Lions vs Brumbies Lineup

Rightwing

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think in future the mid week games will be scrapped and it will just be a 3 test series. If the club teams have their international players withdrawn the games are not competitive enough. I got sky sports for this and there was no point. 3 trips to the pub for the tests would have been enough.

Have to agree with this, the series has been poor, maybe they got scheduling a bit wrong but overall, we've been sold a pup.

Buer

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think in future the mid week games will be scrapped and it will just be a 3 test series. If the club teams have their international players withdrawn the games are not competitive enough. I got sky sports for this and there was no point. 3 trips to the pub for the tests would have been enough.

I don't think so. It's just the fact of the matter when touring Australia. It has always been the easiest tour for the Lions both in the test matches (15/20 won) and in the midweek games where there have been generally far softer too. Union is too far down the pecking order in Australia to be as big a challenge (AFL, league, basketball and cricket are all far more popular sports).

Come the NZ tour, it will be back to the usual with the provincial teams being populated with guys who'd be capped internationals in other countries, much more of a buzz and a real competitive nature to every game.

sydthebeat

Rightwing wrote: »

Have to agree with this, the series has been poor, maybe they got scheduling a bit wrong but overall, we've been sold a pup.

Can't se why you'd say this even before the first test?

Do you want to go back to the sixties where they lost half the games on tour?

Personally I haven't been sold anything, its cost me nothing to have this mouthwatering exhibition on every week for at least five weeks. They've so far had two good tests that they have come through well. Lets not forget that this is a strong lions squad and it is a weak time in australian rugby, relatively speaking.

I will be very surprised if theres m ore than 25 points between the teams on aggregate over the three tests.

trouttrout

Rightwing wrote: »

Have to agree with this, the series has been poor, maybe they got scheduling a bit wrong but overall, we've been sold a pup.

:rolleyes:
So you're saying the series has been poor? Even before the first test?

You'd swear any of the previous tours warmup games were in anyway better

The reds game and the Tah's game were very good

.ak

TBH I think the midweek games are crucial to the lions, regardless of the quality of opposition. You're talking about a team comprised of players from 4 nations meeting up at the end of the season. They need games to gel.

who_me

Can't see how that Lions backline is going to gel, given how it's being cobbled together at the last minute. It's like a Baa-Baa's side, but without the flair.

I'd still hope the Lions can win, but it'll be much tighter than the games thus far.

fishook

lions will win this game too, bumbies willbe good but not good enough

Digifriendly

who_me wrote: »

Can't see how that Lions backline is going to gel, given how it's being cobbled together at the last minute. It's like a Baa-Baa's side, but without the flair.

I'd still hope the Lions can win, but it'll be much tighter than the games thus far.

Wade and Williams - no flair?

Tim Robbins

Buer wrote: »

Come the NZ tour, it will be back to the usual with the provincial teams being populated with guys who'd be capped internationals in other countries, much more of a buzz and a real competitive nature to every game.

The last time they didn't even play the NZ super 15 teams. I don't think a tour against the b teams of Australia is much to write home about.

The point of rugby is that it is a team sport. Sometimes Leinster, Ulster or Munster can be better than Ireland even thou they are weaker on paper. This is because they play week in week out and have their tactics honed to suit the team's strengths. If Leinster / Munster were in a heineken cup game and had all their internationals withdrawn it would completely devalue the heineken cup. I make the same point about this Lions tour.

Digifriendly

sydthebeat wrote: »

Do you want to go back to the sixties where they lost half the games on tour?

None of the teams in the 60's ('62 S. Africa; '66 NZ and '68 S. Africa) lost half the games on tour. The worst record percentage wise was the '66 side which lost just over a quarter of the games played.

fishook

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The last time they didn't even play the NZ super 15 teams. I don't think a tour against the b teams of Australia is much to write home about.

