NEW ZEALAND v BRITISH & IRISH LIONS, 1 July

First topic message reminder :

                   
NEW ZEALAND v BRITISH & IRISH LIONS  
1 July 2017
KO: 19:35 NZST (8.35am BST)
WESTPAC Wellington Regional Stadium, Wellington

Live on Sky Sports HD

Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)
ARs: [tbc]
TMO: [tbc]

A. Head to Head

39 Played 39
30 Won 6
3 Drawn 3
6 Lost 30
664 Points 360

B. Recent Form

24 June 2017
Eden Park, Auckland
30 – 15 to New Zealand

9 July 2005 
Eden Park, Auckland 
38 – 19 to New Zealand 

2 July 2005 
Westpac Stadium, Wellington 
48 – 18 to New Zealand

25 June 2005 
Lancaster Park, Christchurch 
21 – 3 to New Zealand

3 July 1993 
Eden Park, Auckland 
30 – 13 to New Zealand 

26 June 1993 
Athletic Park, Wellington 
7 – 20 to British & Irish Lions

12 June 1993 
Lancaster Park, Christchurch 
20 – 18 to New Zealand

16 July 1983 
Eden Park, Auckland 
38 – 6 to New Zealand

2 July 1983 
Carisbrook, Dunedin 
15 – 8 to New Zealand

18 June 1983 
Athletic Park (Wellington), Wellington 
9 – 0 to New Zealand

4 June 1983 
Lancaster Park, Christchurch 
16 – 12 to New Zealand

C. TEAMS:

NEW ZEALAND

[tbc]

BRITISH & IRISH LIONS  

[tbc]

Beshocked, what's the status of AWJ currently? Deity? or are we still at national treasure?

Put me back on ignore ld. But answer the questions first!

cascough wrote:Beshocked, what's the status of AWJ currently? Deity? or are we still at national treasure?

Diety.

His wife sent him to Slimming World and he lost too much weight affecting his power.

cascough wrote:Beshocked, what's the status of AWJ currently? Deity? or are we still at national treasure?

national treasure. Not quite deity status but getting there.

Could make deity status in the 3rd test.

Still hasn't quite reached the undroppable deity status of Hartley for England.

AWJ isn't captain at least.

Gooseberry wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:Not sure how anyone can think AWJ is the form pick though.

Why are our English members constantly bringing this up when we are all agreeing on it ? We are not debating AWJ, we all agree, he should not be there.

It's a big howler by Gatland. It's critical. Plus it seemed to be that mikey dragon was supporting the selection.

Look, not very often do I see eye to eye with mikey, but not once on here has he supported that. He may congratulate him, but that as far as it goes.

Also, he does have a point in what he is saying about form on tour, with Lawes and Biggar.

Well not really, as has been mentioned above. Lawes has been outstanding and playiong some of the best rugby of his career prior to the Lions, and continued that into the tour. As it is hes just managed ot force hi way onto the bench ahead because someone else got a stupid yellow card and inspite of the worst performing player in his position getting picked to start.
Bigger is missing out because he doesnt cover 12, isnt as good as either of the players ahead of him, and hasnt shown better form than them ...or at least not to the point where theres concencous on that.
The tour form pick at 10 is Russell.

So you can advance your tour form argument and still Biggar isnt a shoe-in, just a possible.

The Yellow card shouldn't really make a difference for Henderson, after all Williams got one and started the first test.
Williams was out and out his fault while Henderson's was only mostly his fault.
Going by Gatlands previous the yellow shouldn't really have much effect on his choice.
It appears Gatland had his mind made up before the games, and by not using replacements he didn't give himself the option to take both locks off and decide later. Same with back row, Stander should have been taken off earlier to make sure he is fully fit for the 2nd test, playing the full 80 mins won't have benefitted him.

beshocked wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:I'm going to be somewhat controversial and say I don't mind the team too much. Yes AWJ shouldn't be there, and it's ridiculously harsh to consign Kruis seemingly to the scrapheap for one bad game (in which he still ran a good line-out) whereas AWJ has been poor whenever he's played on tour and seems undroppable. But that one's been debated over and over and most agree it's a poor pick.

