no scottish representation

by alive555 Sat 29 Jun 2013, 9:28 pm

First topic message reminder :

ive been biting my lip for while now

so u guys know

its a Frak disgrace

ryan grant is arguably the top lh forward in the the uk

the guy hasent had any opportunity to impress

and u are playing vuniploa who cost us the match

wake up

by bsando Sun 30 Jun 2013, 11:10 am

Taffineastbourne wrote:
bsando wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:
bsando wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:I suppose this thread is a practice just in case we lose next week and you will really go for it or should we win this will be your last chance to whinge.
To the disenfranchised Scots a question,does Gatland think that Tipuric is Scottish?How else can you explain his non selection?
This Tour has not been the finest hour for a number of Scottish posters who's shabby whingeing and sniping has soured the Lions for me.
Cheers lads!

Mate, if ya don't like what Scottish fans have to say, don't read their comments. Don't come out with absolute rubbish saying "This tour has not been the finest hour for a number of Scottish posters who's shabby whingeing and sniping has soured the Lions for me". Wow, what a statement. That is ridiculous and obviously aimed at getting Scottish posters angry.

There are plenty of Lions threads on here with some very good Lions banter, many started by Scots in fact. Plenty of Lions spirit on here for Lions supporters.

Are Scottish fans not lallowed to express their dismay at one of their favourite players not being used off the bench?
How can I know what some of the Scots are posting if I don't read their posts?
How is it rubbish that the whingeing and whingeing posters have souredmy Lions tour?Have you looked inside my head?Trust me it is true.
The

Reading the title of the thread is a good indicator. It usually helps to identify the threads you want to read/post in. I tend to avoid the silly ones unless they have a lot of views/posts, that usually indicates some debate is going on. If its bad debate or petty arguing (quite common these days) then I usually just tend to ignore it.
If this was the only thread in which griping diddums whingeing from some Scots appeared your theory would stand well.Sadly most Lions threads got a smattering since the squad was announced.

So your opinion is that Scottish posters whinge on lots of threads? A little unfair I'd say, however you bring up a valid point. Perhaps if we start a Lions thread entitled "Lions discussion (No whingeing allowed)" we'll have at least one thread that will not have any petty arguments or wums?. Wow, an argument that has resulted in something positive, well I never. Good team work from you and I eastbourne Hug

by Newsilure Sun 30 Jun 2013, 11:26 am

As a Welshman I just want to say that I can fully understand the Scottish annoyance, athough I am also sure that there is no anti Scottish biase in Gatland's selections. However yeterday he clearly made a mistake by starting with an impact sub at loose head rather than with a technicaly much superior prop. The hard thing as I saw it was that after 20 minutes or so Adam found a weakness in the referees interprestation and saw that if he and Vunipola drove diagonaly they could win some scrums and so by the end of the half the argument for taking Vunipola off looked less clear and to be fair(maybe fare) to him he did a lot of good loose work and stuck to his task bravely so I think he comes out of the second test with a lot of credit while Gatland doesn't because he made clearly the wrong selection.

Grey v Parling not a lot in it to be honest, very different players so hard to compare and I guess it comes down to what job the coach wants done.....Obviously I would have gone with Evans Smile

And for definite Grey or Evans should have been on the bench if not starting.

by funnyExiledScot Sun 30 Jun 2013, 11:34 am

I supported the decision to start Parling but he didn't really have much impact. The lineout, his area, was a total shambles, we lacked power in the set piece and could have used some dynamic ball carrying. Gray or Evans should start, with the other on the bench for impact.

I'd also bring in Toby Falatau at 8. Given we have zero attacking structure in the bakcs, with no creative distribution in the centres, it looks like our only hope is for big ball carrying and individual breaks, trying to build phases for mismatches.

by jimbopip Sun 30 Jun 2013, 11:36 am

Morning again boys, just heard about Mike Phillips and his dodgy knee. Apparently he did it in HK but still was selected for the first Test. This merely underlines the sense that the Test XV was chosen well in advance.
Also I notice that the accepted wisdom is that Parling was chosen for his good lineout work. Has no one noticed that the Wallabies chose not to compete at the line out for most of the first Test? In that match we threw almost exclusively to the front and won 100%, but couldn't really get beyond the 12 channel with the ball ( but with a big crashing centre setting up rucks this is Gatlandball). picking favourites; BOD JD2 at 12/13, we then need to throw long so put a much lighter second row in to replace POC and the whole set piece suffers. I wonder how Barrit and Tuilangi are feeling today?
Asbo, your love for your homeland is commendable and I fully endorse the campaign for independence: without anyone else to blame we scots will have to unlearn an awful lot of bad habits and take responsibility for our own destiny in the world.

by samuraidragon Sun 30 Jun 2013, 11:39 am

Newsilure wrote:As a Welshman I just want to say that I can fully understand the Scottish annoyance, athough I am also sure that there is no anti Scottish biase in Gatland's selections. However yeterday he clearly made a mistake by starting with an impact sub at loose head rather than with a technicaly much superior prop. The hard thing as I saw it was that after 20 minutes or so Adam found a weakness in the referees interprestation and saw that if he and Vunipola drove diagonaly they could win some scrums and so by the end of the half the argument for taking Vunipola off looked less clear and to be fair(maybe fare) to him he did a lot of good loose work and stuck to his task bravely so I think he comes out of the second test with a lot of credit while Gatland doesn't because he made clearly the wrong selection.