The point of rugby is that it is a team sport. Sometimes Leinster, Ulster or Munster can be better than Ireland even thou they are weaker on paper. This is because they play week in week out and have their tactics honed to suit the team's strengths. If Leinster / Munster were in a heineken cup game and had all their internationals withdrawn it would completely devalue the heineken cup. I make the same point about this Lions tour.

Did new zealand beat them?

OnTheCouch

Buer wrote: »

I don't think so. It's just the fact of the matter when touring Australia. It has always been the easiest tour for the Lions both in the test matches (15/20 won) and in the midweek games where there have been generally far softer too. Union is too far down the pecking order in Australia to be as big a challenge (AFL, league, basketball and cricket are all far more popular sports).

Come the NZ tour, it will be back to the usual with the provincial teams being populated with guys who'd be capped internationals in other countries, much more of a buzz and a real competitive nature to every game.

Some are advocating starting up tours to Argentina again, now that the Pumas have finally entered the Rugby Championship and with the rumours that a domestic professional competition will be set up in the next few years.

Nevertheless, I feel that Buer's argument above regarding Australia would be mirrored exactly if an Argentinian tour actually happened in the future, tough test matches, but nowhere near the amount of depth required to field quality provincial teams who can really challenge the Lions. Plus huge competition from other sports.

Buer

OnTheCouch wrote: »

Nevertheless, I feel that Buer's argument above regarding Australia would be mirrored exactly if an Argentinian tour actually happened in the future, tough test matches, but nowhere near the amount of depth required to field quality provincial teams who can really challenge the Lions. Plus huge competition from other sports.

I'd absolutely love an Argentine tour if the infrastructure and systems were in place but they simply cannot host at this point in time. It will take a generation for these things to be in place. There's no professional rugby in Argentina. We saw what a second string England did to a second string national side there at the weekend. The local sides would be absolutely decimated far more than any Australian side.

In truth, this tour has not been that one sided. There have been huge scores put up in most tours. If the tour finishes with the highest score being 64 then that will be the lowest high score since 1993.

Podge_irl

The only way the Lions will ever play Argentina is in a curtain-raiser game. There isn't enough of a rugby system there and it has no history anyway. Besides, the SANZAR nations won't want the tours going from every 12 years to every 16 - they make too much money off them.

Buer

Podge_irl wrote: »

There isn't enough of a rugby system there and it has no history anyway..

Lions have toured Argentina a couple of times back in the day.

who_me

Digifriendly wrote: »

Wade and Williams - no flair?

I was talking more in terms of the gameplan - the Baa-Baas being a hastily cobbled together side who try to play with flamboyance; this Lions team (well, backline) is a hastily cobbled together side who probably won't.

OnTheCouch

Buer wrote: »

I'd absolutely love an Argentine tour if the infrastructure and systems were in place but they simply cannot host at this point in time. It will take a generation for these things to be in place. There's no professional rugby in Argentina. We saw what a second string England did to a second string national side there at the weekend. The local sides would be absolutely decimated far more than any Australian side.

True, I found it a little concerning for Argentinian rugby how easily their second team was defeated by their English equivalents. Granted, I expected England to win, simply down to the sheer amount of resources they have, plus Argentina fielded many amateur players, but thought that home advantage would make the games fairly close. But no, they were comprehensively beaten in both matches.

So yeah, it will take many years I'd imagine before the question of a possible Lions tour there can be seriously asked.

subfreq

For Australia to keep the test series competitive they have to withdraw the test players from the midweek and prep games.

I think the Lions have had the perfect prep. Backlines get to run patterns, forwards get to run patterns and combinations.

They will have had 6 games together before the test and Australia have not played together since November with many new faces and injuries to their set up!

What do people want? At this rate the Lions are dropping like flies with "easy" fixtures. I hardly see how harder games would have helped this tour.

For Paws

Point 1. How can the Australians justify withdrawing their entire squad from non-Test matches ?. Reds & 'Tahs players particularly. The match against the 'Combined' should have been scheduled for tomorrow as the last non-Test game.
there was plenty of time between the Reds v Lions & 'Tahs v Lions games and the 1st Test for at least some Oz squad players to have been available.

The result of this policy is a run of non-competitive fixtures leading up to a Test match against players without recent match experience (as a team).

Point 2. Prior to the Lions Squad announcement it night have been wise (and decent) of Gatty to ring the guys who were going to miss out, comiserate with them and also remind them that 'call-ups' are part of every tour.
How the fcuk do Visser or Ashton (for example) feel to see Shane Williams called up to play (yet another) Lions game ahead of them ?

Rotten thing to do imo.

sydthebeat

A far as I know there was a ' stands by cover' list, and players knew they were on it.

Also, how do we know sw wasn't notified to be stand by?

For Paws

sydthebeat wrote: »

A far as I know there was a ' stands by cover' list, and players knew they were on it.

Also, how do we know sw wasn't notified to be stand by?

Ah yes, see your point now.

While making up the 'Stand by / Cover List' Gatty, Andy & Graham scour old Lions tour photo albums. ("Remember Shane, great little winger .... must see if he's around. Pity Big Tim is on holiday on Mars, he'd have been good too").

What are the odds of the entire rugby media missing out on SW being an obvious 'stand by' and Visser / Brown / Ashton not being considered ?

sydthebeat

Can you name all those on stand by??

The point about sw is logistical and its been done to death already.

phog

Buer wrote: »

I won't bother acknowledging the repeated rhetorical questions.

I'm sure he was relaxing and on holiday mode but that doesn't exactly mean he's in the boozer every day. He's not going to lose a huge amount of fitness in a few weeks if he has been looking after himself.

Regardless, you've a big issue with his call up and that he's not fit to do the job, I don't think he'll let anyone down. Moving on.

I had an issue with Williams being called up, he's there now so best of luck to him.

My previous points were to clarify while he clearly hasn't retired from rugby he's playing it at a lower level than what one would expect to see players being called up to for the Lions squad, he's also wouldn't be as sharp as the players who were involved with their countries in summer tours. I also think his fitness levels would not be that of the likes of Visser who would probably have loved the opportunity to play just one midweek game for the Lions.

.ak

Don't see the issue of using SW in a non-game when he's a short journey away from the camp. Logistics at this stage of the tour is massive.

For Paws

sydthebeat wrote: »

Can you name all those on stand by??

The point about sw is logistical and its been done to death already.

Can you ?
Can anybody ?

I wasn't aware (unlike yourself it would seem) that a definitive list existed,
but it seems odd that those players considered by many knowledgeable sources to have been in contention for selection to the squad were not judged to be available to be included in this category.

How likely is it that somebody like Visser would choose to take himself off on a 'remote area trek combined with excessive eating holiday' in Alaska if he had been asked to place himself on stand by ?.

And if he wasn't in Alaska wtf wasn't he flown out ?
A Lions jersey, maybe the only chance he'll ever get one ?
He have walked to Australia & played like a champion !

subfreq

For Paws wrote: »

Point 1. How can the Australians justify withdrawing their entire squad from non-Test matches ?. Reds & 'Tahs players particularly. The match against the 'Combined' should have been scheduled for tomorrow as the last non-Test game.
there was plenty of time between the Reds v Lions & 'Tahs v Lions games and the 1st Test for at least some Oz squad players to have been available.

They were for the Tahs and Brumbies games.

Should the BIL also be forced to play BOD in these fixture because the Aussie clubs have an equal right to demand the strongest team?

The Wallabies, already decimated by injury, could have barely made it to the tests if they gave the front line players further games as proved by the late injuries in the last round of the S15.

sydthebeat

If you don't know any players who were told they were on stand by, fine, but some have already come out and said it...perhaps you should look it up.

On the sw point, if by 'in this category' you mean a wing player in australia who's available for one game'...then your pool of players is very limited isn't it

OnTheCouch

For Paws wrote: »

Can you ?
Can anybody ?

I wasn't aware (unlike yourself it would seem) that a definitive list existed,
but it seems odd that those players considered by many knowledgeable sources to have been in contention for selection to the squad were not judged to be available to be included in this category.

How likely is it that somebody like Visser would choose to take himself off on a 'remote area trek combined with excessive eating holiday' in Alaska if he had been asked to place himself on stand by ?.

And if he wasn't in Alaska wtf wasn't he flown out ?
A Lions jersey, maybe the only chance he'll ever get one ?
He have walked to Australia & played like a champion !

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the standby list available for consultation when the squad was originally announced? Although perhaps not, as I'm sure the media would have been all over it had Shane Williams's name been included.

We've already gone through the pros & cons of Ashton, but yeah, Visser can feel fairly hard done by as well. Aside from a potential suspect defence, he's extremely potent and not many players have scored twice against the All-Blacks in one of their first international tests.

For Paws

sydthebeat wrote: »

If you don't know any players who were told they were on stand by, fine, but some have already come out and said it...perhaps you should look it up.

On the sw point, if by 'in this category' you mean a wing player in australia who's available for one game'...then your pool of players is very limited isn't it

Know where I could 'look it up' ?

Can't wait to read SW's name on it.

I should of course reveal at this point that I was asked by the Lions management to place myself on 'stand by' and to travel should the need arise.
However, up to this point modesty has prevented me from making this public.

Rightwing

OnTheCouch wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the standby list available for consultation when the squad was originally announced? Although perhaps not, as I'm sure the media would have been all over it had Shane Williams's name been included.

We've already gone through the pros & cons of Ashton, but yeah, Visser can feel fairly hard done by as well. Aside from a potential suspect defence, he's extremely potent and not many players have scored twice against the All-Blacks in one of their first international tests.

There was a standby list for players like Best & Corbisiero, there was always a chance they'd get called up. An unexpected amount of injuries on the wing, so Williams wouldn't have been on any list, it's just a stop gap situation.

phog

OnTheCouch wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the standby list available for consultation when the squad was originally announced? Although perhaps not, as I'm sure the media would have been all over it had Shane Williams's name been included.

We've already gone through the pros & cons of Ashton, but yeah, Visser can feel fairly hard done by as well. Aside from a potential suspect defence, he's extremely potent and not many players have scored twice against the All-Blacks in one of their first international tests.

I can recall reading that Zebo had indicated he wasn't on standby, yet, he's out there now. I certainly haven't seen an official Lions standby list.

Grandpa Hassan

Rightwing wrote: »

There was a standby list for players like Best & Corbisiero, there was always a chance they'd get called up. An unexpected amount of injuries on the wing, so Williams wouldn't have been on any list, it's just a stop gap situation.

Wade said he wasn't on standby either. We've moved well beyond the standby list in the backs!

Rightwing

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Wade said he wasn't on standby either. We've moved well beyond the standby list in the backs!

There's probably 1 or 2 at home that are on the list, eg Robshaw. Just the way the injuries pan out.

LeeroyJones

No Standby List was ever announced, however 30 players had Visa paperwork completed in the event they were summoned on short-notice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/britishandirishlionsrugby/10055003/British-and-Irish-Lions-2013-Warren-Gatland-optimistic-Brian-ODriscoll-will-be-fit-for-Australia-tour.html

Swan Curry

Is this on at 10:00 or 10:30?

Buer

Swan Curry wrote: »

Is this on at 10:00 or 10:30?

10.40 kick off.

pebbles21

Anyone got a link for this game yet? Please/

bilston

If you're listening on the radio in the UK or if you can get Talksport in the Republic Tommy Bowe is doing the analysis on the radio commentary. I'm sure it won't be anything overly insightful as he is hardly going to criticise his fellow teammates but could be worth a listen I suppose.

JRant

Looking forward to this. I think the Lion's team will surprise a few people today.