B&I Lions tour 2021
Discussion
DodgyGeezer said:
I think it's telling that only a few emerged from this tour 'in credit'
Laws
Itoje
Smith (for his cameo)
Russell(?)
LCD, marginally
More had their reputations severely tarnished
Gatland...
I'd say Lawes is a bit of a stretch.Laws
Itoje
Smith (for his cameo)
Russell(?)
LCD, marginally
More had their reputations severely tarnished
Gatland...
He had one standout half of rugby across 3 tests, and wasn't at his best for the remainder. Not that he was significantly worse than anyone else in the pack, but he was nowhere near Itoje's levels.
I'd say that AWJ deserves a fair amount of credit. To come back from that injury and put in top tackler performances in the first two tests (and second only to Itoje last weekend) is ridiculous.
He doesn't do the flashy stuff, but he's absolutely everywhere, all of the bloody time. And you don't get close to the Boks without players like that in the pack.
Price also proved quite a few people wrong. 9 was objectively our weakest position going into this tour, and he proved himself capable of generating momentum and quick ball against a bloody tough defence.
DocJock said:
Agreed re AWJ. The bloke has an incredible work rate and does the hard work that is not obvious at first.
It's the old adage of "unseen work", but you do not run the Boks to a 3pt win in a test series without someone being a horrible bugger to play against like AWJ.If Tom Curry could have played that sort of game, we'd have run them a lot closer overall I think. Henderson is a player in much the same mould, as is Navidi. Mind-boggling that neither played a minute of test rugby this tour.
DocJock said:
Hogg was the biggest disappointment for me. Totally exposed under the high ball.
Agreed with Hogg. Such a shame given his history and finally getting a test start, but he was poor. Anthony Watson also had uncharacteristically poor games in the first two tests.I don't know that many other players stood out for being so obviously poor individually, but Lawes and Curry did not deserve to start 3 tests. Any combination of Watson, Navidi, Henderson, and Toby could have provided a different dynamic in that back row alongside Conan (who was good, without being great).
The lack of a midweek game between the tests made changes in the test squads a risky business, because you have guys who haven't played for 2-3wks by that stage. By the time of the third test, the only options available to Gatland were to fiddle around the margins and load the bench with 'impact' players like Simmonds, Sinckler and Finn.
DodgyGeezer said:
Whose reputation suffered thanks to this tour?
I think Gatland's reputation suffered the most. His stubborn determination to play forward focussed, kicking rugby against SA is what lost the Lions the series. Calling out the TMO's impartiality. No plan B until Biggar went off injured - and I'm not even sure it was Gatland's gameplan that Russell was playing to in the first half of the 3rd test. His gritted teeth acknowledgement that Russell played well in the post match interview (whilst picking out 3 things he did wrong) suggests as much.I thought Gatland was a superb coach before this tour.
Edited by towser on Tuesday 10th August 11:36
C70R said:
Agreed with Hogg. Such a shame given his history and finally getting a test start, but he was poor. Anthony Watson also had uncharacteristically poor games in the first two tests.
I don't know that many other players stood out for being so obviously poor individually, but Lawes and Curry did not deserve to start 3 tests. Any combination of Watson, Navidi, Henderson, and Toby could have provided a different dynamic in that back row alongside Conan (who was good, without being great).
The lack of a midweek game between the tests made changes in the test squads a risky business, because you have guys who haven't played for 2-3wks by that stage. By the time of the third test, the only options available to Gatland were to fiddle around the margins and load the bench with 'impact' players like Simmonds, Sinckler and Finn.
The lack of midweek games is a valid point and has not done the Lions any favours - but then the saffas had no midweek games either to get fringe players in....I don't know that many other players stood out for being so obviously poor individually, but Lawes and Curry did not deserve to start 3 tests. Any combination of Watson, Navidi, Henderson, and Toby could have provided a different dynamic in that back row alongside Conan (who was good, without being great).
The lack of a midweek game between the tests made changes in the test squads a risky business, because you have guys who haven't played for 2-3wks by that stage. By the time of the third test, the only options available to Gatland were to fiddle around the margins and load the bench with 'impact' players like Simmonds, Sinckler and Finn.
Henderson is unlucky in that there were two outstanding players in his position. I was surprised he never made the bench though.
