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]

No 7.5, I just don't have 5 weeks to go through the process with you

So is Peyper the new Joubert?

It is a.poor process currently as demonstrated by canes and subsequent decisions you're correct.

Rain and light winds forecast for Auckland on Saturday.

ebop wrote:
I'm not being funny here. Accidents happen. People need to accept that 'accidents' happen and calm down on the sweeping generalisations about 'dirty' play when 'accidents' occur.

Dear lord, you and Taylorman were giving it large last night saying that it was a swinging arm and dirty play by SOB which should have been a red card directly, now this? When I countered I was accused of not considering concussion a serious matter.

Dear me, you do take the cake...

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Great news for O'Brien and the Lions, the right judgement.

Sonny Bill is all class it has to be said, made a mistake but is man enough to admit that, reckless rather than deliberate I feel.

Agreed SBW is a quality character

Didn't he cheat on his bird with someone in some public toilet? Nothing classy about that.

That was Aaron Smith.

SBW set the standard.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/entertainment/sport-stars-in-toilet-tryst/news-story/6bf28d214120abc684ce0fa45f294d9a?sv=a400feb9b2beaf0df6fa763eb74cbe89

He also told a referee to "f*** off" when he didn't like their decision. I'm not a fan.

Who gives a F. Ten years ago when he was 21 he shagged a chick in a toilet when he was 21. These guys are treated like deities at age 21 I would have done the exact same thing.

Fair deuce sBW

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I see SOB has been cleared. Proper order

Munster legend Jim Langford was on the disciplinary committee

I wanted to give myself time before posting on this game, as my emotions were so mixed after the game. Ecstatic with the result, but able to remember just how angry I was with the Lions at 65 minutes. The third quarter was close to the worst 20 minutes I have ever seen from an international team.

The good news is we have won, the bad news is that the performance for most of the game stunk to high heaven. With the red card issued to SBW (is anyone truly stating it was not a correct call?) a half decent performance would have seen the win achieved much more comfortably. Our scrum was wobbly, lineout poor and handling and decision making atrocious. However we were so much stronger in the contact situations, forcing the ABs to play much more from the back foot. Stupid mistakes, and penalties would then undo much of the work.

If I had to grade the players at that 65 minute mark, I would have probably said that Furlong, Farrell, Daly & Watson were delivering satisfactory performances, Itoje, SOB, JD2 were above par and the rest varying degrees below par. Even with teh last 15 minutes I still feel that too many players delivered sub par performances:

(6 is the benchmark for a satisfactory performance):

Williams 5 - Promising in attack, shocker under the high ball
Watson 6 - Solid
JD2 8 - Constatnt threat
Farrell 7 - Grew into the game, kept his nerve to slot the goals
Daly 6 - Solid
Sexton 6 - Improved, but for so long was below par, and chickened out of some contact points
Murray 6 - Good last 15, rest of teh game poorest I have seen him play
Faletau 6 - Too lightweight for too long, but another to improve.
SOB 8 - MotM performance.
Warbs 5 - Mostly anonymous, but deserves credit for keeping team together.
AWJ 5 - Was a great player but yet again he looked laboured and struggled to make an impact.
Itoje 7 - Barnstorming in keeping the Retalock combo quiet - but too many penalties.
Furlong 6 - Solid
George 5 - Decent at the end, but anonymous for too long. Lineout was poor.
Mako 3 - Absolute shocker. Should have been replaced well before his YC.

LT - Nice to get an objective comment.  I am sure many on here feel the same - sadly there a few....

Oh it is still subjective - but less emotional than I would have been yesterday.

Yep a big improvement still needed for next week ...

LondonTiger wrote:I wanted to give myself time before posting on this game, as my emotions were so mixed after the game. Ecstatic with the result, but able to remember just how angry I was with the Lions at 65 minutes. The third quarter was close to the worst 20 minutes I have ever seen from an international team.

The good news is we have won, the bad news is that the performance for most of the game stunk to high heaven. With the red card issued to SBW (is anyone truly stating it was not a correct call?) a half decent performance would have seen the win achieved much more comfortably. Our scrum was wobbly, lineout poor and handling and decision making atrocious. However we were so much stronger in the contact situations, forcing the ABs to play much more from the back foot. Stupid mistakes, and penalties would then undo much of the work.

