The looking forward to the Lions Tour thread

[Fan with smartphone]

That hurricanes team
Tough match for anyone trying to force their way into the tests.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I like Owen Farrell but he was absolutely brutal. Barrett mixed up his game a lot more almost evenly dividing possession between run, pass and kick. When he ran, he made yards and beat defenders. Farrell was content with passing all day and when he ran, he made negative yardage. Sexton would have been a far bigger threat with ball in hand and with his kicking from hand.

I think that's harsh on Farrell but yeah he wasn't near his usual standard. I think the mistake was picking him after he'd been injured and Sexton had played well rather than just him not being as good as Sexton. I'd pick him again next week and expect him to be better.

[simonokeeffe]

AWJ in attack



Warrenball/10 man rugby didnt work so Gatty has 2 choices now: Plan A again and hope a French ref makes all the difference or Plan B and actually play rugby and pick guys who will live with the pace and slow down NZ ball
He wont swap the looseheads but Itoje should start (pressures their lineout and takes carrying pressure of Kruis too), Henderson should be on bench, start Warburton, drop POM for Stander, drop Te'o for Sexton or Henshaw

My boy James Davies played really well

[OTT]

I thought the Lions were pretty decent, they are what they are. NZ attacked them up the middle which I thought was a master stroke because the Lions were gonna do a job on NZ in the pack apparently but in reality they are likely to beat the Lions anyway they choose to play there is a serious gulf in both class and cohesion.

I think the Lions need to build up some momentum and the best way to do that is by going through multiple phases. To much yesterday they were getting easily turned over, throwing the extra pass. It was a bit calamitous. Play some boring rugby, hit some rucks, get Te'o to truck some ball up for the pack to contest he has no interest in passing anyway. Let the pack show how good they are (not sure if they are but they say they are). They threw possession to the All Blacks to easy yesterday.


The line out was a bit of a shambles when POM went off, the scrum got parity tilll the replacements came on but no more. There definitely can be improvements here which can add to the Lions platform.

The Lions were asleep for the first NZ try it never should have been scored, the second one was due to an unbelieveable bit of play by Kieran Read and more sleeping by the backs and the 3rd should have been stopped by Liam Williams not catching a ball he should have caught (I'm not sure if we are allowed to say anything bad about him because of that break in the first half but he seemed all over the place after he got the knock). The Lions also left a try out there and Farrell is meant to nail his kicks, we are told enough when he gets one how he doesn't miss. These things all matter in building a score.

I wanted the Lions to be competitive and I thought they were, they shot themselves in the foot a few times which they can't do against the super rugby sides never mind the best team (by a distance) in the world. They can still improve on a lot of things I think and hopefully they will. It's not likely to change the outcome of the series because NZ are that bloody good and will get better themselves. People should be fair about the Lions and the task they face when posting.

[Dave Cahill]

Warrenball/10 man rugby didnt work so Gatty has 2 choices now: Plan A again and hope a French ref makes all the difference or Plan B and actually play rugby and pick guys who will live with the pace and slow down NZ ball
He wont swap the looseheads but Itoje should start (pressures their lineout and takes carrying pressure of Kruis too), Henderson should be on bench, start Warburton, drop POM for Stander, drop Te'o for Sexton or Henshaw

My boy James Davies played really well

It did work though, the problem wasn't the game the Lions played, it was the way it was executed. If the Lions cut their errors and up their conversion rate, they win.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I dunno, I thought the Lions best attacks just revolved around a new back three being brave enough to have a go, didnt see much of a plan in action. When the Lions kicked and forced mistakes I felt like they didn't know what to do then, like a dog chasing a car. And the plan B of bringing Sexton on was a waste of time, there was no actual plan, just put himself and Farrell together and hope for the best.

[simonokeeffe]

Warrenball/10 man rugby didnt work so Gatty has 2 choices now: Plan A again and hope a French ref makes all the difference or Plan B and actually play rugby and pick guys who will live with the pace and slow down NZ ball
He wont swap the looseheads but Itoje should start (pressures their lineout and takes carrying pressure of Kruis too), Henderson should be on bench, start Warburton, drop POM for Stander, drop Te'o for Sexton or Henshaw

My boy James Davies played really well

It did work though, the problem wasn't the game the Lions played, it was the way it was executed. If the Lions cut their errors and up their conversion rate, they win.

They got stuffed in the mauls and got no penalties out of the scrum, thats not execution or their own errors
There were a lot of knock ons from the forwards especially but also they didnt slow down NZ ball enough and struggled with the pace

Going by midweek side the only flagged change is Kruis is being dropped for Itoje

[CiaranIrl]

Warrenball/10 man rugby didnt work so Gatty has 2 choices now: Plan A again and hope a French ref makes all the difference or Plan B and actually play rugby and pick guys who will live with the pace and slow down NZ ball
He wont swap the looseheads but Itoje should start (pressures their lineout and takes carrying pressure of Kruis too), Henderson should be on bench, start Warburton, drop POM for Stander, drop Te'o for Sexton or Henshaw

My boy James Davies played really well

It did work though, the problem wasn't the game the Lions played, it was the way it was executed. If the Lions cut their errors and up their conversion rate, they win.

They got stuffed in the mauls and got no penalties out of the scrum, thats not execution or their own errors
There were a lot of knock ons from the forwards especially but also they didnt slow down NZ ball enough and struggled with the pace

Going by midweek side the only flagged change is Kruis is being dropped for Itoje

Yeah, but plan 'B, actually play rugby' is completely unfair. That was a cracking game of rugby.

[simonokeeffe]

can I change it to play winning rugby or live with what NZ were playing?

worth remembering the fantastic try came from Liam Williams having to improvise himself out fo a hole that Watson's hospital pass put him in

Watching some of the gifs and Te'o really butchered a 3 on 2 on 43 mins with Watson unmarked, plus he bit in horribly for their tap try

Lions tried to do to NZ what SA have tried and largely failed to do for years with bigger meaner packs

[Oldschool]

Lions kicked away possession - Suicide.
How come Ireland's scrum could stuff the NZ scrum (twice) and yet the lions couldn't?
Did Murray make even one break to put pressure on their br?
Ireland's br would have been/were more effective than the lions br - Once again Jamie Heaslip showed what a great player he is and he wasn't even in the
23.
Hansen is a better coach than Gatland.
Teo offers nothing that NZ can't handle.
Farrell saved the lions from a proper stuffing.
His work in defence was outstanding. With little or no possession he got little enough to do with the ball, most of which was kicked away by his inside partner.
POM and SOB are now officially overrated.
Oh at 13-8 the lions had a peno well in range of the posts.
They kicked to touch - wrong, wrong, wrong decision.
13-11 at ht looks much better.

[hugonaut]

Very interesting game to try and analyse.

The Lions pack lost too many collisions, both with and without the ball, for them to establish a foothold in the game. Not many people expected that to happen [including me]. They have not been a free-scoring side this tour, but the Saturday team [vs Crusaders and Maori] have been able to squeeze the opposition and build up points from penalties. All their scores came from penalties against the Crusaders [4 penalty kicks in a 12-3 win] and 25 of their 32 points against the Maori came from penalties [six kicks and a penalty try].

They couldn't get any purchase against the All Blacks eight and were more than edged out physically for practically the entire game. While it was short of outright physical dominance, the New Zealanders were operating at a higher physical pitch – better carries, harder tackles and more effective clear-outs. The Lions were hitting All Black jackals and not moving them off the ball [Furlong and O'Mahony on Retallick, for example] and they were giving up a lot of metres on the defensive side of things. When you are losing collisions and going backwards, you shouldn't expect to get any favours from the ref.

The AB starting pack collectively ran for 184m [averaging 23m gained per man] and were only credited with 4 defenders beaten; the Lions starting pack combined for 68m [8.5m gained/man] - with Sean O'Brien contributing almost half of that total on 37m gained – and credited with the same number of defenders beaten. The starting Lions forwards made 112 tackles and missed 8 – a 93% success rate, while the ABs made 58/missed 7 - an 81% success rate.

So how were all these All Black forwards getting so many metres over the gainline when they weren't beating defenders and when the Lions weren't missing loads of tackles? Well, because the widely available statistics don't account for the difference between tackles which stop somebody dead [or within a metre of the initial contact] and tackles which allow players over the gainline [and beyond]. The Lions were making way too many soak tackles, were failing with choke tackle attempts, were letting All Black carriers back on to their feet instead of holding on and completing the tackle, and were simply not meeting the physical standard set by the All Black forwards. I don't think I'm the only one who expected the Lions to be really raring to go, and it was surprising to see them look quite passive.

Gatland has talked all along about how the test series was his sole focus, and he's in a really tight spot now. He has no margin for error with a conclusive loss in the first test. Does he think that players who underperformed will bounce back and give him a massive performance to repay his confidence if he retains them, or does he take that underperformance as a no-second-chances-failure?

Kruis was probably the worst offender – despite an excellent tour thus far – and already looks like he's going to pay. He turned over the ball three times, missed three tackles, was penalised twice and has been demoted to the Tuesday side. Alun Wyn Jones was an iffy call to start and did nothing to show he deserved the spot ahead of Itoje. Going into the game, second row looked like the strongest element of the Lions squad on the basis of the tour thus far, but both starting second rows for the Lions on Saturday were the worst performing players on the pitch.