Watson, and especially Navidi, were unlucky too. I didn't think Faletau did anything particularly well to warrant more time on the pitch.
I was surprised by the total inability of any of our six, back three players to cope with just catching a ball. Very disappointing.
Watson, and especially Navidi, were unlucky too. I didn't think Faletau did anything particularly well to warrant more time on the pitch.
I was surprised by the total inability of any of our six, back three players to cope with just catching a ball. Very disappointing.
towser said:
Calling out the TMO's impartiality
This is the weird thing for me. If you look hard, you'll never find a direct quote where he called into question the TMO's impartiality.All you had was a load of "Gatland is said to be furious" stuff written by the gutter press, which was picked up on and redistributed as fact by social media accounts looking for clicks/engagement.
It pays to read behind the headlines in this instance.
DodgyGeezer said:
C70R said:
Agreed with Hogg. Such a shame given his history and finally getting a test start, but he was poor. Anthony Watson also had uncharacteristically poor games in the first two tests.
I don't know that many other players stood out for being so obviously poor individually, but Lawes and Curry did not deserve to start 3 tests. Any combination of Watson, Navidi, Henderson, and Toby could have provided a different dynamic in that back row alongside Conan (who was good, without being great).
The lack of a midweek game between the tests made changes in the test squads a risky business, because you have guys who haven't played for 2-3wks by that stage. By the time of the third test, the only options available to Gatland were to fiddle around the margins and load the bench with 'impact' players like Simmonds, Sinckler and Finn.
The lack of midweek games is a valid point and has not done the Lions any favours - but then the saffas had no midweek games either to get fringe players in....I don't know that many other players stood out for being so obviously poor individually, but Lawes and Curry did not deserve to start 3 tests. Any combination of Watson, Navidi, Henderson, and Toby could have provided a different dynamic in that back row alongside Conan (who was good, without being great).
The lack of a midweek game between the tests made changes in the test squads a risky business, because you have guys who haven't played for 2-3wks by that stage. By the time of the third test, the only options available to Gatland were to fiddle around the margins and load the bench with 'impact' players like Simmonds, Sinckler and Finn.
Yes, they called in players like the du Preez lads from Sale to be part of their training squad, but they've had a much clearer idea of their best 15/23 players for a while now.
Taking the best from 4 different countries can be a real hinderance when the warm-up games don't really put them under any pressure to perform.
COVID has a lot to answer for in terms of the quality of this tour.
C70R said:
DocJock said:
Hogg was the biggest disappointment for me. Totally exposed under the high ball.
Agreed with Hogg. Such a shame given his history and finally getting a test start, but he was poor. Evanivitch said:
Leithen said:
Reduce scrums to five players. Scrums aren't awarded to either side, instead the ref puts the ball in straight and hookers have to hook again.
So what's the point of penalising a knock on?You could take it a step further by the non-offending hooker lifting a hand to signal to the ref when he wants the ball in.
Hey presto, the non-offending side gets all the advantages they should get from a straight scrum feed, without any of the benefits of a crooked one.
Sadly scrums have just become a mechanism to milk penalties and burn up copious amounts of time. The refs are usually former backs and don't have a clue what's going on, but who actually does?
Hookers haven't hooked for ages. Don't know the answer. Go a la rugby league and just use them as a way of restarting the game. Still need the big/fat blokes for mauls, rucks, lineouts.
Hookers haven't hooked for ages. Don't know the answer. Go a la rugby league and just use them as a way of restarting the game. Still need the big/fat blokes for mauls, rucks, lineouts.
C70R said:
Let's be honest, tinkering around the edges of scrum laws is going to change absolutely nothing about the game.
What's needed is for referees to actually start applying the existing laws consistently. It's that simple.
I think if they go back to basics in the scrum and lineout it will make a lot of difference.What's needed is for referees to actually start applying the existing laws consistently. It's that simple.
Put the ball I'm straight and contest the strike.
Stop lifting at the lineout and restarts etc.
Full on red card for anyone "appealing" for a decision.
Allow old school ruck clearing.
Award points to any forward who grabs the collar of an opponent and lands a decent punch face to face.
5 points to a scrum half who tries to take on a second row in a fair fight.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff