where the official has acted in excess of their powers or their decision was one no reasonable official could have reached based on all the evidence. It's not a full rehearing and the bar is set very high for the appellant.

This being the case, the appeal was never likely to succeed. Perhaps the IRB was just firing a shot across the bows for future independent citing commissioners, but given the limited parameters of the appeal realistically the decision wasn't going to be overturned.

Perhaps the IRB needs to review its appeals process to broaden the possibilities...

TLDR: IRB appeals process narrow and flawed.

sydthebeat · 02-07-2013 10:36AM

.ak wrote: »

At the moment, the Lions game plan just isn't working. Simple as. The players are more than capable of the performances they put in last Saturday or even the Saturday before that.

agreed.
going out this was heralded as probably the strongest touring party and that we would be playing Australia at a particularly good time seeing as they disharmony in the camp and were suffering high profile injuries. Our players were viewed as bigger, faster, stronger than most of their counterparts.

However what it would require would be a game plan to pull this together.

So far on tour this game plan has worked fine against weaker opposition however it has been found seriously wanting in the test games.
Apart from one pre ordained and well executed move in the first game (albeit with a flanker standing at 12) they have been abject in attack with ball in hand.
One main cause of this has been slow distribution from our 9's, both philips and youngs have been poor in the chances they have been given. That being said both mowen and hooper have made real nuisances of themselves and in a lot of cases the lions havent secured ball quick enough.

They need 80 mins of rabid intensity on saturday and physically beat the aussies off the field.

SlickRic · 02-07-2013 10:37AM

it looks like a very dangerous precedent.

but, in reality, the citing rules will all be back to normal once the Lions Tour is over.

this won't even be used as a precedent.

Tox56 · 02-07-2013 10:47AM

Not really sure how to feel about the Horwill thing. Obviously the fact that the original decision was upheld suggests it is a fair trial, and that an IRB appeal isn't a foregone conclusion as some were assuming it to be. But then again of course the decision itself is really, really dubious. No point going into it further as it's done now, hopefuly the Lions win on Sat and this becomes irrelevant

DDC1990 · 02-07-2013 10:51AM

A nice video of AAC after the game, with a little cameo from Nathan Sharpe at the end.

Winning try couldn't have fallen to a nicer guy.

Had to laugh at Nathan Sharpe "I thought him everything he knows!"

Foxtrol · 02-07-2013 10:55AM

Rightwing wrote: »

Good. Horwill cleared.

Maybe a bit like the POC decision, but whatever the citing chap says, as far as I'm concerned, that's it, done and dusted.

I think Horwill should have been banned but I think POC probably should have missed the tour for his bit of recklessness. Two wrongs don't make a right but I'd have understood if the Aussies kicked up a storm if Horwill had been banned after an appeal from the IRB when POC (imo a more reckless act) didn't even face a hearing. Neither instance is good for the spread of rugby.

Tox56 · 02-07-2013 10:58AM

Rightwing wrote: »

I largely agree with that, but go back to the world cup, and Gatland seemed to have wales flying.

.

Did he? I've gone into this before but i don't think they were exactly world beaters in that tournament. They lost to South Africa, were lucky Samoa had such a short turnaround before their game as they only just scraped over the line, lost to France (admirable effort with 14 men in fairness) and lost to Australia.

They had a good tournament, they pushed top sides close, nearly won a WC semi-final with 14 men and beat us, but the only team of note they actually beat *was* us. As I said, a good tournament but not as outstanding as it may have appeared, and once again they came unstuck against the SH teams

ozymandias10 · 02-07-2013 11:05AM

Foxtrol wrote: »

I think Horwill should have been banned but I think POC probably should have missed the tour for his bit of recklessness. Two wrongs don't make a right but I'd have understood if the Aussies kicked up a storm if Horwill had been banned after an appeal from the IRB when POC (imo a more reckless act) didn't even face a hearing. Neither instance is good for the spread of rugby.

oh no..will someone please think of the children before this kicks off

.ak · 02-07-2013 11:05AM

Rightwing wrote: »

I largely agree with that, but go back to the world cup, and Gatland seemed to have wales flying.

I thought Gatland was the right man for the Lions a year ago, & I looked at the Aussies thought they were very beatable, and the series would be won. If it's won, it's more by default than anything. Questions need to be asked.

In fairness injuries have depeleted the team, but the Aussies have had misfortune too.

I think Gatland CAN play the right brand of rugby. He was the right choice. He just messed up with his gameplan is all. He thought about eeking out a victory playing the percentages, very pragmatic. He needed to use the talent at hand and run everything at the Aussies and hope to create holes. That's low percentage rugby, but I think it would've paid off.

Micky Dolenz · 02-07-2013 11:06AM

ozymandias10 wrote: »

oh no..will someone please think of the children before this kicks off

We really need to stamp this out before it takes off.

.ak · 02-07-2013 11:09AM

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

We really need to stamp this out before it takes off.

Ah that's a bit headless.

phog · 02-07-2013 11:12AM

Don't know if this was mentioned - the tweet is a few days old but I just saw it now.

Laurie Fisher ‏@LordLaurie58 30 Jun Lions need to generate quicker ruck ball to give their attack any chance. An average 4 second clearance is way too slow to threaten good D.

Hope Gatland noticed that too.

accidentprone1 · 02-07-2013 11:12AM

I'm gonna kick someone in the head if someone mentions it again. amidoinitrite?

02-07-2013 11:12AM

Lucky guys never to have been kicked unconscious and miss 5 weeks of work for it.

I'm sure it'd still be funny though.

irishbucsfan · 02-07-2013 11:14AM

I'd love to know a game plan that would suit this squad and these test matches better tbh

I've read completely differing posts criticising what some people think the gameplan is and it always completely differs, which is particularly annoying. The Lions are too defensive, The Lions are just forward oriented bosh bosh blah etc. The Lions are just Wales with Sexton. Etc etc. I'd love to know what's wrong with the game plan and what the approach should have been to play against this Australian side. Because I don't think there's been a single sensible post detailing that so far.

Buer · 02-07-2013 11:21AM

.ak wrote: »

I think Gatland CAN play the right brand of rugby. He was the right choice. He just messed up with his gameplan is all. He thought about eeking out a victory playing the percentages, very pragmatic. He needed to use the talent at hand and run everything at the Aussies and hope to create holes. That's low percentage rugby, but I think it would've paid off.

He certainly can. As the stakes go up, he had become more conservative. Anyone who recalls the 2004 HEC can attest to him being able to coach a side that will play attacking rugby.

Van Gisbergen's try in the final was superb off a scrum well inside their own half and was under the posts 9 seconds later. That same position would have been a garryowen now. The semi final against Munster had some absolutely superb breaks and offloads.

The game has changed since then but the impact of being able to offload and play heads up rugby is just as strong now as it was then.

Buer · 02-07-2013 11:43AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'd love to know a game plan that would suit this squad and these test matches better tbh

I've read completely differing posts criticising what some people think the gameplan is and it always completely differs, which is particularly annoying. The Lions are too defensive, The Lions are just forward oriented bosh bosh blah etc. The Lions are just Wales with Sexton. Etc etc. I'd love to know what's wrong with the game plan and what the approach should have been to play against this Australian side. Because I don't think there's been a single sensible post detailing that so far.

I think the dependence on kicking is far too strong. Yes, the tactical kicking has been good and it has certainly turned the screw on Australia at times but it seems to be the case that, even on turn over ball, we are to look for kicks across for wingers to follow up on. This appears to be regardless of what's on and has been drilled into the players. I think the players need to take responsibility but it seems to me that it's very much what they've been told to do as they do nothing else. That's my biggest issue with the game plan; the team are rigidly sticking to predetermined tactics and not playing what they see.

Two examples spring to mind. The first was the turnover in the fist half at the weekend where Sexton got the ball on edge of 22, thought about passing but hesitated and kicked. He ended up going straight to touch about 5m up the pitch. He would have been much better off setting it up on the open side and going again rather than the instant kick.

The second was the time Barnes was knocked out in the first test. We had the overlap and Sexton dinked the ball on a cross field chase when we could have opened them up with the ball in hand. It was a 5 on 3 and, if Sexton had just straightened, it would have been a 3 on 1 with half decent hands. However, the immediate reaction was to put the boot on it.

molloyjh · 02-07-2013 11:45AM

Le vieux renard wrote: »

Sadly no, at times the IRB feels like a dictatorship.

How did you find the match by the way molloyjh? You were at the game, right?

Cracking atmosphere but its tough to watch a rugby game that's being played on an AFL pitch. We were miles from the action and just couldn't see things properly at times. The less said about the Lions performance the better in my view, even from the limited vantage point I had. I had an English guy beside me that I got chatting to throughout the game and I called it at 65 mins it seemed that obvious at that stage.

I'm on the Trevor Brennan tour (with Alan Quinlan) and we have our own things organised for match days which is really well run and organised. But it means we don't soak up the atmosphere on the day in the same way. Suits me fine though as we've 150 odd on the tour and we've no problems getting our few pints because we've areas to ourselves. There's plenty of opportunities to go drinking with Lions fans every other day. Met Lewis Moody during the release of Lions Share, a beer brewed by somewhere akin to the Porterhouse. So there's always something like that going on. It's been a great trip so far and Saturday is looking likely to be a hell of a day.

Swiwi. · 02-07-2013 11:50AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'd love to know a game plan that would suit this squad and these test matches better tbh

I've read completely differing posts criticising what some people think the gameplan is and it always completely differs, which is particularly annoying. The Lions are too defensive, The Lions are just forward oriented bosh bosh blah etc. The Lions are just Wales with Sexton. Etc etc. I'd love to know what's wrong with the game plan and what the approach should have been to play against this Australian side. Because I don't think there's been a single sensible post detailing that so far.

The floor is open IBF. Fire away!

molloyjh · 02-07-2013 11:59AM

The Aussie wrote: »

What evidence do you have that the inital Citing Hearing and subsequent Kangaroo Court could not find?

Are you trying to say it was intentional?

It doesn't have to be intentional. Intent is factored in when deciding the length of the ban. Which assumes a ban is being handed out. To be honest I'm very disappointed with this. Not from a Lions perspective, but from a rugby perspective. There have been too many incidents over the last few months involving stamps or kicks to the head which have been officially declared to have been acceptable. It's not on. John Hayes got a straight red and a few weeks off for something that wasn't a whole lot worse really a few years back. The possibility of serious injuries when the foot and the head are involved (or any strikes to the head for that matter) are too high to be so casually dismissed. And we are starting to see a pattern of these things being so casually dismissed. That is not good for the sport in the long term. And I'd seriously argue that anyone who says otherwise has their eyes blinkered severely.

First Up · 02-07-2013 12:04PM

Le vieux renard wrote: »

The floor is open IBF. Fire away!

It isn't about the plan, it is about execution. It is pretty rare that the better team loses because it has an inferior plan - and vice versa. Rugby is essentially a simple game and the obsession with "plans" is missing the point. To win, the Lions need a more secure scrum, more accurate lineouts (especially to the tail), some line breaks to build momentum and more impact at the breakdown. In other words, they need to play better.

The weather has been poor in Sydney and the pitch is less than perfect at the best of times. Expect a bit of a slog.

Buer · 02-07-2013 12:05PM

It will take a high profile, bad injury to force the hands of the disciplinary committee. I know a lot of people trot out the whole "Oh we may as well play tiddlywinks" trite nonsense but the fact is, these incidents affect how people see the game and whether they let their children play. I've two nephews who are not allowed to play rugby because their mothers see it as a violent game that will result in stitches, broken bones and there's a risk a bad injury. Until these incidents are stamped out (ho ho), the impression of rugby being a significantly dangerous, high risk game will prevail.

P.Walnuts · 02-07-2013 12:07PM

Everytime I see it its more obvious it was intentional, there is no way that movement was natural, if anything it put him more off balance.

All this justice for Horwell is nauseating, just because the IRB made a complete clusterf**k of the situation doesn't mean the guy should be treated like some kind of martyr.

He should of been banned, he wasn't wrong decision what ever way you look at it.

Ami I right in thinking he wasn't "cleared" in the second hearing, the officer just found that the original officer didn't make an error in law, and therefore he couldn't reverse the decision?

OnTheCouch · 02-07-2013 12:14PM

Magi11 wrote: »

Having presided over the worst Lions tour in a generation, I would have thought Clive Woodward would have kept his nose out of how the Lions relaxed in the last few days

Woodward has been incredibly vocal during this tour all right. You get the feeling he likes the sound of his own voice.

Bear in mind, this is a man who made his reputation in leading probably the best England side ever to a World Cup, where he had at least five or six exceptional players and leaders to call upon.

Now he got a lot of praise with his 'attention to detail' approach, which is all well and good and certainly helped. But with the quality of players he had then, I could pretty much have coached the team, maybe not to a World Cup final, but certainly to wins against Scotland and Italy! No, just messing.:D

Two years later, with the Lions, when the common consensus was that many of that England team were past their best (you could also argue that they were on the way down in 2003 but that's for another day),the tour flopped big-time. In terms of how he managed the players, his tactics, the infrastructure issues - I think he brought more players than ever before and they all had their own rooms, (imagine how much more that would cost), everything was a total disaster.

danthefan · 02-07-2013 12:27PM

Totally unfounded internet rumour alert: ten Welsh to start on Saturday. Names not given.

jamiedav2011 · 02-07-2013 12:29PM

danthefan wrote: »

Totally unfounded internet rumour alert: ten Welsh to start on Saturday. Names not given.

Jones, Hibbard, AWJ, Lydiate, Philips, North, Roberts, 1/2P.

Perhaps Tipuric and Ian Evans?

fitz · 02-07-2013 12:31PM

jamiedav2011 wrote: »

Jones, Hibbard, AWJ, Lydiate, Philips, North, Roberts, 1/2P.

Perhaps Tipuric and Ian Evans?

Faletau as one of the two would be my guess.

sydthebeat · 02-07-2013 12:32PM

jamiedav2011 wrote: »

Jones, Hibbard, AWJ, Lydiate, Philips, North, Roberts, 1/2P.

Perhaps Tipuric and Ian Evans?

i suggested elsewhere a back row of lydiate, tipuric and faletau is what gatland would go for.

Pudsy33 · 02-07-2013 12:32PM

I bet Roberts comes in for BOD :mad:

Lions 2013 Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

Comments