Lions weaknesses

First topic message reminder :

With the selection made and the current squad packing their bags, where do you think we have the most potential weaknesses? (this is not a country bashing thread btw).

For my opinion I think we have the squad to make a good strong team, but with any touring squad there are a few areas that are relatively weaker than others

Front Row - I think an area of strength, certainly with the first choice. There are some concerns over the bench on hooker, I do not actually think it is really that weak. Our third sting options (In my opinion Stevens and Vinoploa) are weaker / untested - but as third string should not have an impact

Second row - lots of options and some good strength - main concern if the fitness of Gray and POC, both coming back from injury - if they come up to their potential - I think we have a very strong group to choose from

Back row - big debate over Lydiate and Croft and their fitness / form - while still a concern, there are good options in the back row. With the addition of croft, we have some varying styles we can go with. Only other concern is has Gatland put a rod up his back with a captain who may not be the best in his position?

Scrum half - Actually think this is a slightly weaker area. - Philips at his best is very good, but apart from the England game, he was fairly poor in the 6 nations. Additonally his style may not always suit playing Australia. Youngs can be sublime, but not sure he is firing on all cylinders, but he does offer a different challenge to Australia. Murray is a less experiences Phillips. Not sure if there was anyone else really putting their hand up to fly (Maybe Care), which has left us a little weaker here

10 - Weak area - mainly because we have only 2. One is going through a little bit of a dip (and is slightly limited) and one coming back from injury. Will the tour re-invigorate Farrel and will he cope with the pressure. He is not nearly as bad as some people say, or as good as others say. The fact that Hogg may be shoe horned in (after not playing there since school (which to be fair is only 2 weeks agao :-0 )) shows we are short of options

12 / 13 - Weak / Medium- we have limited options to mix around 12 coupled with a grand dad who was (and could still be) world class, but will he survive. We have a strong runner, but off form and some questions about his passing and awareness and a strong performer, but needs to click. Could be a strength if it comes together, but an area to watch

Wings - Strong area - good mix of styles and strike runners. Might have been nice to have a bolter here, as the only area I think we are lacking is the magic dust of pixie feet

Full back - Strong area - 3 very good full backs - all offering something slightly different - if they all hit form, we are spoilt for choice


Gatland - Medium - brought Wales forward and has developed them into the leading NH team, but can he adapt enough to get that win over Australia - if Plan A is not working, does he have the guile to create and execute Plan B - at the moment I am not sure


Over all, I think we have a medium to strong squad - which may get stronger as some of the players gain fitness


Final note - Fans - Very strong (if sometimes a little mental )

So your position now has changed - or you explain it better?

I agree with some of what you say but not that is it the gameplan for him to stand over the ball waiting while the defensive line reforms and the gaps close not he is the stand out 9.

However my point is simple - we will not beat Aus with that gameplan. Its never been good enough to beat top sides apart from the odd one off game and it never will be.

TJ wrote:So your position now has changed - or you explain it better?

I agree with some of what you say but not that is it the gameplan for him to stand over the ball waiting while the defensive line reforms and the gaps close not he is the stand out 9.

However my point is simple - we will not beat Aus with that gameplan. Its never been good enough to beat top sides apart from the odd one off game and it never will be.

It clearly has though, in 4 tests last year that gameplan delivered an injury crirsis'd Wales team to within 30 seconds of the win on 3 occasions, minor errors in key positions gave the game away, and that Wales squad was far inferior to this lions one!!

I'm still waiting for your evidence of Phillips standing over ball waiting, you see not every play is a strike or scoring play, most plays are preperation plays. The days of first phase ball to break the line are all but gone, phase play is what breaks defences down, creating the overlaps, and creating the opportunities, and thats what Gatlands gameplan is about, being patient, keeping ball and only executing when there is an opportunity to do so.

It clearly has though, in 4 tests last year that gameplan delivered an injury crirsis'd Wales team to within 30 seconds of the win on 3 occasions, minor errors in key positions gave the game away, and that Wales squad was far inferior to this lions one!!

It clearly has not. where are the wins?

thebluesmancometh wrote:

TJ wrote:So your position now has changed - or you explain it better?

I agree with some of what you say but not that is it the gameplan for him to stand over the ball waiting while the defensive line reforms and the gaps close not he is the stand out 9.

However my point is simple - we will not beat Aus with that gameplan. Its never been good enough to beat top sides apart from the odd one off game and it never will be.

It clearly has though, in 4 tests last year that gameplan delivered an injury crirsis'd Wales team to within 30 seconds of the win on 3 occasions, minor errors in key positions gave the game away, and that Wales squad was far inferior to this lions one!!

I'm still waiting for your evidence of Phillips standing over ball waiting, you see not every play is a strike or scoring play, most plays are preperation plays. The days of first phase ball to break the line are all but gone, phase play is what breaks defences down, creating the overlaps, and creating the opportunities, and thats what Gatlands gameplan is about, being patient, keeping ball and only executing when there is an opportunity to do so.

Maybe in the NH it has

What i see when watching the super rugby is that they do have that style of play and it can be devastating. They focus more on getting the ball out quick and less on rucks

It is a different style and when done well is almost impossible to defend against

last year Scotland played that way, and we dominated most sides in the open forward play - our backs let us down by being pants - but the stats for possession/ opportunities and line breaks were impressive (If only we had the backs then to capitalize)

this year we went backwards and played slow rugby and lost all that advantage and ironically only our backs got us out of being defeated on all games

HOWEVER

What I think the Lions should be able to provide us is the best mix of play

Strong pack, fast devastating ball, back up with backs that can take advantage of the fast ball

That is how I would like us to play and how I think we would win the tests

however, if we want to play NH rugby, I think we will struggle

We could win, but we lose the advantage I think the lions could bring

Riskysports wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

TJ wrote:So your position now has changed - or you explain it better?

I agree with some of what you say but not that is it the gameplan for him to stand over the ball waiting while the defensive line reforms and the gaps close not he is the stand out 9.

However my point is simple - we will not beat Aus with that gameplan. Its never been good enough to beat top sides apart from the odd one off game and it never will be.

It clearly has though, in 4 tests last year that gameplan delivered an injury crirsis'd Wales team to within 30 seconds of the win on 3 occasions, minor errors in key positions gave the game away, and that Wales squad was far inferior to this lions one!!

I'm still waiting for your evidence of Phillips standing over ball waiting, you see not every play is a strike or scoring play, most plays are preperation plays. The days of first phase ball to break the line are all but gone, phase play is what breaks defences down, creating the overlaps, and creating the opportunities, and thats what Gatlands gameplan is about, being patient, keeping ball and only executing when there is an opportunity to do so.

Maybe in the NH it has

What i see when watching the super rugby is that they do have that style of play and it can be devastating. They focus more on getting the ball out quick and less on rucks

It is a different style and when done well is almost impossible to defend against

last year Scotland played that way, and we dominated most sides in the open forward play - our backs let us down by being pants - but the stats for possession/ opportunities and line breaks were impressive (If only we had the backs then to capitalize)

this year we went backwards and played slow rugby and lost all that advantage and ironically only our backs got us out of being defeated on all games

HOWEVER

What I think the Lions should be able to provide us is the best mix of play

Strong pack, fast devastating ball, back up with backs that can take advantage of the fast ball

That is how I would like us to play and how I think we would win the tests

however, if we want to play NH rugby, I think we will struggle

We could win, but we lose the advantage I think the lions could bring

Hang on...

So your argument for first phase strike plays are...

Scotlands pack last season, who played open and wide and finished where in the 6n table?

And Scotlands tighter game this season that ended where in the 6N table?? And that tight game beat Aus on Aus soil!!!

At U14's the first phase strike play is great, get the big kid to run through or around them, at international level you need to be far cleverer, thats not to say to throw a strike play in every now and then, they do come good, but to try a first phase strike play more than very rarely is dull rugby!!!

The facts are results and asthetics are 2 different things.

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Riskysports wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

TJ wrote:So your position now has changed - or you explain it better?

I agree with some of what you say but not that is it the gameplan for him to stand over the ball waiting while the defensive line reforms and the gaps close not he is the stand out 9.

However my point is simple - we will not beat Aus with that gameplan. Its never been good enough to beat top sides apart from the odd one off game and it never will be.

It clearly has though, in 4 tests last year that gameplan delivered an injury crirsis'd Wales team to within 30 seconds of the win on 3 occasions, minor errors in key positions gave the game away, and that Wales squad was far inferior to this lions one!!

I'm still waiting for your evidence of Phillips standing over ball waiting, you see not every play is a strike or scoring play, most plays are preperation plays. The days of first phase ball to break the line are all but gone, phase play is what breaks defences down, creating the overlaps, and creating the opportunities, and thats what Gatlands gameplan is about, being patient, keeping ball and only executing when there is an opportunity to do so.

Maybe in the NH it has

What i see when watching the super rugby is that they do have that style of play and it can be devastating. They focus more on getting the ball out quick and less on rucks

It is a different style and when done well is almost impossible to defend against

last year Scotland played that way, and we dominated most sides in the open forward play - our backs let us down by being pants - but the stats for possession/ opportunities and line breaks were impressive (If only we had the backs then to capitalize)

this year we went backwards and played slow rugby and lost all that advantage and ironically only our backs got us out of being defeated on all games

HOWEVER

What I think the Lions should be able to provide us is the best mix of play

Strong pack, fast devastating ball, back up with backs that can take advantage of the fast ball

That is how I would like us to play and how I think we would win the tests

however, if we want to play NH rugby, I think we will struggle

We could win, but we lose the advantage I think the lions could bring

Hang on...

So your argument for first phase strike plays are...

Scotlands pack last season, who played open and wide and finished where in the 6n table?

And Scotlands tighter game this season that ended where in the 6N table?? And that tight game beat Aus on Aus soil!!!

At U14's the first phase strike play is great, get the big kid to run through or around them, at international level you need to be far cleverer, thats not to say to throw a strike play in every now and then, they do come good, but to try a first phase strike play more than very rarely is dull rugby!!!

The facts are results and asthetics are 2 different things.

AS I said, last year we made the chances with fast ball but blew them with a slow ponderous and frankly terrible back line (Parks, Morrison, DeLuca type players) - against the England game last year we had 65% possession and enough over laps and chance made by fast forward play - if we had the Welsh backs we would have romped home :-)

This year, we fluked our win against Ireland, and were quite lucky against Italy

The whole point of the Lions is we should be able to put a team that can be good at both aspects

And I will always think fast ball is better than slow ball (and in truth 99.9% of pundits will also agree)

Riskysports wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Riskysports wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

TJ wrote:So your position now has changed - or you explain it better?

I agree with some of what you say but not that is it the gameplan for him to stand over the ball waiting while the defensive line reforms and the gaps close not he is the stand out 9.

However my point is simple - we will not beat Aus with that gameplan. Its never been good enough to beat top sides apart from the odd one off game and it never will be.

It clearly has though, in 4 tests last year that gameplan delivered an injury crirsis'd Wales team to within 30 seconds of the win on 3 occasions, minor errors in key positions gave the game away, and that Wales squad was far inferior to this lions one!!

I'm still waiting for your evidence of Phillips standing over ball waiting, you see not every play is a strike or scoring play, most plays are preperation plays. The days of first phase ball to break the line are all but gone, phase play is what breaks defences down, creating the overlaps, and creating the opportunities, and thats what Gatlands gameplan is about, being patient, keeping ball and only executing when there is an opportunity to do so.

Maybe in the NH it has

What i see when watching the super rugby is that they do have that style of play and it can be devastating. They focus more on getting the ball out quick and less on rucks

It is a different style and when done well is almost impossible to defend against

last year Scotland played that way, and we dominated most sides in the open forward play - our backs let us down by being pants - but the stats for possession/ opportunities and line breaks were impressive (If only we had the backs then to capitalize)

this year we went backwards and played slow rugby and lost all that advantage and ironically only our backs got us out of being defeated on all games

HOWEVER

What I think the Lions should be able to provide us is the best mix of play

Strong pack, fast devastating ball, back up with backs that can take advantage of the fast ball

That is how I would like us to play and how I think we would win the tests

however, if we want to play NH rugby, I think we will struggle

We could win, but we lose the advantage I think the lions could bring

Hang on...

So your argument for first phase strike plays are...

Scotlands pack last season, who played open and wide and finished where in the 6n table?

And Scotlands tighter game this season that ended where in the 6N table?? And that tight game beat Aus on Aus soil!!!

At U14's the first phase strike play is great, get the big kid to run through or around them, at international level you need to be far cleverer, thats not to say to throw a strike play in every now and then, they do come good, but to try a first phase strike play more than very rarely is dull rugby!!!

The facts are results and asthetics are 2 different things.

AS I said, last year we made the chances with fast ball but blew them with a slow ponderous and frankly terrible back line (Parks, Morrison, DeLuca type players) - against the England game last year we had 65% possession and enough over laps and chance made by fast forward play - if we had the Welsh backs we would have romped home :-)

This year, we fluked our win against Ireland, and were quite lucky against Italy

The whole point of the Lions is we should be able to put a team that can be good at both aspects

And I will always think fast ball is better than slow ball (and in truth 99.9% of pundits will also agree)

But for all your good play last year the results didn't come, this year you beat Aus in Aus and finished well in the 6N, a touch unlucky against France too.

Disagree with you on the lions though, it is far more effective to pick a squad and play to a certain gameplan than try to cover every aspect, a few plan B type players will help, but a general way of play suited to players styles would give optimum results.

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Riskysports wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Riskysports wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

TJ wrote:So your position now has changed - or you explain it better?

I agree with some of what you say but not that is it the gameplan for him to stand over the ball waiting while the defensive line reforms and the gaps close not he is the stand out 9.

However my point is simple - we will not beat Aus with that gameplan. Its never been good enough to beat top sides apart from the odd one off game and it never will be.

It clearly has though, in 4 tests last year that gameplan delivered an injury crirsis'd Wales team to within 30 seconds of the win on 3 occasions, minor errors in key positions gave the game away, and that Wales squad was far inferior to this lions one!!

I'm still waiting for your evidence of Phillips standing over ball waiting, you see not every play is a strike or scoring play, most plays are preperation plays. The days of first phase ball to break the line are all but gone, phase play is what breaks defences down, creating the overlaps, and creating the opportunities, and thats what Gatlands gameplan is about, being patient, keeping ball and only executing when there is an opportunity to do so.

Maybe in the NH it has

What i see when watching the super rugby is that they do have that style of play and it can be devastating. They focus more on getting the ball out quick and less on rucks

It is a different style and when done well is almost impossible to defend against

last year Scotland played that way, and we dominated most sides in the open forward play - our backs let us down by being pants - but the stats for possession/ opportunities and line breaks were impressive (If only we had the backs then to capitalize)

this year we went backwards and played slow rugby and lost all that advantage and ironically only our backs got us out of being defeated on all games

HOWEVER

What I think the Lions should be able to provide us is the best mix of play

Strong pack, fast devastating ball, back up with backs that can take advantage of the fast ball

That is how I would like us to play and how I think we would win the tests

however, if we want to play NH rugby, I think we will struggle

We could win, but we lose the advantage I think the lions could bring

Hang on...

So your argument for first phase strike plays are...

Scotlands pack last season, who played open and wide and finished where in the 6n table?

And Scotlands tighter game this season that ended where in the 6N table?? And that tight game beat Aus on Aus soil!!!

At U14's the first phase strike play is great, get the big kid to run through or around them, at international level you need to be far cleverer, thats not to say to throw a strike play in every now and then, they do come good, but to try a first phase strike play more than very rarely is dull rugby!!!

The facts are results and asthetics are 2 different things.

AS I said, last year we made the chances with fast ball but blew them with a slow ponderous and frankly terrible back line (Parks, Morrison, DeLuca type players) - against the England game last year we had 65% possession and enough over laps and chance made by fast forward play - if we had the Welsh backs we would have romped home :-)

This year, we fluked our win against Ireland, and were quite lucky against Italy

The whole point of the Lions is we should be able to put a team that can be good at both aspects

And I will always think fast ball is better than slow ball (and in truth 99.9% of pundits will also agree)

But for all your good play last year the results didn't come, this year you beat Aus in Aus and finished well in the 6N, a touch unlucky against France too.

Disagree with you on the lions though, it is far more effective to pick a squad and play to a certain gameplan than try to cover every aspect, a few plan B type players will help, but a general way of play suited to players styles would give optimum results.

Which I could mirror with the slower game plan against Australia last year :-)

Riskysports wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Riskysports wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Riskysports wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

TJ wrote:So your position now has changed - or you explain it better?

I agree with some of what you say but not that is it the gameplan for him to stand over the ball waiting while the defensive line reforms and the gaps close not he is the stand out 9.

However my point is simple - we will not beat Aus with that gameplan. Its never been good enough to beat top sides apart from the odd one off game and it never will be.

It clearly has though, in 4 tests last year that gameplan delivered an injury crirsis'd Wales team to within 30 seconds of the win on 3 occasions, minor errors in key positions gave the game away, and that Wales squad was far inferior to this lions one!!

I'm still waiting for your evidence of Phillips standing over ball waiting, you see not every play is a strike or scoring play, most plays are preperation plays. The days of first phase ball to break the line are all but gone, phase play is what breaks defences down, creating the overlaps, and creating the opportunities, and thats what Gatlands gameplan is about, being patient, keeping ball and only executing when there is an opportunity to do so.

Maybe in the NH it has

What i see when watching the super rugby is that they do have that style of play and it can be devastating. They focus more on getting the ball out quick and less on rucks

It is a different style and when done well is almost impossible to defend against

last year Scotland played that way, and we dominated most sides in the open forward play - our backs let us down by being pants - but the stats for possession/ opportunities and line breaks were impressive (If only we had the backs then to capitalize)

this year we went backwards and played slow rugby and lost all that advantage and ironically only our backs got us out of being defeated on all games

HOWEVER

What I think the Lions should be able to provide us is the best mix of play

Strong pack, fast devastating ball, back up with backs that can take advantage of the fast ball

That is how I would like us to play and how I think we would win the tests

however, if we want to play NH rugby, I think we will struggle

We could win, but we lose the advantage I think the lions could bring

Hang on...