Grey v Parling not a lot in it to be honest, very different players so hard to compare and I guess it comes down to what job the coach wants done.....Obviously I would have gone with Evans :)And for definite Grey or Evans should have been on the bench if not starting.

Gatland's error was to try and play a power game with an underpowered pack (and centres and 9). The stats at the start of the game showed us as quite small and light. The only plausible compensation for that would be enhanced technique - but we didn't have that in the scrum or lineout either. Parling didn't work at all for me, and I wouldn't have him or Croft in the 23 next week. Likewise BOD too, I'm afraid - though I fancy he may end up as captain.

by funnyExiledScot Sun 30 Jun 2013, 11:48 am

I do understand the Phillips gamble though. He'd played well on the tour and there's no doubting that he's a big game player. Dr Robson would not have let him play if he didn't think his knee would cope. In hindsight it didn't work and he was rightly dropped for the second test. No biggie.

Big team selection coming for the third test. If Warburton is out I want Tipuric to start at 7, not SOB. We need a specialist out there. I'd look for SOB to either start at 6 or play the role of impact sub, which he does so well.

As for the side issue of indepence.....i love my homeland as well. Patriotism is neutral to this debate, with fierce patriots on both sides.

by Newsilure Sun 30 Jun 2013, 11:49 am

samuraidragon wrote:
Newsilure wrote:
Gatland's error was to try and play a power game with an underpowered pack (and centres and 9). The stats at the start of the game showed us as quite small and light. The only plausible compensation for that would be enhanced technique - but we didn't have that in the scrum or lineout either. Parling didn't work at all for me, and I wouldn't have him or Croft in the 23 next week. Likewise BOD too, I'm afraid - though I fancy he may end up as captain.

i agree Samurai, as I have posted in other threads Gatland only has one plan and it depends on Roberts(in particular and Phillips(although Murray can probably do this role) both being on the pitch and a strong scrum. So yes Evans or Grey in instead of Parling, Grant(or hopefully Corbisiero) start and Vunipola on the bench. Maybe Faletau in as well for more ball carrying around the fringe although if Warburton is out I suspect that we will get that with SOB. I also agree that Croft, who is a great player, doesn't fit this game plan and shouldn't be in the 23, however I don't agree about BOD he should start with either Roberts or if Roberts isn't fit then Tuilagi beside him.

by funnyExiledScot Sun 30 Jun 2013, 11:52 am

Agree on BOD. Had any other player put in that performance he'd be dropped without question. He put in a good defensive shift, but make a couple of horrible errors with ball in hand. The best hope is that his chum Roberts is back and fit, although on purely form alone Davies would be ahead of BOD at 13 without question.

Some massive calls for Gatland to make here.

by alive555 Sun 30 Jun 2013, 11:56 am

this sums it up perfectly

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jun/29/lions-tactics-board-gatland-vunipola

Doh

by GloriousEmpire Sun 30 Jun 2013, 11:57 am

The squad is Welsh heavy. There's no denying or getting away from that. It's just a fact.

Gatland is the coach and primary selector and hence his local bias to what he knows is having undue (or due) influence.

The problem is; and this is NO WUM; is that the Welsh players have not learned to win in Australia. They can score some pretty tries and individually are great players but as a unit they don't have the skills or the toolbox of ideas required to beat Australia. This has been proven time and time again.

Gatland will have to look outside the box. A simple game plan around primary phase dominance and up and unders will not work. Australia get that in spades from South Africa year in and year out and it doesn't intimidate or worry them.

The Lions need to find a new dimension. Just as Australia attacked the Lions strength in their scrum, the Lions need to attack Australia's strength. The Lions need to run it from deep. They need to attack the ruck fringes repeatedly and then pass wide and use the cut-in with a full back who will attack the line from deep, and make use of the inside ball to change the point of attack, and more use of the cross field kick (why haven't we seen it in tests?) and early on employ a chip over their flat 13 man defensive line to push Genia and Beale back.

Halfpenny is a talented kicker, but his best work for Wales was in joining the attacking line and providing a new angle and runner - we haven't seen it AT ALL in two tests. It's just been lateral, lateral, lateral. If not, bring in Maitland who will do exactly that.

by maestegmafia Sun 30 Jun 2013, 11:57 am

jimbopip wrote:Morning again boys, just heard about Mike Phillips and his dodgy knee. Apparently he did it in HK but still was selected for the first Test. This merely underlines the sense that the Test XV was chosen well in advance.

Surely on Phillips performance in the Six Nations finale and the HK Baa Baa's match and neither Youngs or Murray really putting their cases forward to test selection prior to the first test so hardly a machiavellian scheme. If you look through previous threads pretty much everyone agreed Phillips and Sexton would be the best choice at Halfbacks just as the coaches did...

jimbopip wrote:Also I notice that the accepted wisdom is that Parling was chosen for his good lineout work. Has no one noticed that the Wallabies chose not to compete at the line out for most of the first Test? In that match we threw almost exclusively to the front and won 100%, but couldn't really get beyond the 12 channel with the ball ( but with a big crashing centre setting up rucks this is Gatlandball). picking favourites; BOD JD2 at 12/13, we then need to throw long so put a much lighter second row in to replace POC and the whole set piece suffers. I wonder how Barrit and Tuilangi are feeling today?

I dont think you understand the game plan that Gatland has used. It is not about big ball carriers it is about committing the oppositions defenders to rucks... The idea is not to use crash ball to score tries, but to tie in the oppositions defenders to create gaps or mismatches for backs to later exploit after several phases...

Our attack was limited yesterday by good Aussie breakdown defence, (equally good on our part actually it was better on our behalf in many ways, at least until Warburton went off), the breakdown defence limited phase play. There were two good attacks one by each team. The Aussies had one 16 phase play, the Lions a nine phase.

There was one single line break all game and that was for the Aussies try...

by fa0019 Sun 30 Jun 2013, 11:57 am

Gray was our only genuine hope of a test spot and he's been very very uniucky... Probably the most on tour.

Aw jones had a good game in the Waratahs match and it sealed his spot. But what it did was to ignore gray and his skills, his ball carrying etc which has cost the lions. We have no ball carriers in the team bar o'brien.
Our centres are ineffective without especially with Davies unable to play the smash job and their being no plan to bring in north to do the same.

Gatland has relied too much on guys he knows and it will cost them... Horwill or not... AUS have the edge on us at the moment and in a one off match and by neglecting chaps like gray, obrien, Manu etc we've denied ourselves a great chance to win then series in all probability... One which was there for the taking.

Bod is suffering from getting no front foot ball. He is not the player he was 5 years ago... He can't create something from nothing. Give him a platform and he can still deliver... Although a guy like Manu doesn't need that platform.

by beshocked Sun 30 Jun 2013, 11:58 am

Neither Bod or Davies shone.

I don't think Bowe looked match fit either.

My 23 would be

1,Corbisiero
2. Hibbard
3.Jones
4.Gray
5.Jones
6.O Brien
7.Tipuric
8.Faletau

9.Murray
10.Sexton
11.North
12.Roberts if unfit then Davies
13.Tuilagi
14.Cuthbert
15.Halfpenny

16.Vunipola
17.Cole
18.Youngs
19.Parling
20.Croft
21.Youngs
22.Farrell
23.Hogg

by maestegmafia Sun 30 Jun 2013, 12:03 pm

fa0019 wrote:Gray was our only genuine hope of a test spot and he's been very very uniucky... Probably the most on tour.

Aw jones had a good game in the Waratahs match and it sealed his spot. But what it did was to ignore gray and his skills, his ball carrying etc which has cost the lions. We have no ball carriers in the team bar o'brien.
Our centres are ineffective without especially with Davies unable to play the smash job and their being no plan to bring in north to do the same.

Gatland has relied too much on guys he knows and it will cost them... Horwill or not... AUS have the edge on us at the moment and in a one off match and by neglecting chaps like gray, obrien, Manu etc we've denied ourselves a great chance to win then series in all probability... One which was there for the taking.

Bod is suffering from getting no front foot ball. He is not the player he was 5 years ago... He can't create something from nothing. Give him a platform and he can still deliver... Although a guy like Manu doesn't need that platform.

Who would you put Manu in the centre at the expenses of, Davies or BoD...?

And what is the reason, to give us a Crash ball option...? Why will that help us win? The Aussies have a very good midfield defence, we need phase play and work from the forwards to beat this team not a lad like Manu running into the Aussie midfield and getting turned over.

by GloriousEmpire Sun 30 Jun 2013, 12:15 pm

maestegmafia wrote:

I dont think you understand the game plan that Gatland has used. It is not about big ball carriers it is about committing the oppositions defenders to rucks... The idea is not to use crash ball to score tries, but to tie in the oppositions defenders to create gaps or mismatches for backs to later exploit after several phases.

Then the execution of it is utter rubbish. The only thing we saw on attack was lateral ball movement and sexton/halfpenny relentless up and unders. Australia get that in spades from SA and it doesn't frighten them.

They need 1/2p to join the attacking line (he hasn't throughout the series) and for whomever plays 10 to chip the line early to push genia and beale back. Because right now the Australian defense lines out 13 across the field and two back to take the kick and they are not being troubled in any way. Both Lions tries came on the counter-attack in broken play. Nothing has been manufactured.

The idea that you need the elder statesman BoD on the field to manage the game in last ten minutes is utter tosh aswell, if he HADN'T been on, chances are the Lions would have won. He's too old, and petulance is taking over where his body can't do what his brain wants anymore.

by SecretFly Sun 30 Jun 2013, 12:15 pm

samuraidragon wrote:

To play Gatland-ball, you have to have a dominant set piece and brute power in the centre. Parling didn't work at all, and there was no threat in the centre.

Gatland-ball. A fine art? His usual potency has been diluted by the frustrating requirements of paying lip service to the damned traditional inclusivity the Lions?

2011: Wales 18 - Australia 21 Loss by 3
2012: Wales 19 - Australia 27 Loss by 8
2012: Wales 23 - Australia 25 Loss by 2
2012: Wales 19 - Australia 20 Loss by 1
2012: Wales 12 - Australia 14 Loss by 2
2013: Lions 23 - Australia 21 Win by 2
2013: Lions 15 - Australia 16 Loss by 1

So much for brute force through the middle and a dominant set piece. The true common thread is that record, regardless of players playing or strengths and weakness on any given game day, is that against Australia, Gatland coached sides always turn in performances that rely too heavily on high tension end games and generally come in on the negative end of those encounters.

He now has the very 'best' that four Nations can contribute to give him the cutting edge he needs to finally push Australia aside and up he comes again - falling short, having his close cut endings and suggesting it's his players who need to be smarter rather than he who needs to bring a smarter game to the Aussies.

He's had seven hits at Australia in relatively quick succession and but for Beale slipping he'd have lost all seven. He's learning nothing from his encounters, he is finding no weak points tactically in the Aussie set-up, he's not winning the strategic battle. All he hopes for is that if he bashes at the Aussie wall long enough in a game they'll drain the point or two he might need to steal a win.
Forgive me, but that not coaching.... that's gambling. The theory that if you play them often enough, the laws of average mean you'll beat them a few times out of ten. Things are looking up for the WC!

by GloriousEmpire Sun 30 Jun 2013, 12:18 pm

SF you are 100% correct.

by fa0019 Sun 30 Jun 2013, 12:19 pm

We want BOD at his best no? We want him running, yet playing with Davies gives him no options. Davies and BOD are a poor combination as Davies cannot give BOD the space to play.

A Manu BOD or a Roberts BOD combination suits him more.

Roberts has been off for a while so to put him in cold is a little unrealistic or hopeful he can instantly regain match sharpness.

Manu played reasonably well vs the rebels but the key thing is that he will break tackles, he will break holes... Ad give opportunities for chaps like north, like BOD to run through. Manu is not just a crash ball player like Roberts, he has a lot of skills and his highlights show this.

Davies and BOD are 2 good players in their own right... But as a combination they fall short and BOD with the other 2 (with Manu being probably fitter and sharper) its a better combination and more likely to bring on field positive results for the lions.

by maestegmafia Sun 30 Jun 2013, 12:23 pm

SecretFly wrote:
samuraidragon wrote:

To play Gatland-ball, you have to have a dominant set piece and brute power in the centre. Parling didn't work at all, and there was no threat in the centre.

Gatland-ball. A fine art? His usual potency has been diluted by the frustrating requirements of paying lip service to the damned traditional inclusivity the Lions?

2011: Wales 18 - Australia 21 Loss by 3
2012: Wales 19 - Australia 27 Loss by 8
2012: Wales 23 - Australia 25 Loss by 2
2012: Wales 19 - Australia 20 Loss by 1
2012: Wales 12 - Australia 14 Loss by 2
2013: Lions 23 - Australia 21 Win by 2
2013: Lions 15 - Australia 16 Loss by 1

So much for brute force through the middle and a dominant set piece. The true common thread is that record, regardless of players playing or strengths and weakness on any given game day, is that against Australia, Gatland coached sides always turn in performances that rely too heavily on high tension end games and generally come in on the negative end of those encounters.

He now has the very 'best' that four Nations can contribute to give him the cutting edge he needs to finally push Australia aside and up he comes again - falling short, having his close cut endings and suggesting it's his players who need to be smarter rather than he who needs to bring a smarter game to the Aussies.

He's had seven hits at Australia in relatively quick succession and but for Beale slipping he'd have lost all seven. He's learning nothing from his encounters, he is finding no weak points tactically in the Aussie set-up, he's not winning the strategic battle. All he hopes for is that if he bashes at the Aussie wall long enough in a game they'll drain the point or two he might need to steal a win.
Forgive me, but that not coaching.... that's gambling. The theory that if you play them often enough, the laws of average mean you'll beat them a few times out of ten. Things are looking up for the WC!

GloriousEmpire wrote:SF you are 100% correct.

Apart from Gatland didn't coach most of those games Wales played did he.

Some credit has to go to the Aussies being a decent team.

by maestegmafia Sun 30 Jun 2013, 12:34 pm

fa0019 wrote:We want BOD at his best no? We want him running, yet playing with Davies gives him no options. Davies and BOD are a poor combination as Davies cannot give BOD the space to play.

A Manu BOD or a Roberts BOD combination suits him more.

Roberts has been off for a while so to put him in cold is a little unrealistic or hopeful he can instantly regain match sharpness.

Manu played reasonably well vs the rebels but the key thing is that he will break tackles, he will break holes... Ad give opportunities for chaps like north, like BOD to run through. Manu is not just a crash ball player like Roberts, he has a lot of skills and his highlights show this.

Davies and BOD are 2 good players in their own right... But as a combination they fall short and BOD with the other 2 (with Manu being probably fitter and sharper) its a better combination and more likely to bring on field positive results for the lions.

Manu is not a highly skilled player, he is improving his skills over the last two seasons he has reached the limelight but he is not highly skilled. BoD and Davies are and that is why they are there.

I don't think breaking a tackle and slipping the ball will make the Lions score tries. Look at all the tries scored so far, they are from broken play, a bad kick to the wrong guy (from the kickers perspective) or a weak defensive decision.

The Lions line defence is not good, not well organised and we have been lucky to contain the Aussies so far. Mainly because the Aussie backs keep dropping the ball. Manu will not improve the defence.

If we were to change centres we might be better adding Roberts or Barritt for one of the BOD or JD2... Not for crash ball, for defence.

In attack I think the centres we have are the bet option, they just want more time with the ball. Sexton plays for territory, the team play for phases, control and developing advantages, BOD and JD2 are the quickest thinking centres we have and the most likely to find those advantages first, the Doc and Manu won't help in my opinion.

by SecretFly Sun 30 Jun 2013, 12:41 pm

maestegmafia wrote:

Apart from Gatland didn't coach most of those games Wales played did he.

Some credit has to go to the Aussies being a decent team.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone, least of all some Welsh posters in here, who would deny that he had input into all Welsh performances against Australia in recent time.

Why would he not? He knew they'd form the bulk of his Lions squad and where better to practice your methods by suggesting this, that and the other.

Aussie's are a decent team. Far from being decent actually - pretty formidable might be a better description....but a sequence of close games against them means nothing is being learned (by either group actually but Australia has less to work on as they're doing more of the close cut winning) But it's a coaching issue rather than a player issue for Gatland.

Gatland pushes media weight onto his player's shoulders by suggesting they have to be smarter. I say he's run out of ideas on how to put a reasonable score on Australia. It seems he's fated to have these maybe/maybe not games with them into eternity.

by maestegmafia Sun 30 Jun 2013, 12:57 pm

SecretFly wrote:
maestegmafia wrote:

Apart from Gatland didn't coach most of those games Wales played did he.

Some credit has to go to the Aussies being a decent team.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone, least of all some Welsh posters in here, who would deny that he had input into all Welsh performances against Australia in recent time.

Why would he not? He knew they'd form the bulk of his Lions squad and where better to practice your methods by suggesting this, that and the other.

Aussie's are a decent team. Far from being decent actually - pretty formidable might be a better description....but a sequence of close games against them means nothing is being learned (by either group actually but Australia has less to work on as they're doing more of the close cut winning) But it's a coaching issue rather than a player issue for Gatland.

Gatland pushes media weight onto his player's shoulders by suggesting they have to be smarter. I say he's run out of ideas on how to put a reasonable score on Australia. It seems he's fated to have these maybe/maybe not games with them into eternity.

Fly as you probably know i am not a big believer in the coaches input in the result of games. Preparation, analysis etc yes, but what happens on the pitch, decisions made etc is down the players and how they can gauge the opposition.

by Guest Sun 30 Jun 2013, 1:00 pm

I notice the posts have now taken a distinctly 'blame the welsh' direction now. It was only a matter of time. But, there were plenty of non-welsh playing. The only ones who can't take any blame, obviously, are the scots.

by maestegmafia Sun 30 Jun 2013, 1:08 pm

Griff wrote:I notice the posts have now taken a distinctly 'blame the welsh' direction now. It was only a matter of time. But, there were plenty of non-welsh playing. The only ones who can't take any blame, obviously, are the scots.

That is not true..

Most serious posts I have read have been more keen to point to Parling's for lack of power in the scrum and effectiveness at the line out, Vuni's lack of experience at scrums lost and Warburton leaving through injury as the big difference in the breakdown.

by SecretFly Sun 30 Jun 2013, 1:18 pm

Griff wrote:I notice the posts have now taken a distinctly 'blame the welsh' direction now. It was only a matter of time. But, there were plenty of non-welsh playing. The only ones who can't take any blame, obviously, are the scots.

No, Griff, they only turn that way when you read posts where it seems to be open season on some of the small contingents from other countries. The Welsh have the bulk of this tour - that has been an honour for them had they/and if they are part of an historic win. It still could happen.

But this is a mostly Welsh run show (that's fact, not fiction)... so, it gets a little hard to stomach when posters come out of the woodwork and blame some of the 'other guys' for the lack of cutting edge....as in suggesting Gatland should use more of his Gatland-ball men to win the series than trying to slot unfamiliar/incapable players into the gameplan.

That's disrespectful to the ethos of the Lions, the abilty of the other Lions players and the true record of Gatland-ball tactics against the Australians.

by Guest Sun 30 Jun 2013, 1:25 pm

So we had Youngs at 9, sexton at 10 yet it's the fault of the Welsh that we had no cutting edge? Should not these players take some of the stick for not getting the ball out quick enough, not setting the backs free, not bring players into the game as is their role as playmakers?

by maestegmafia Sun 30 Jun 2013, 1:38 pm

Griff wrote:So we had Youngs at 9, sexton at 10 yet it's the fault of the Welsh that we had no cutting edge? Should not these players take some of the stick for not getting the ball out quick enough, not setting the backs free, not bring players into the game as is their role as playmakers?

Fair play on that comment Griff

Phillips took a lot of slack last week, after the win. Youngs was no better, if anything made more mistakes than Phillips this week.

by SecretFly Sun 30 Jun 2013, 1:38 pm

Griff wrote:So we had Youngs at 9, sexton at 10 yet it's the fault of the Welsh that we had no cutting edge? Should not these players take some of the stick for not getting the ball out quick enough, not setting the backs free, not bring players into the game as is their role as playmakers?

There you go again. "If the Welsh aren't to blame, and why should to be? - and I dare anyone to try and blame them - then we gotta blame someone." And away it goes.... the 'other guys' get the blame instead. And when a countryman of one of the 'other guys' stands up and says "hold on a sec, I'm not going to listen to this bunk" they're either accused of "blaming Welsh players" (because they won't agree that their guys are to blame!) or being un-Lions like in defending their players by Nationality rather than ability.

The Lions is a minefield. You step away from one sensitive landmine and you've already stepped onto another one.

I'm trying oh so hard not to blame players because I HATE Lions for how they chew mercilessly into individual players with lots of pressure on their shoulders.

It so happens that this time my job of trying to take the pressure off players is made easier by what I genuinely believe to be Gatland's limited plan for beating Australia. It might happen. He might get his two or three points over Australia next week in another close run thing. But I think a man who stands to gain so much from a series win should also stand up and ship some of the blame for tactics himself rather than dropping it on the shoulders of his players (be the Welsh, English, Irish or Scots)

by jimbopip Sun 30 Jun 2013, 1:38 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
jimbopip wrote:Morning again boys, just heard about Mike Phillips and his dodgy knee. Apparently he did it in HK but still was selected for the first Test. This merely underlines the sense that the Test XV was chosen well in advance.

Surely on Phillips performance in the Six Nations finale and the HK Baa Baa's match and neither Youngs or Murray really putting their cases forward to test selection prior to the first test so hardly a machiavellian scheme. If you look through previous threads pretty much everyone agreed Phillips and Sexton would be the best choice at Halfbacks just as the coaches did...

jimbopip wrote:Also I notice that the accepted wisdom is that Parling was chosen for his good lineout work. Has no one noticed that the Wallabies chose not to compete at the line out for most of the first Test? In that match we threw almost exclusively to the front and won 100%, but couldn't really get beyond the 12 channel with the ball ( but with a big crashing centre setting up rucks this is Gatlandball). picking favourites; BOD JD2 at 12/13, we then need to throw long so put a much lighter second row in to replace POC and the whole set piece suffers. I wonder how Barrit and Tuilangi are feeling today?

I dont think you understand the game plan that Gatland has used. It is not about big ball carriers it is about committing the oppositions defenders to rucks... The idea is not to use crash ball to score tries, but to tie in the oppositions defenders to create gaps or mismatches for backs to later exploit after several phases...

Our attack was limited yesterday by good Aussie breakdown defence, (equally good on our part actually it was better on our behalf in many ways, at least until Warburton went off), the breakdown defence limited phase play. There were two good attacks one by each team. The Aussies had one 16 phase play, the Lions a nine phase.

There was one single line break all game and that was for the Aussies try...
I think this shows a pretty clear understanding of how Wales play

by maestegmafia Sun 30 Jun 2013, 1:45 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Griff wrote:So we had Youngs at 9, sexton at 10 yet it's the fault of the Welsh that we had no cutting edge? Should not these players take some of the stick for not getting the ball out quick enough, not setting the backs free, not bring players into the game as is their role as playmakers?
The Lions is a minefield. You step away from one sensitive landmine and you've already stepped onto another one.

Thats true. I criticised Crofts lack of effort and impact during the Tah's match and said how disappointed I was with his inclusion in the test teams I took a huge amount of xenophobic accusation, (ok admittedly mainly from Trolls and not real posters) but it is only now after the second test are people starting to agree with me in their posts.

by samuraidragon Sun 30 Jun 2013, 1:45 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Griff wrote:I notice the posts have now taken a distinctly 'blame the welsh' direction now. It was only a matter of time. But, there were plenty of non-welsh playing. The only ones who can't take any blame, obviously, are the scots.

No, Griff, they only turn that way when you read posts where it seems to be open season on some of the small contingents from other countries. The Welsh have the bulk of this tour - that has been an honour for them had they/and if they are part of an historic win. It still could happen.

But this is a mostly Welsh run show (that's fact, not fiction)... so, it gets a little hard to stomach when posters come out of the woodwork and blame some of the 'other guys' for the lack of cutting edge....as in suggesting Gatland should use more of his Gatland-ball men to win the series than trying to slot unfamiliar/incapable players into the gameplan.

That's disrespectful to the ethos of the Lions, the abilty of the other Lions players and the true record of Gatland-ball tactics against the Australians.

Gatland is being criticized - with some justice - for starting Mako and choosing underpowered English like Parling and T. Youngs and having Croft on the bench as second row cover. Is there a pattern here? Most definitely, YES. That damn Gatland has been favouring the English!!

by HammerofThunor Sun 30 Jun 2013, 1:46 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Griff wrote:So we had Youngs at 9, sexton at 10 yet it's the fault of the Welsh that we had no cutting edge? Should not these players take some of the stick for not getting the ball out quick enough, not setting the backs free, not bring players into the game as is their role as playmakers?
The Lions is a minefield. You step away from one sensitive landmine and you've already stepped onto another one.

Thats true. I criticised Crofts lack of effort and impact during the Tah's match and said how disappointed I was with his inclusion in the test teams I took a huge amount of xenophobic accusation, (ok admittedly mainly from Trolls and not real posters) but it is only now after the second test are people starting to agree with me in their posts.

by beshocked Sun 30 Jun 2013, 2:02 pm

Griff how many articles criticising welsh players? There are about 3 or 4 attacking Mako alone.The media have been tearing into him too. Personally I think the key flaws was the poor gameplan, poor decision making and a lacklustre attack.

The Welsh players have got virtually no criticism. Howley also seems to be bullet proof.

Maestegmafia you are an one eyed Welshman who can only see flaws in players who aren't from Wales.

by maestegmafia Sun 30 Jun 2013, 2:19 pm

beshocked wrote:Griff how many articles criticising welsh players? There are about 3 or 4 attacking Mako alone.The media have been tearing into him too. Personally I think the key flaws was the poor gameplan, poor decision making and a lacklustre attack.

The Welsh players have got virtually no criticism. Howley also seems to be bullet proof.

Maestegmafia you are an one eyed Welshman who can only see flaws in players who aren't from Wales.

That is absolute BS... Stick to rugby not character assassination and your posts might get taken seriously.

by RuggerRadge2611 Sun 30 Jun 2013, 2:30 pm

Australia formidable? Hmmm we seem to beat them often enough. Aiming for a third win on the bounce in November. Braveheart

by SecretFly Sun 30 Jun 2013, 2:34 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Australia formidable? Hmmm we seem to beat them often enough. Aiming for a third win on the bounce in November.

You want to beat a formidable side or a two-bit side???? It's up to you, Rugger Wink

If you want to downgrade the achievement of beating them, that's your call. Good luck in November.

by Sin é Sun 30 Jun 2013, 2:37 pm

maestegmafia wrote:
Surely on Phillips performance in the Six Nations finale and the HK Baa Baa's match and neither Youngs or Murray really putting their cases forward to test selection prior to the first test so hardly a machiavellian scheme. If you look through previous threads pretty much everyone agreed Phillips and Sexton would be the best choice at Halfbacks just as the coaches did...

You must have blanked the Wales v Ireland 6Ns game from your mind (because Wales lost!). Phillips was poor that day. Conor Murray had a very good 6Ns and has been the most consistently good SH on this tour. He was excellent yesterday when he came on (winning a turnover almost immediately and his box kicking was top notch).

Phillips was very good against the BaBaas (incidentally partnered by Farrell). I thought he was poor against the Waratahs, but I put that down to his unfamiliarity with Sexton.

I'm wonder if I'm the only one who thought that Phillips and Sexton would not work well together. Sexton likes to boss his scrumhalf and Phillips likes to boss his outhalf.

Since the coaching team have said that they would like to use existing partnerships where possible (i.e., Welsh back 3 etc), I don't for the life of me understand why Sexton & Murray got so little time together, bearing in mind that this partnership did well together in the 6Ns including beating Wales. (It went pear-shaped for Ireland when Sexton got injured).

Both Farrell & Hogg played well when paired with Murray so I just don't know how you can even suggest that Murray hasn't put his hand up on this tour (or even before it).

by RuggerRadge2611 Sun 30 Jun 2013, 2:44 pm

well the ozzies are the only team we have consistently beaten over the last few years...

by **Pal Joey** Sun 30 Jun 2013, 2:46 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Australia formidable? Hmmm we seem to beat them often enough. Aiming for a third win on the bounce in November.

Sure Radge, masters of the mighty 1 and 3-pointers. 9-6 and 9-8

Meanwhile, in the previous 27 years... in descending order back to 1982

Australia by 29, 14, 17, 21, 20, 17, 21, 22, 42, 29, 10, 24, 15, 19, 25, 24. Wallaby

An average of 21.8 points winning margin per match. If we could kick it would be well over 30. kiss

No, those aren't the winning Lotto numbers. Wink

by SecretFly Sun 30 Jun 2013, 2:54 pm

I won the Trans World Lotto!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

$435,677,280,000!

Bye 606!

by beshocked Sun 30 Jun 2013, 3:02 pm

Maestegmafia perhaps if you cut out the rubbish in your posts I might not be so critical. Trying to find a constructive comment from you is tough.

by RuggerRadge2611 Sun 30 Jun 2013, 3:04 pm

Meh, as a Scot beating anyone consistently is a rarity. Tough luck for the soggy yellow wife beaters kiss

For me, to win the final test Gatland has to either play the physical game with conviction and use the best physical players or he needs to put out his best footballers with a carte blanche and say "play what you see".

by **Pal Joey** Sun 30 Jun 2013, 3:07 pm

OK guys, where's the Welsh thread? Whistle

I do agree with the sentiment of this topic though. I had Kelly, Hamilton & Scott in my original 'squad'... along with the ones that got selected. I even thought Laidlaw would be handy as a back-up in the touring side.

by SecretFly Sun 30 Jun 2013, 3:08 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Meh, as a Scot beating anyone consistently is a rarity. Tough luck for the soggy yellow wife beaters

For me, to win the final test Gatland has to either play the physical game with conviction and use the best physical players or he needs to put out his best footballers with a carte blanche and say "play what you see".

"We see Yellow streaks of light passing us at lightspeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - What'll we do??????"

by bedfordwelsh Sun 30 Jun 2013, 3:10 pm

Grant is one of but not the top props around but agree that he should hve started, if Corbs is fit then its him to start Grant on bench if hes not then Grant starts Mako bench

by **Pal Joey** Sun 30 Jun 2013, 3:11 pm

We jaundiced convicts are all cheering for Andy at Wimbledon though. He can do it! Hug

by Guest Sun 30 Jun 2013, 3:13 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:well the ozzies are the only team we have consistently beaten over the last few years...

It's a great achievement, and one I'm a little bit envious of, but I wouldn't call 2 wins consistent. Twice. Last time and the time before. It's 100% of the last two meetings, yes, but consistent? The last time before that was 1982 so it's not that consistent IMO. NZ beat Wales consistently - that's consistent. Oz beat Wales consistently too. Consistent is like 5 times or more surely? Or maybe 8 or 9 times out of 10, like Oz beat Wales.

But a good achievement nonetheless.

by RuggerRadge2611 Sun 30 Jun 2013, 3:13 pm

on Laidlaw, I think he would have been a good tourist. Not a test starter but he has an adaptability that none of the other half backs have. He can play a kicking game and is comfortable with the ball in hand. He certainly would have provided an alternative to plan A or B. His kicking wouldn't have let anyone down either.

perhaps his club form damaged his chances. Didn't seem to damage the Dragons or Cardiff players but similarly Glasgows scintillating form didn't help the likes of Barclay or Grant to begin with.

A poster in another thread (a Hairsprays fan) commented on how Strongly Grant dealt with Jones when Glasgow slaughtered them in Scotstoun.

by **Pal Joey** Sun 30 Jun 2013, 3:26 pm

That's right mate. I know other home nations might think otherwise but he has a steady game, a very decent boot and wouldn't have looked out of place at all... in fact, I believe he may well have stepped up to the ocassion.

All the club form is a much more complicated issue for you guys than it is for us. I've always felt that players are heralded one week; slammed the next. A bit unfair really. You are all way too harsh (but obviously you have your reasons). Maybe there is a more sensitive week-to-week appraisal going on. That happens in NZ too I've noticed. They are ruthless. O'Connor may well have been dropped for instance - after his performance yesterday. (even the pass to AAC was head-height!) Here, we seem to take a broader, more casual look at players' performances week-to-week but you still get the odd shock selection or omission... but the noise level from the media and fans is minimal compared to the Home nations reactions.

by SecretFly Sun 30 Jun 2013, 3:35 pm

Linebreaker:

The 'Home' Nations is a title. It's not Team UK. Therefore you have four Nations broken down into two distinct Political Adminstration Nations, broken down into Provinces, Clubs and Regions that play against some and not others and think their league is better than the other one and wants to control the other one by having a say in how it conducts its affairs and some of them are owned by fat-cat private owners and some are owned by fat-cat Union overlords and you have more foreigners in your team than ours and the ref was on your side when you beat us and ..........................

...............well, you get the deal. It's a Vicky Pollard (no punctuation no fullstops) world. But it ain't simple and therefore it's often a miracle that a Lions squad to tour can be agreed on at all.

by Sponsored content