If I had to grade the players at that 65 minute mark, I would have probably said that Furlong, Farrell, Daly & Watson were delivering satisfactory performances, Itoje, SOB, JD2 were above par and the rest varying degrees below par. Even with teh last 15 minutes I still feel that too many players delivered sub par performances:

(6 is the benchmark for a satisfactory performance):

Williams 5 - Promising in attack, shocker under the high ball
Watson 6 - Solid
JD2 8 - Constatnt threat
Farrell 7 - Grew into the game, kept his nerve to slot the goals
Daly 6 - Solid
Sexton 6 - Improved, but for so long was below par, and chickened out of some contact points
Murray 6 - Good last 15, rest of teh game poorest I have seen him play
Faletau 6 - Too lightweight for too long, but another to improve.
SOB 8 - MotM performance.
Warbs 5 - Mostly anonymous, but deserves credit for keeping team together.
AWJ 5 - Was a great player but yet again he looked laboured and struggled to make an impact.
Itoje 7 - Barnstorming in keeping the Retalock combo quiet - but too many penalties.
Furlong 6 - Solid
George 5 - Decent at the end, but anonymous for too long. Lineout was poor.
Mako 3 - Absolute shocker. Should have been replaced well before his YC.

I would take at least one of two off all those scores

It was shocking bad.

I would also take 3 off itoje. Thanks bought he was very poor except line outs and renstarts. So many needless penalties

Over all performance 5. Including the bonus point for winning

I thought that AWJ had a solid game to be fair. That said, I believe that he should not be in the match day squad next week. Itoje and Lawes have a better balance I fell and Henderson would make an excellent impact sub.

Warburton had a decent game as well but I do get concerned with his on field captaincy. I think he does not get in the boys ears enough to try and compose them.

Te'o has to start at 12, I simply feel that Farrell is too lightweight defensively there. For me, Farrell is either starting 10 or not in the match day squad (same as Sexton) and believe that Biggar should be on the bench.

I would give Mako the start again, he had his brain farts and it is as much Gatlands fault for not subbing him when he was loosing it as it was his fault for loosing it and getting carded.

If Gatland does go with Farrell at 10 then I think he would work better with Webb than Murray but if he goes with Sexton then it is Murray.

Liam Williams, for all his attacking quality is poor under the high ball and the AB's will certainly target that next week if he is selected so I would put Watson at 15 with Daley and Nowell the wings. I would truly love to see Seymore in there though.

eirebilly wrote:I thought that AWJ had a solid game to be fair. That said, I believe that he should not be in the match day squad next week. Itoje and Lawes have a better balance I fell and Henderson would make an excellent impact sub.

Warburton had a decent game as well but I do get concerned with his on field captaincy. I think he does not get in the boys ears enough to try and compose them.

Te'o has to start at 12, I simply feel that Farrell is too lightweight defensively there. For me, Farrell is either starting 10 or not in the match day squad (same as Sexton) and believe that Biggar should be on the bench.

I would give Mako the start again, he had his brain farts and it is as much Gatlands fault for not subbing him when he was loosing it as it was his fault for loosing it and getting carded.

If Gatland does go with Farrell at 10 then I think he would work better with Webb than Murray but if he goes with Sexton then it is Murray.

Liam Williams, for all his attacking quality is poor under the high ball and the AB's will certainly target that next week if he is selected so I would put Watson at 15 with Daley and Nowell the wings. I would truly love to see Seymore in there though.

I think AWJ went well, better than I expected, and I think he works if you just tell him he's got 60 mins. He carried better than Itoje in traffic I think. I really like Lawes, and ordinarily I'd want him starting, but I do worry that a pumped up AB pack could catch him cold, not sure he's a great scrummager either. I'm not sure AWJ deserves to be dropped, but if Lawes started quickly he'd be a worthy replacement. I don't expect it to happen. Plus it would complicate the bench.

I'm worried about Farrell against SBW for 80 mins as well, but it's a tricky one. I thought Sexton went pretty well and was brave taking the ball to the line, and I'd want his partnership with Murray. It'd have to be Webb-Farrell-Teo or Murray-Sexton-Teo. The latter you'd lose the kicking of Farrell, the former misses Sexton's passing and comfort at 10 and his partnership with Murray. There's an argument the first grouping is better, but it's untried, so I imagine you start with the same group and bring Teo on if it's going badly. Of course, the ABs might be out of sight by then. Tough call.

Don't know about Mako. I'm less worried by his ill-discipline than his scrummaging, which looks awful even with Itoje and George with him. He's going to give away penalties surely? But then maybe McGrath will too? I was really impressed with him in defence when he came on, I'd be tempted to start him and have Mako come on for his carrying later.

Williams didn't look great in the air but he's been an excellent running FB. Very harsh to drop him, I've been really impressed by him. I don't think Nowell's done enough to replace him.

Hood83 wrote:
I'm worried about Farrell against SBW for 80 mins as well, but it's a tricky one.

I thought SBW was banned for the next four weeks.

People have been worried about ford and Farrell defensively for 18 months as well.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Hood83 wrote:
I'm worried about Farrell against SBW for 80 mins as well, but it's a tricky one.

I thought SBW was banned for the next four weeks.

He most definitely is banned for the next four weeks.

Sexton should start at 10. Farrell on the bench. Time for some common sense.

Quite right too.  The Lions must have a good lawyer as SOB got way with it the citing against SOB was dismissed.

No 7&1/2 wrote:People have been worried about ford and Farrell defensively for 18 months as well.

That's true. England have been remarkably successful when so many seem to think neither can defend. You would think that such a porous midfield would be a real problem.

Exiledinborders wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:People have been worried about ford and Farrell defensively for 18 months as well.

That's true. England have been remarkably successful when so many seem to think neither can defend. You would think that such a porous midfield would be a real problem.

England havent played NZ for a while. You have to adapt to whats in front of you. Farrell keeps getting exposed.

Sexton and Murray have won twice against the ABs now.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Great news for O'Brien and the Lions, the right judgement.

Sonny Bill is all class it has to be said, made a mistake but is man enough to admit that, reckless rather than deliberate I feel.

Agreed SBW is a quality character

Didn't he cheat on his bird with someone in some public toilet? Nothing classy about that.

That was Aaron Smith.

SBW set the standard.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/entertainment/sport-stars-in-toilet-tryst/news-story/6bf28d214120abc684ce0fa45f294d9a?sv=a400feb9b2beaf0df6fa763eb74cbe89

He also told a referee to "f*** off" when he didn't like their decision. I'm not a fan.

Not defending him but what a player does outside of the pitch is frankly no business of ours. Does it matter that player x doesn't spend all his free time weaving baskets for poor children in Africa or whether he's doing the dirty on his missus? That's his choice. As long as a player doesn't compromise his performance or his teammates then players shouldn't be made to feel like they have to live like monks.

In terms of on the field conduct.... agree its a problem especially with youngsters. Kyle Sinckler looks like a walking penalty, a gobby Joey Barton type but with serious guns (a bad combination).

Then again the England captain has been banned for over a year for gouging, biting, telling a ref he was a "f***ing cheat, headbutting a rival, stamping and punching. But for some reason a bit like the old Richard Loe... I'd want a guy like that on my side.

Farrell has now won twice against nz. So what?

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:You really think so Ebop?

Yup. Hit the ruck by hitting Naholo in the head with a swinging arm that resulted in Naholo losing consciousness.

you dont have a clue.
Move onto to something else he's been cleared

carpet baboon wrote:I thought Hansen said he passed his HIA but they decided to keep him off

No doubt because he knew that would help him make SOBs case look worse at the panel...backfired though. Very NZ type trick to try and draw comparisons with the disgrace that is SBW and SOB being physical. And if anyone wants to see a straight arm in that game then not only did SBW shoulder charge someone in the head, he also straightened his arm as he did it , just to add a little spice to the impact.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Farrell has now won twice against nz. So what?

He is a liability. Kaino and whoever the ABs pick at centre will destroy him in the third test. Bench for him.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Farrell has now won twice against nz. So what?

He is a liability. Kaino and whoever the ABs pick at centre will destroy him in the third test. Bench for him.

Farrell a liability? I don't quite understand that, in what regards?

This is turning into a bit of a farce.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/07/02/lions-flanker-obrien-can-play-third-test

Did Naholo fail a HIA or didn't he?
Word yesterday was he did, now Hansen says he didn't.
If he did fail he shouldn't be playing next week.

My suspicion is that Naholo wasn't knocked out by what would be a pretty standard tackle on a GAA pitch.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Farrell has now won twice against nz. So what?

He is a liability. Kaino and whoever the ABs pick at centre will destroy him in the third test. Bench for him.

Farrell a liability? I don't quite understand that, in what regards?

Did you read my post? In defense. The majority of the ABs yards are coming through him. They will have a field day again if he starts at 12. Bench. Time for some common sense.