So your argument for first phase strike plays are...

Scotlands pack last season, who played open and wide and finished where in the 6n table?

And Scotlands tighter game this season that ended where in the 6N table?? And that tight game beat Aus on Aus soil!!!

At U14's the first phase strike play is great, get the big kid to run through or around them, at international level you need to be far cleverer, thats not to say to throw a strike play in every now and then, they do come good, but to try a first phase strike play more than very rarely is dull rugby!!!

The facts are results and asthetics are 2 different things.

AS I said, last year we made the chances with fast ball but blew them with a slow ponderous and frankly terrible back line (Parks, Morrison, DeLuca type players) - against the England game last year we had 65% possession and enough over laps and chance made by fast forward play - if we had the Welsh backs we would have romped home :-)

This year, we fluked our win against Ireland, and were quite lucky against Italy

The whole point of the Lions is we should be able to put a team that can be good at both aspects

And I will always think fast ball is better than slow ball (and in truth 99.9% of pundits will also agree)

But for all your good play last year the results didn't come, this year you beat Aus in Aus and finished well in the 6N, a touch unlucky against France too.

Disagree with you on the lions though, it is far more effective to pick a squad and play to a certain gameplan than try to cover every aspect, a few plan B type players will help, but a general way of play suited to players styles would give optimum results.

Which I could mirror with the slower game plan against Australia last year :-)

And you'd be right, but when put into perspective, Wales injuries (4TH's, 4 6's etc) and the fact that this depleted squad were within 30 seconds of beating Aus on 3 of the 4 occasions they played home and away, imagine what a full more talented squad could do with the same gameplan. The point is the gameplan was sound, it kept Aus scoring opportunities to a minimum, and although we spurned some of ours (some real sitters too) we were ahead until human error lost the games. Wales couldve won 3 of those games on another day, and as Gatland like to say 'you have to be in it to win it'

Stop claimed the tactic were right because you only just lost. You lost. Wins would justify the tactics, loses do not ( although neither do loses say the tactics wer wrong)

Personally I do not believe the tactics were right and believe Aus will usually win against those tactics

TJ wrote:Stop claimed the tactic were right because you only just lost. You lost. Wins would justify the tactics, loses do not ( although neither do loses say the tactics wer wrong)

Personally I do not believe the tactics were right and believe Aus will usually win against those tactics

Eh?

Go and look at the diffrence in the strengths of the teams in December, Wales lost by 2 in the dying seconds despite playing 3rd 4th choice players in many positions, man for man they were outgunned massively. Seems the tactics went well that day!

You can dislike the tactics all you like, it wins the 6N regularly, and has highlighted Wales as the best NH team of recent years, I'd say the tactics are going pretty well so far, as they have propelled Gats to lions coach I'd say many more peolpe think so too.

Yes it works in the 6N - see England of a few years ago as well - but it does not bring regular success against southern hemisphere sides. Where are your wins against SH sides?

You cannot claim almost winning as vindication of the tactics. Almost winning is a loss.

I could then claim Scotlands tactics of kick the ball down the other end and defend for 80 mins is the best tactics ever - as they have one repeatedly against SH sides using this tactic! ( monsoons help as well)

TJ wrote:Yes it works in the 6N - see England of a few years ago as well - but it does not bring regular success against southern hemisphere sides. Where are your wins against SH sides?

You cannot claim almost winning as vindication of the tactics. Almost winning is a loss.

I could then claim Scotlands tactics of kick the ball down the other end and defend for 80 mins is the best tactics ever - as they have one repeatedly against SH sides using this tactic! ( monsoons help as well)

But thats my point, it wasn't a coincidence that Robinson kept beating SH opposition with Scotland, he knew what he was doing, he knew the key to the SH scalps were to play a certain way, it's just that the other NH teams were better at playing against Scotland.

RE the Monsoon, it was one of a few upsets I predicted, Barclay at 8, Rennie and Brown was inspired (I think it was that way round) and Scotland nullified Aus at the breakdown and starved them of ball, Aus were depleted but they still shouldve won that game with the personell they had. I'm not saying the lions should do the same, but with Warbs and Tipuric on the pitch, as well the likes of Jenkins, Cole, POC, and Phillips the lions are ore than capable of bullying the breakdown, starve Australia and they panic, always have, it's just the execution and player roster weren't there for Wales to get over the finish line.

Bluesman they could play that game 100 times and Aus would win 99 of them!

So you think the scots tactics were right, because they won and the welsh tactics are right because they lost?

BTW thanks for taking this back to a lighthearted discussion about tactics rhater than a arguemnt about nationality

TJ wrote:Bluesman they could play that game 100 times and Aus would win 99 of them!

So you think the scots tactics were right, because they won and the welsh tactics are right because they lost?

BTW thanks for taking this back to a lighthearted discussion about tactics rhater than a arguemnt about nationality

No it's the right tactic because I'm welsh and I'm right

Seriously though the games are relevant, when in the past have we seen Scotland and Wales go down under and be competitive??? Hardly ever, these dys we are within the odd point or 2 of winning/losing, I see that as progression, if it wasn't for a small number of individual errors we might have seen Aus whitewashed on home soil by Wales and Scotland!!

I agree with your tactics appraisal blues. But not so much about whitewashing. When have these teams suffered whitewashes by northern teams? They can win games for sure. Samoa did it in a one off game recently. But you seem to be discarding an important psychological element. If a team loses or plays badly there is a mental lift in terms of motivation and that tends to have a positive effect on performance. Ireland nearly won in the second test last year but nz played like they had been beaten in the 3rd test. Just because wales lost 3 games narrowly does not mean they could easily win 3 times narrowly. The psychology of the series changes. Nz are those rare beasts who tend to focus more on performance than results but when you write off Australia is often when they're more likely to beat you.

Lions Weaknesses My Axss

Front Row - Power and Dynamism My starters are

Healey Hibbard Cole

2nd Row - Another area of strength

POC Evans

Backrow - Plenty of horses for Courses and an area of strength - Im going with

Warburton Faletau OBrien

1/2 backs, lack of quality and depth particularly at 10

Phillips and sexton however are as good as any on their day and will be a formidable duo

Centres - Power and dynamism with BOD providing the perfect foil

BOD / Mannu

Back 3 - Area of strength where we can take it to the Aussies for me its

Maitland
Cuthbert
Hogg at FB

Coach - Best in the NH

Fans - Bunch of miserable divisive; insecure toxxers - Thank god they aint playing

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I agree with your tactics appraisal blues. But not so much about whitewashing. When have these teams suffered whitewashes by northern teams? They can win games for sure. Samoa did it in a one off game recently. But you seem to be discarding an important psychological element. If a team loses or plays badly there is a mental lift in terms of motivation and that tends to have a positive effect on performance. Ireland nearly won in the second test last year but nz played like they had been beaten in the 3rd test. Just because wales lost 3 games narrowly does not mean they could easily win 3 times narrowly. The psychology of the series changes. Nz are those rare beasts who tend to focus more on performance than results but when you write off Australia is often when they're more likely to beat you.

Aye you make a good point, I prefer to think of it my way though

Psart of the reasons the lions is so exciting though too, generally teams go down south at the wrong time of year, or aren't particularly interested, or take weakened squads etc... so there are numerous reasons for defeats rom either side, this is a conserted effort to go south and come away with the series, there is a decent build up, method to the warm ups, and then the 3 series to see who is the best, there is generally less excuses for losing then (well I find anyway).

Yes the lions are at a disadvantage by beaing a scratch team, from differing nations, but I don't see that as an excuse, there is enough talent in the lions squads generally to match anyone, they should compete on every test and every level...

Heres hoping for a great tour, and if it isn't, heres hoping for a great holiday (even if the missus will be there)

I think that's why it's so liked in the SH. Too often we get weakened squads through injury or player management like you say and we want to be challenged as that brings out the best in us. The Lions is a big challenge for all concerned but it does offer genuine competition. I think secretly everyone wants to see this go down to the wire because that means both sides will have been able to reach their best for key moments. The wales series was a close fought thing but ultimately 3 0 implies Oz didn't have to dig deep enough.

The 3 0 whitewash can happen against France.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: I think that's why it's so liked in the SH. Too often we get weakened squads through injury or player management like you say and we want to be challenged as that brings out the best in us. The Lions is a big challenge for all concerned but it does offer genuine competition. I think secretly everyone wants to see this go down to the wire because that means both sides will have been able to reach their best for key moments. The wales series was a close fought thing but ultimately 3 0 implies Oz didn't have to dig deep enough.

The 3 0 whitewash can happen against France.

I don't know about the Wales tour, I have never seen Aus players react like that on the final whistle at home to us ever!!! They clearly invested everything they have in that game and nicked it from us!

It was beacuse they had so many players out due to injury, blues.
That's why they jumped so high at the end. Pure relief that they'd won all 3.

Of course, you are right - Wales could probably have hung on for those last 2 matches but to get the clean sweep was a fine achievement considering the dire straights the Wallabies were in. Even the pundits here were writing them off before the 1st Test but our blokes dug deep and won ugly.