As for the other changes/non-changes. I believe that AWJ aside that's the best tight five the Lions have. They didn't do well in the first Test, but I genuinely don't think there is a great way of strengthening it. The back row is OK, I'd have picked Tipuric, but Gats doesn't seem to rate him. Faletau had an ordinary first Test, but is class, and deserves to keep his spot. Warburton coming in to add competitiveness at the break down makes some sense, even if his form hasn't been great (would have picked Tipuric ahead of him, also would have added a better line-out option).

I actually like the idea of pairing Sexton with Farrell. Farrell has played very well at IC for England over the last two years, and the extra playmaker should allow the Lions to bring their back three into the game more which is badly needed. Yes it's a huge gamble, but the Lions weren't winning with their previous tactics, so why not? Think Murray is a tad fortunate, but the familiarity of having Sexton outside him might help.

Finally, the bench is good. Plenty of impact.

Mad for Chelsea the problem is that one poor selection could be very costly indeed. It's only one selection but that's enough.

Taking out Mahony and Kruis damages the lineout. Itoje doesn't fix this.

If you want to get improved performances from the tight five, AWJ has to go. Not retained.

It's about combinations. AWJ in this front five just doesn't work IMO.


Especially against the might of the NZ 2nd rows and also lock was meant to be a Lions strength.

Lock is a Lions weakness not a strength thanks to Gatland.

Competition for lock was so great and yet it's one of the starters in the worst form who is starting.

Well yes, but I'm being pragmatic. There's no way Gatland wasn't going to pick AWJ.

LondonTiger wrote:

cascough wrote:Beshocked, what's the status of AWJ currently? Deity? or are we still at national treasure?

Diety.

His wife sent him to Slimming World and he lost too much weight affecting his power.

Has he ever had power?

Can we please move on from AWJ chat?

I think the best we can hope for is that typical Gatland turgid starting XV can not be too far off after 50 minutes when the actually quite decent bench comes on.

beshocked wrote:I don't feel Biggar would add anything extra.

Lawes on the other hand....

Yeah, because we are not allowed to use the fact that he brings more players around him into the game, or gets the backs moving better, because according to our English members on here that is too cliched.

Scottrf wrote:Can we please move on from AWJ chat?

Would be good. How about a head to head comparison. Are any Lions better than their direct opponent?

Reality check this isn`t 1971,or Soldiers field against the weakest AB side
since France first test 2009.
The First test AB`s lost 3 great players before half time all of whom were
rushed back to early,as was Farrell.
That maybe why they used the same gameplan as RWC SF v the Boks they
won easily.
They didn't even get out of second gear,the late Lions try put a gloss on it.
As to the tap penalty,Webb used it for England often enough he runs well
and has a decent box kick.
These comments shouldn't be taken as denigration you can only beat the
team in front of you the Lions played very well.
The NZ team has been picked to run ,and that back three is very
dangerous indeed.Dagg not very good?two of the three tries created
by him,a brilliant try saving tackle,11 tries last year.
Both sides will look to improve their games but still can`t see past
a NZ win.
Stand by for troll alert

Just read that North and Henshaw are out of the tour altogether.

That sheds some light on Nowells left field selection and gives Seymour a 10% chance of getting a spot in the 3rd test.

emack2 wrote:
Stand by for troll alert      

We had been waiting for you dont worry

Just asked for some specifics ld. Again you seem to ant to spend more time avoiding and delaying rather than jut answer the points and move on.

LordDowlais wrote:Yeah, because we are not allowed to use the fact that he brings more players around him into the game

I asusme thats why Gatlands Wales are famed for their backs moves and creative play?

emack2 wrote:As to the tap penalty,Webb used it for England often enough he runs well
and has a decent box kick.

Eh? 

He's thinking of Sinckler, cyril.

Class response from Hanson. Maybe he is human after all.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11883736

Think he is handling the media much better than Graham Henry did in '05.

LondonTiger wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Can we please move on from AWJ chat?

Would be good. How about a head to head comparison. Are any Lions better than their direct opponent?

I think the props would be the only ones with a real shout and they haven't exactly been dominant.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just asked for some specifics ld. Again you seem to ant to spend more time avoiding and delaying rather than jut answer the points and move on.

Look, read above, I have answered you. Now please stop being annoying.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Can you share your thoughts on Biggar and those questions ld? May help me to understand why you're rating Biggar performances so highly. I'm not expecting anything other than a side step.

I've told you this already. Christ on a bike, I wish I never took you off ignore.

The reason why I think he should be in the test squad is because he has been playing better than both Sexton and Farrell. I am not 100% on this, but in the games he has played, we have scored more tries, and look to have created a lot more.

Against weak opposition.

Is it fair to say that the lineups used in the early games of Super Rugby give a fair indication of who those franchises view as their first choice team? If so, the following were missing for the Chiefs and Hurricanes

Chiefs - Kane Hames, Brodie Retallick, Sam Cane, Michael Leitch, Tawara Kerr-Barlow, Aaron Cruden, James Lowe, Charlie Ngatai, Anton Leinert Brown, Damien Mckenzie,

Hurricanes - Beauden Barrett, TJ Perenara, Ardie Savea, Dane Coles

Could sides missing those players really be seen as top level super rugby opposition? See Biggar's "performance" against the Blues (worst NZ super rugby franchise) for more of an indication of how he'd perform

If Biggar was adequate (don't think even your blinkered view is that he excelled) against these guys, what hope has he got against NZ?

BamBam wrote:If Biggar was adequate (don't think even your blinkered view is that he excelled) against these guys, what hope has he got against NZ?

I am not suggesting that he has set the world alight. I am suggesting that he has played a lot better than Farrell or Sexton on the tour. Albeit against weaker opposition as you put it. But Biggar has shown more go forward on this tour than any other in his position.

Farrell has been poor by his standards, and the fact that he is leaving easy points on the field is not helping either. But as long as his dad is there, they can find a place for him to play.

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:If Biggar was adequate (don't think even your blinkered view is that he excelled) against these guys, what hope has he got against NZ?

I am not suggesting that he has set the world alight. I am suggesting that he has played a lot better than Farrell or Sexton on the tour. Albeit against weaker opposition as you put it. But Biggar has shown more go forward on this tour than any other in his position.

Farrell has been poor by his standards, and the fact that he is leaving easy points on the field is not helping either. But as long as his dad is there, they can find a place for him to play.

See how Biggar played against the Blues for a true indication of his level.

Stop bringing your daddy issues to rugby threads

You haven't hence why I am repeating myself. I gave some reasons why I don't believe Biggar played well; what are your thoughts on these and why do you believe (I'm assuming) that they weren't important to his performance?

Why do you rate his performance so highly, I asked.for more than get the backs moving as it's wishy washy and doesn't really explain how his performance affected this. What were the differences to his performance in comparison to Farrell? Again you've spent more time avoiding than discussing. It's a forum it's for.discussing..show me why my take.on his performance is wrong!

I'm really disappointed by this selection, it feels like a step back.

It's clearly still a good team, and has the 10-12 axis (and therefore likely gameplan) that lots of people wanted to see pre tour, but given how the tour has unfolded, I was feeling pretty confident with last weeks selection and gameplan(maybe not the bench). For me this week should have been about tweaking the bench and going again.

On tour we've seen several facets show promise. We've seen some excellent tactical kicking from Murray which has put teams under a lot of pressure. We've been powerful in contact and the breakdown. We've been aggressive in defence. The lineout has gone really really well, as has scrum and maul.

Unfortunately for the Lions, most of those areas of strength didn't happen for us on Saturday. It was quite a way into the game before one of Murrays kicks was actually contestable. We got blown away at the breakdown which meant our defence became passive. Maul was inaccurate, we made handling errors and there were a couple of unfortunate slips too. Farrell misses a kick he would normally slot that didn't help.

NZ are obviously very good. Much is made of their running game but clearly they can mix it with the best of them. Also Barrett kicked 20% above his average (30% above his average last year!). Every time NZ juggled a ball they managed to reclaim it. In fact, I can hardly remember them making a mistake.

And yet, despite all of that, we are well in the game at half time and actually miss a change to nudge ahead shortly after halftime. That, combined with the changes that ensued proved to be a pretty pivotal moment as we got squeezed out after that.

To sum up, I still feel that if we are to beat NZ, we were on the right path. We haven't really practiced with this more open 10\12 wide game that we look to now be moving too, and to me, it's also akin to trying to beat NZ at a high paced open game. I think that's reactionary, and madness.

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:If Biggar was adequate (don't think even your blinkered view is that he excelled) against these guys, what hope has he got against NZ?

I am not suggesting that he has set the world alight. I am suggesting that he has played a lot better than Farrell or Sexton on the tour. Albeit against weaker opposition as you put it. But Biggar has shown more go forward on this tour than any other in his position.

Farrell has been poor by his standards, and the fact that he is leaving easy points on the field is not helping either. But as long as his dad is there, they can find a place for him to play.

LD, as it stands Farrell has to be in the 23 - you need him as 12 cover with Henshaw injured. None of Biggar, JD2, Joseph or Daly have spent much international game time in the position, meaning you're left with Te'o & Farrell - granted I'd have started Te'o.

So it comes down to Sexton vs Biggar as the other 10 in the 23. Which is moot as neither are anywhere near Aaron Cruden standard. Let alone Beauden Barrett.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:LD, as it stands Farrell has to be in the 23 - you need him as 12 cover with Henshaw injured. None of Biggar, JD2, Joseph or Daly have spent much international game time in the position, meaning you're left with Te'o & Farrell - granted I'd have started Te'o.

So it comes down to Sexton vs Biggar as the other 10 in the 23. Which is moot as neither are anywhere near Aaron Cruden standard. Let alone Beauden Barrett.

But at least Barrett is terrible at kicki...oh wait.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why do you rate his performance so highly, I asked.for more than get the backs moving as it's wishy washy and doesn't really explain how his performance affected this. What were the differences to his performance in comparison to Farrell? Again you've spent more time avoiding than discussing. It's a forum it's for.discussing..show me why my take.on his performance is wrong!

OMG !!!!

You are such hard work. I am not rating Biggars performances "so highly" as you have put it. I am rating them better than Sexton's and Farrell's performances thus far on the tour.

Also, you cannot just dismiss all my reasons for Biggars performances as wishy washy or cliched because it does not suit your agenda.

ON THIS TOUR, Dan Biggar has got more out of the players around him than his counterparts have. He has also not given easy three pointers up by missing kicks in front of the posts. Dan Biggar has at least looked like he is taking the game to the opposition, he has made breaks, and he has controlled the game superbly, and most importantly, he has at least looked the more likely to bring the backs into the game than his counterparts have.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why do you rate his performance so highly, I asked.for more than get the backs moving as it's wishy washy and doesn't really explain how his performance affected this. What were the differences to his performance in comparison to Farrell? Again you've spent more time avoiding than discussing. It's a forum it's for.discussing..show me why my take.on his performance is wrong!

OMG !!!!

You are such hard work. I am not rating Biggars performances "so highly" as you have put it. I am rating them better than Sexton's and Farrell's performances thus far on the tour.

Also, you cannot just dismiss all my reasons for Biggars performances as wishy washy or cliched because it does not suit your agenda.

ON THIS TOUR, Dan Biggar has got more out of the players around him than his counterparts have. He has also not given easy three pointers up by missing kicks in front of the posts. Dan Biggar has at least looked like he is taking the game to the opposition, he has made breaks, and he has controlled the game superbly, and most importantly, he has at least looked the more likely to bring the backs into the game than his counterparts have.

I really dislike Bigger

I did not think he deserved to be on the tour at the start, but on this tour he has looked the most promising and I would have felt deserved of a chance to be in the test

In the game I followed closely he did make a half break leading to a try and i pointed this out. There were no other breaks from him in that game. He certainly didn't control the game. Again you've not given examples but a general feeling you have not backed up with anything. I think you're probably right that he'll have a higher kicking percentage than Farrell on tour yet even something so simple which would have reinforced your point you haven't included. I'm going to have to assume you can't answer as.you don't really know what you mean yourself so are giving buzz words you've heard used.