Engine#4 wrote:This is turning into a bit of a farce.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/07/02/lions-flanker-obrien-can-play-third-test

Did Naholo fail a HIA or didn't he?
Word yesterday was he did, now Hansen says he didn't.
If he did fail he shouldn't be playing next week.

My suspicion is that Naholo wasn't knocked out by what would be a pretty standard tackle on a GAA pitch.

Now let me think, he failed it before the panel and he didnt fail it after SOB was found not guilty at the panel .....if it smells bad thats because NZ have embellished it in order to cause problems for SOB which failed and now SOB is in the clear they suddenly need Naholo back

I do hope Hansen has something else up his sleeve for Test 3 other than Warrenball.

fa0019 wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Great news for O'Brien and the Lions, the right judgement.

Sonny Bill is all class it has to be said, made a mistake but is man enough to admit that, reckless rather than deliberate I feel.

Agreed SBW is a quality character

Didn't he cheat on his bird with someone in some public toilet? Nothing classy about that.

That was Aaron Smith.

SBW set the standard.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/entertainment/sport-stars-in-toilet-tryst/news-story/6bf28d214120abc684ce0fa45f294d9a?sv=a400feb9b2beaf0df6fa763eb74cbe89

He also told a referee to "f*** off" when he didn't like their decision. I'm not a fan.

Not defending him but what a player does outside of the pitch is frankly no business of ours. Does it matter that player x doesn't spend all his free time weaving baskets for poor children in Africa or whether he's doing the dirty on his missus? That's his choice. As long as a player doesn't compromise his performance or his teammates then players shouldn't be made to feel like they have to live like monks.

In terms of on the field conduct.... agree its a problem especially with youngsters. Kyle Sinckler looks like a walking penalty, a gobby Joey Barton type but with serious guns (a bad combination).

Then again the England captain has been banned for over a year for gouging, biting, telling a ref he was a "f***ing cheat, headbutting a rival, stamping and punching. But for some reason a bit like the old Richard Loe... I'd want a guy like that on my side.

Save the wishy washy apologist nonsense, please. Someone described him as a class act and I disagreed, and gave my reasons why. I believe that the conduct of a player on and off the pitch is important. So do other professional players it seems. Look up the reaction from the likes of Jerome Kaino after Aaron Smith's off-the-field antics, for example. I'm glad he takes it seriously.

Yeah Farrells a liability. Ho hum.

He is. The ABs have targeted him sucessfully in two tests now.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Farrell has now won twice against nz. So what?

He is a liability. Kaino and whoever the ABs pick at centre will destroy him in the third test. Bench for him.

Its all about picking on the faults of the players from every other country except your own. We all do it.

Eh no its not its about pointing out the bleedin obvious. Both Mako and Farrell should be dropped. Both liabilities.

Mako is a penalty machiene and a brain dead rugby specialist and it tactically makes perfect sense to drop Farrell as the ABs keep sucessfully targeting him.

There is a case for bringing in 1/2p for williams as Williams cant catch.

George had a great game as did Watson and Daly.

I'm glad England don't have a liability like Farrell playing.

Dont drop anyone, just fecking humiliate them in the teamroom and tell fools like Mako and Sinckler to get a grip and idiots like itoje to read the rule book.

The side picks itself.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm glad England don't have a liability like Farrell playing.

Sorry this isnt England v The ABs. If there is a tactically better option than Farrell which there is it should be taken. A series is on the line.

At 12 against the AB's, I also feel that Farrell is a defensive liability as it forces SOB to cover him defensively. It works for England as they are a very attacking side but it does not suit the way Gatland plays.

This is no slight on Farrell as I would say the same about Sexton if he were at 12. In my mind it simply does not work. Against the AB's and with Gatlands tactics, you need a big defensive 12.

I think that Te'o is also badly under-rated in attack, he is not just a defensive player but he also crosses the gainline and has a very good offload. He and Davies looked very comfortable in the first test.

Just popping into to say well done to the Lions and New Zealand for creating a very enjoyable tour.

Results
Lions 5.5-3.5 NZ
Whilst the Lions have already won the tour, the dead rubber match next week should be interesting to see if NZ can respond well.

Tour Tries
Lions 15-10 NZ

Tour Successful Penalty kicks
Lions 28-20 NZ

Commiserations NZ, you put up a great fight.

Roll on the next tour.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm glad England don't have a liability like Farrell playing.

Sorry this isnt England v The ABs. If there is a tactically better option than Farrell which there is it should be taken. A series is on the line.

During his tenure & 2 SH victories with Wales (1 vs. SA, 1 vs. AUS) the other home nations won 21 matches vs. the 3N.... not playing warrenball. Gatland has played warrenball against the 3N sides 36 times (WAL & LIONS)...he has won 4 only inc. 2 with the Lions vs in 2013. 11 times he took on NZ with the same strategy and he only got within a score once... his average deficit was 20 points.

The one time he changed it he ended up winning.

... and then somehow people think Gatland should revert back to his tried and test model which almost always guaranteed defeat vs. the best teams in the world.

Pot Hale wrote:Just popping into to say well done to the Lions and New Zealand for creating a very enjoyable tour.

Results
Lions 5.5-3.5 NZ
Whilst the Lions have already won the tour, the dead rubber match next week should be interesting to see if NZ can respond well.

Tour Tries
Lions 15-10 NZ

Tour Successful Penalty kicks
Lions 28-20 NZ

Commiserations NZ, you put up a great fight.    

Roll on the next tour.

At this point of the tour in 2005 the Lions were 5 wins three losses with a far bigger try differential.
So you're saying this side is worse than 2005?

Righty o then. Sounds like by accepting the series win now you're also too afraid to play the third?

Pack up and go home time?

Did you forget about the last Lions series win Fa? Anyway it isnt about Warrenball. Farrell isnt playing well. It isnt worth sacrificing the gainline for 80 minutes just for the off chance he might make one key pass or one kick per game.

Taylorman wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Just popping into to say well done to the Lions and New Zealand for creating a very enjoyable tour.

Results
Lions 5.5-3.5 NZ
Whilst the Lions have already won the tour, the dead rubber match next week should be interesting to see if NZ can respond well.

Tour Tries
Lions 15-10 NZ

Tour Successful Penalty kicks
Lions 28-20 NZ

Commiserations NZ, you put up a great fight.    

Roll on the next tour.

At this point of the tour in 2005 the Lions were 5 wins three losses with a far bigger try differential.
So you're saying this side is worse than 2005?

Righty o then. Sounds like by accepting the series win now you're also too afraid to play the third?

Pack up and go home time?

I think the response to that is pretty obvious Taylorman. The Lions didnt play Super rugby sides in 05. In the build up to this series you yourself backed the majority of the super rugby sides to win.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Just popping into to say well done to the Lions and New Zealand for creating a very enjoyable tour.

Results
Lions 5.5-3.5 NZ
Whilst the Lions have already won the tour, the dead rubber match next week should be interesting to see if NZ can respond well.

Tour Tries
Lions 15-10 NZ

Tour Successful Penalty kicks
Lions 28-20 NZ

Commiserations NZ, you put up a great fight.    

Roll on the next tour.

At this point of the tour in 2005 the Lions were 5 wins three losses with a far bigger try differential.
So you're saying this side is worse than 2005?

Righty o then. Sounds like by accepting the series win now you're also too afraid to play the third?

Pack up and go home time?

I think the response to that is pretty obvious Taylorman. The Lions didnt play Super rugby sides in 05. In the build up to this series you yourself backed the majority of the super rugby sides to win.

before the tour I picked two Super sides to win. I got one of the two wrong but still got two, and last time I checked two is not out of five a majority. I picked the Lions to lose two non tests, that's what's happened so far, and picked the Lions to lose the series three nil, as most on this site did, so I'm not alone on that count. On the night I will of course support all of our teams, that's what we do.

So far, bar this second test, things have gone exactly as I'd expected and I expect the ABs to win the third.

Lions are really quite predictable really, this side drawing similar parallels to 77 and 93.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Did you forget about the last Lions series win Fa? Anyway it isnt about Warrenball. Farrell isnt playing well. It isnt worth sacrificing the gainline for 80 minutes just for the off chance he might make one key pass or one kick per game.

Warrenball occasionally worked and with the ridiculous depth Gatland had... it just got over the line in 2013 against a terrible side we must remember... that side lost to Samoa and Scotland at home in the same RWC cycle. The Lions pulled away at the end, it was more AUS being utterly shattered then anything. It was crazy how everyone said.... oh it was because he dropped BOD. Utter bull, it was because a) he depth was so great that he could make wholesale changes, bring in fresh players whilst the opposition 23 remained unchanged and played 2 wars in the weeks preseeding.

Yet how anyone can say a 2-1 win vs. AUS (which EJ bettered against a better AUS team 3 years later) should mean the same platform should be utilised vs. NZ is laughable. Its like Manchester United playing Real Madrid in a strategy that worked against Bury Town.