I think 10 is becoming a serious weakness ...

Linebreaker wrote:It was beacuse they had so many players out due to injury, blues.
That's why they jumped so high at the end. Pure relief that they'd won all 3.

Of course, you are right - Wales could probably have hung on for those last 2 matches but to get the clean sweep was a fine achievement considering the dire straights the Wallabies were in. Even the pundits here were writing them off before the 1st Test but our blokes dug deep and won ugly.

Yet I still only had both teams as similar injury lists in the summer, 4/5 key players each. In December Wales first team injury list was far worse than Aus's.

That's what I'm thinking Blues but no one seems interested

RubyGuby wrote:That's what I'm thinking Blues but no one seems interested

Because it's far easier just to rehash the myth that Aus had 20 plus injuries to their strting 15...

I didn't see the semi between satires and saints yet but I heard that series front row took a pasting and Hartley played really well.

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:It was beacuse they had so many players out due to injury, blues.
That's why they jumped so high at the end. Pure relief that they'd won all 3.

Of course, you are right - Wales could probably have hung on for those last 2 matches but to get the clean sweep was a fine achievement considering the dire straights the Wallabies were in. Even the pundits here were writing them off before the 1st Test but our blokes dug deep and won ugly.

Yet I still only had both teams as similar injury lists in the summer, 4/5 key players each. In December Wales first team injury list was far worse than Aus's.

In June, Australia had a far worse injury list than Wales and still managed a whitewash.

Then Australia beat you again at MS for good measure in December 2012 (just like we did in 2011, 2010, 2009,...) with at least 6 of our first team missing. I'm sure you acknowledge that.

Already without three injured locks among a dozen casualties, Wales appeared to have lost another as early as the third minute when Luke Charteris got his head in the wrong place trying to tackle Scott Higginbotham and was forced to leave the field after lengthy treatment.

The beanpole second-row re-emerged five minutes later to join Lou Reed, the Scarlets lock starting his first Test, in the Welsh engine room, but only lasted until half-time, Ryan Jones replacing him.

A shoite game between 2 depleted sides and not even a capacity crowd yet as usual lets give the Aussies the plaudits due to their injuries with an overwhelming 14-12 victory

The worst injuries happened at different times of the year. Many stars returned for Australia in November but they'd had no rugby since they were injured in July August or September or in some cases since the super season.
The seasons don't coincide but look what happened to Oz after their game in Sa when they were dropping like flies. A hell of a lot more than four to five frontline men out.

At least Scotland won

Linebreaker wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:It was beacuse they had so many players out due to injury, blues.
That's why they jumped so high at the end. Pure relief that they'd won all 3.

Of course, you are right - Wales could probably have hung on for those last 2 matches but to get the clean sweep was a fine achievement considering the dire straights the Wallabies were in. Even the pundits here were writing them off before the 1st Test but our blokes dug deep and won ugly.

Yet I still only had both teams as similar injury lists in the summer, 4/5 key players each. In December Wales first team injury list was far worse than Aus's.

In June, Australia had a far worse injury list than Wales and still managed a whitewash.

Then Australia beat you again at MS for good measure in December 2012 (just like we did in 2011, 2010, 2009,...) with at least 6 of our first team missing. I'm sure you acknowledge that.

Think you need to go recheck the lineups mate, both teams missing 4/5 key players in June and Wales missing more tightheads than Aus were missing players in December!

Aaron Jarvis Wales debutant 4th choice TH got injured before the Aus game and was replaced, Wales were missing 10 first team players and had to put a 19 yr old TH who just graduated from the junior world cup on the bench.

Reality is a touch more cold than the myth of 59 injuries to Aus and noone else ever having one!

At least Scotland won

I'm happy for your lads, Risky.

Blues, now you are really exaggerating things. We owned you in your own cauldron!

Linebreaker wrote:I'm happy for your lads, Risky.

Blues, now you are really exaggerating things. We owned you in your own cauldron!

Just because you are losing the argument about injuries there is no need to be silly

Linebreaker wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:It was beacuse they had so many players out due to injury, blues.
That's why they jumped so high at the end. Pure relief that they'd won all 3.

Of course, you are right - Wales could probably have hung on for those last 2 matches but to get the clean sweep was a fine achievement considering the dire straights the Wallabies were in. Even the pundits here were writing them off before the 1st Test but our blokes dug deep and won ugly.

Yet I still only had both teams as similar injury lists in the summer, 4/5 key players each. In December Wales first team injury list was far worse than Aus's.

In June, Australia had a far worse injury list than Wales and still managed a whitewash.

You can thank Craig Joubert for that... 2-1 would have been a fair reflection, but it didn't happen. I fully expect the Lions to lose the test in which Joubert is the official.

We're not blaming refs already are we?

Linebreaker wrote:I'm happy for your lads, Risky.

Blues, now you are really exaggerating things. We owned you in your own cauldron!

There was no owning anyone and Blues is exactly right. Beale got a very lucky try at the end of a closely fought game. In fact every game between the two sides has been closely fought. I wouldn't take too many bragging rights over Wales mate...!!!

Wales were missing four locks and three tightheads at that point, and playing with no flyhalf cover as Biggar was actually badly injured.

Australia should have taken Wales to the cleaners, but didn't and that was with a pretty first choice aussie team.

I'm sorry, maes, but I'm afraid we do own the bragging rights as well.

Keep pouring out more excuses and throw in the daily "RWC Semi Finalists, double 6N" thing again if you want. It doesn't wash with us really... maybe the other Home Nations but they are 4-9th ranked teams after all. It pales in comparison to the 3N/4N competition anyway as you well know but are afraid to admit.

Linebreaker wrote:I'm sorry, maes, but I'm afraid we do own the bragging rights as well.

Keep pouring out more excuses and throw in the daily "RWC Semi Finalists, double 6N" thing again if you want. It doesn't wash with us really... maybe the other Home Nations but they are 4-9th ranked teams after all. It pales in comparison to the 3N/4N competition anyway as you well know but are afraid to admit.

hey hold on a second - we are not 4-9th in the world - please do a little bit of research before you throw around stats like that

We are 10th

Morally, they are really 3rd in my mind though, Risky.

The Lions shall pay dearly for not including more kilted monsters!

Linebreaker wrote:Morally, they are really 3rd in my mind though, Risky.

The Lions shall pay dearly for not including more kilted monsters!

I like u

Linebreaker wrote:I'm sorry, maes, but I'm afraid we do own the bragging rights as well.

Keep pouring out more excuses and throw in the daily "RWC Semi Finalists, double 6N" thing again if you want. It doesn't wash with us really... maybe the other Home Nations but they are 4-9th ranked teams after all. It pales in comparison to the 3N/4N competition anyway as you well know but are afraid to admit.

wow it just got silly...

Ill remind you of how poor the home nations are in a few weeks, you know when theyre pooring millions into your third world... I can't even finish that sentence, I'll just bow out of the wumming here

bluesman, can you stop embarrassing the NH fans please.

No need to - I watched all of it and I must say it was a very poor standard.

I didn't realise Wales was a $1.5 trillion economy!
England and Scotland are obviously doing all the heavy lifting whilst you guys beat your pigeon chests and argue with anything that moves.

Good night!

Linebreaker wrote:No need to - I watched all of it and I must say it was a very poor standard.

I didn't realise Wales was a $1.5 trillion economy!
England and Scotland are obviously doing all the heavy lifting whilst you guys beat your pigeon chests and argue with anything that moves.

According to a report I read the UK + eire will be supplying upwards of 40000 travellers of the average spend of £4200 per person...

You do the math.

And thats without the locals touting their tickets at over 2000% profit margin

$$$$ Ker-ching! $$$$ Next........!

(hey you! get back in the queue or I'll get Warbs to have a stern talking to you! We try to run this like a Regiment....)

Thank you very much.... you're welcome!

That is unfair with the touts. Most of them are ex-pats... I'd say about 75% of them at least.

Lucky me - it works out around $30/game including the Lions and I get a free food & drink voucher thrown in as well.

Linebreaker wrote:$$$$ Ker-ching! $$$$ Next........!

(hey you! get back in the queue or I'll get Warbs to have a stern talking to you! We try to run this like a Regiment....)

Thank you very much.... you're welcome!

That is unfair with the touts. Most of them are ex-pats... I'd say about 75% of them at least.

Lucky me - it works out around $30/game including the Lions and I get a free food & drink voucher thrown in as well.

The touts are not ex pats though, the ARU hiked their prices up for the British contingent of tickets, sold them at 40% higher prices than local tickets released apparently, and most touts are Aus locals looking to sell on the black market to brits.

I mean I wouldnt pay it, Ive used a local adress to buy local tickets for an average of $60 pergame (still have a pair of melbourne test tickets if anyones interested)

It seems the least supported SANZAR nation has decided to try to price the lions supporters out to try to create a semi even atmosphere in the stadiums

Also depends what you count as ex pats

The ARU are just doing what WRU do... only better.

How come most of the touts are wearing red then?

WillyGilly was after a Melbourne ticket. He has them for the other 2 tests but was putting his feelers out in the Pub.