R!skysports wrote:I did not think he deserved to be on the tour at the start, but on this tour he has looked the most promising and I would have felt deserved of a chance to be in the test

Thank You.

See No 7&1/2, somebody who can talk sense.

Biggar works hard and has played OK this tour deserves to be on the bench ahead of Sexton and possibly Farrell, who looked star struck last week.

Thanks ld, I will try to talk to risky if he talks sense! Risky can you answer any of the questions that ld doesn't want to answer?

LordDowlais wrote:

R!skysports wrote:I did not think he deserved to be on the tour at the start, but on this tour he has looked the most promising and I would have felt deserved of a chance to be in the test

Thank You.

See No 7&1/2, somebody who can talk sense.

Does that mean that only people who agree with you are talking sense?


For me Sexton is the 10 in best form right now. He started poorly but has improved to OK. For me Biggar started poorly and has moved to meh, while Farrell started ok and moved to meh. It makes sense to me why Sexton is starting at 10, and due to covering 12 (and only one other 12 left fit) why Farrell is in the 23. Thing is with their form relative to the Kiwi's available, it all becomes moot as our guys are performing so far below the ABs it is scary.

LondonTiger wrote:Does that mean that only people who agree with you are talking sense?

No it means that when you actually answer somebody, and they keep asking the same question over and over, that they are either being a troll or just do not want to accept your answers that they are not talking sense.

You haven't answered. Don't pretend you have.

LordDowlais wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Does that mean that only people who agree with you are talking sense?

No it means that when you actually answer somebody, and they keep asking the same question over and over, that they are either being a troll or just do not want to accept your answers that they are not talking sense.

Pot kettle black.

But seriously you both need to move on.

Emack tried his best to troll the thread earlier posting some semi-literate rant as per usual and everyones ignored it because you guys drowned him out. Please give other a chance to be annoying and argue over nothing.

The point is Biggar has mainly played against the weaker teams - hence it easier to look good

No 7&1/2 wrote:You haven't answered. Don't pretend you have.

Oh, for goodness sake, I typed this a few posts up.

LordDowlais wrote:ON THIS TOUR, Dan Biggar has got more out of the players around him than his counterparts have. He has also not given easy three pointers up by missing kicks in front of the posts. Dan Biggar has at least looked like he is taking the game to the opposition, he has made breaks, and he has controlled the game superbly, and most importantly, he has at least looked the more likely to bring the backs into the game than his counterparts have.

This is the reason why I think Biggar should be in the test squad. This is the answer to your question. I am sorry if it is too cliched or wishy washy for you, but it my answer non the less.

Now please leave it alone.

I'm still disappointed Rhys Priestland wasn't called, he played well in NZ back in 2011.

Except that the question was based on what he did which impressed you and why you felt he examples I gave of his underperformance weren't important to you. In that first post so long ago I even said don't just give a sound bite of he got the backs moving. Yet here we are. You can't back up your own opinion with any actual examples and so we'll move.

LondonTiger wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Can we please move on from AWJ chat?

Would be good. How about a head to head comparison. Are any Lions better than their direct opponent?

From the squads selected - 14 ABs plus Liam Williams at FB to start

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Can we please move on from AWJ chat?

Would be good. How about a head to head comparison. Are any Lions better than their direct opponent?

From the squads selected  - 14 ABs plus Liam Williams at FB to start

Would Faletau and Te'o at least make the bench ? They have not been to shabby on tour.

Faletau I think would, although they didn't name an 8. T'eo is fighting against Laumape I guess so probably not.

A few of the Lions starters may make a combined bench.

Tadhg Furlong and Mako Vunipola ahead of Franks and Moody?

Alun Wyn Jones would be ahead of Whitelock in Gatland's eyes.

Seán O'Brien ahead of Cane

Murray ahead of Smith