The problem I saw in this game last was the weather. Play was tight... forget the card for a minute, when NZ had the ball in hand they barely spread it more than 2 passes at a time. Their OC had to brush off icicles off his legs given the lack of ball he got.

I don't see how he played badly. He missed one tackle vs. Kaino. Anything else? Made all bar 1 kick in terrible conditions... his first penalty given the circumstances was world class. Had a hand in Murray's try and without his well executed pass Faletau wouldn't have had the space to score his try. It was quite a vital contribution.

NZ can deal with T'eo. He's a good player but every SR team in NZ has a player like T'eo. With SBW out and Crotty probably replacing him I think the dynamic of the midfield changes and Farrell is still better suited. Maybe if SBW was playing but if you want to score tries... Farrell needs to play IMO.

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Just popping into to say well done to the Lions and New Zealand for creating a very enjoyable tour.

Results
Lions 5.5-3.5 NZ
Whilst the Lions have already won the tour, the dead rubber match next week should be interesting to see if NZ can respond well.

Tour Tries
Lions 15-10 NZ

Tour Successful Penalty kicks
Lions 28-20 NZ

Commiserations NZ, you put up a great fight.    

Roll on the next tour.

At this point of the tour in 2005 the Lions were 5 wins three losses with a far bigger try differential.
So you're saying this side is worse than 2005?

Righty o then. Sounds like by accepting the series win now you're also too afraid to play the third?

Pack up and go home time?

I think the response to that is pretty obvious Taylorman. The Lions didnt play Super rugby sides in 05. In the build up to this series you yourself backed the majority of the super rugby sides to win.

before the tour I picked two Super sides to win. I got one of the two wrong but still got two, and last time I checked two is not out of five a majority. I picked the Lions to lose two non tests, that's what's happened so far, and picked the Lions to lose the series three nil, as most on this site did, so I'm not alone on that count. On the night I will of course support all of our teams, that's what we do.

So far, bar this second test, things have gone exactly as I'd expected and I expect the ABs to win the third.

Lions are really quite predictable really, this side drawing similar parallels to 77 and 93.

Who was better though... the 93 lions or the 17 lions? (too young for the 77 lions myself).

I'd say the lions in 93 was near as perfect lions side as I've ever seen since... hell Mike Teague only got on the bench on that tour.

fa0019 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Just popping into to say well done to the Lions and New Zealand for creating a very enjoyable tour.

Results
Lions 5.5-3.5 NZ
Whilst the Lions have already won the tour, the dead rubber match next week should be interesting to see if NZ can respond well.

Tour Tries
Lions 15-10 NZ

Tour Successful Penalty kicks
Lions 28-20 NZ

Commiserations NZ, you put up a great fight.    

Roll on the next tour.

At this point of the tour in 2005 the Lions were 5 wins three losses with a far bigger try differential.
So you're saying this side is worse than 2005?

Righty o then. Sounds like by accepting the series win now you're also too afraid to play the third?

Pack up and go home time?

I think the response to that is pretty obvious Taylorman. The Lions didnt play Super rugby sides in 05. In the build up to this series you yourself backed the majority of the super rugby sides to win.

before the tour I picked two Super sides to win. I got one of the two wrong but still got two, and last time I checked two is not out of five a majority. I picked the Lions to lose two non tests, that's what's happened so far, and picked the Lions to lose the series three nil, as most on this site did, so I'm not alone on that count. On the night I will of course support all of our teams, that's what we do.

So far, bar this second test, things have gone exactly as I'd expected and I expect the ABs to win the third.

Lions are really quite predictable really, this side drawing similar parallels to 77 and 93.

Who was better though... the 93 lions or the 17 lions? (too young for the 77 lions myself).

I'd say the lions in 93 was near as perfect lions side as I've ever seen since... hell Mike Teague only got on the bench on that tour.

Thee second test in 93 was much more conclusive than this fall over the line win with a fortunate penalty to win it, even if the Lions were more dominant, you'd expect that with a man down.

Lions fouled all over the place this time around so it's all based on negative, disruptive pressure rather than skill based tactics. That doesn't usually win a series.

If the Lions win the third it will rate as the best Lions team after the 74 side in my mind, as the 71 Lions only scraped through over one of the poorer AB sides. This AB side is relatively better than the 71 side.

Agree with a lot of what you are saying there Fa but I dont think dropoing Farrell is the difference between Warrenball or not I think Teo is playing better at 12 and Sexton better at 10 simple as that.