O'Mahony is in dicey territory too - mainly for failing to live up to the billing as a captain rather than any massive underperformance as a player. To my mind, he gave the performance that his form on tour suggested he would give. He's an excellent lineout forward [which he proved again] but in terms of winning collisions, both with and without the ball, he's ordinary and maybe even a little underwhelming for a blindside at this level.

The unfortunate thing for me is that he will likely be dropped in favour of Sam Warburton, who is nowhere near his best form. To me, the choice should be between Stander and Henderson, both of whom have played a lot of rugby at blindside, both of whom would add a significant physical presence in attack and defense, and both of whom have been a hell of a lot more productive than Warburton on tour. Stander doesn't have the lineout dimension, but has won the most turnovers on tour [5], aside from his more obvious contributions of 63 carries, 14 passes and 40 tackles [source: https://www.lionsrugby.com/players/cj-stander/ ]; Hendo does have the lineout credentials [8 wins on his own ball], has the turnovers [4] and has put in 28 carries, 13 passes, and 32 tackles [source: https://www.lionsrugby.com/players/iain-henderson/ ].

To my eyes, you have to address the issues that the All Blacks showed up in the first test, rather than overthinking about what else they can bring. They can bring everything. Bring out the physical monsters and the big hitters and throw the kitchen sink at them up front - Itoje in the second row, Henderson at blindside, CJ and Lawes on the bench.

[Ruckedtobits]

Different outlooks provide differing analysis of what actually happened on Saturday and what the Lions might do about it.

As those who are regulars will know, my assessment has been that this NZ Squad and team is better tban any team or Squad the Lions can select - in every Unit in their team without exception, even the second row.

Starting from this perspective, the loss, and disruption to the NZ team, of Ben Smith and Ryan Crotty, severely inhibited the NZ capacity to score points after they were replaced. Cruden and Lennart-Brown were limited replacements but neither was exposed by the Lions.

Rugby is physical chess, or can be guerilla warfare. If you acknowledge that you are playing a superior team, it is still possible, in our game, to score more points and win a game. However, to do so it is essential that you recognise the realities and develop and deploy tactics which prevent your opponents employing their strengths, whilst ambushing them with your own point scoring ploys.

This is not witchcraft. Many of us have seen various schools teams plan and execute "surprise" victories over fancied opponents by tactical nous, over the generations. Occasionally, in every sport, we see upsets and in professional field sports it almost inevitably requires an element of surprise. Nothing the Lions did surprised NZ. I would suggest that Ireland caused NZ more surprises in Chicago, in small detailed aspects of play, than any that Gatland unveiled or planned to unveil.

So the Lions might have a better outcome if they start to plan from the standpoint that they are playing a better team, so how can we beat them by guile and tactics?.

I personally doubt it could happen with Gats as Coach, or within the timeframe of a week. Its not an outlook that is familiar to SA, English, NZ, or, more recently, Welsh rugby people. But maybe they can learn from the Celts. Personally, I doubt it.

[Fan with smartphone]

AWJ looked absolutely shattered after 20 minutes. I'm not sure if that's because he has been injured for a while prior to this trip, or whether that's just him. He is obviously an excellent lock forward, but is he best suited to a slower slog? This game had plenty of slogging, but it was fast paced. At the moment he just doesn't look at that pace. It was notable how even after the match the New Zealand forwards didn't look that tired. Something similar could be said of Kruis really. He has been outstanding since coming back from injury, but Saracens generally control the pace of their games. This was sped up beyond the second row's control. You'd imagine Itoje would suit that game better. I'd argue Itoje is a better lineout forward than both those guys too, so that means O'Mahony is less likely to get the nod. Right or wrong, they are gonna pick Warburton there I think Hugo.

It's interesting the refereeing interpretations around driving mauls too - New Zealand must have flagged something there in advance. An effective sack seems to mean if you continue to drive the maul then it will quickly be blown as obstruction. Adapting to that will be important.

I also think Gatland is right about what he said about the tackling on Murray. People might argue it's legal, but there is something not right about diving at a standing leg. The push I wouldn't have a big issue with. As in Dublin though, they definitely targeted him and got benefit for it. Peyper didn't act (who knew?), so I'd be fairly unhappy with my team mates if I were Murray.

It's interesting the stats mentioned by Hugo around carries. Before Te'o went off I saw the stat that sonny Bill had 11 carries, with 7 gainline successes. One of the gainline losses was a penalty costing 50 metres too. Now it's not Te'o tackling him all the time, but Te'o is a selection all to do with trying to stop Sonny Bill. I'd acknowledge that Te'o has had a good tour, but if you are giving up yards anyway, then I just don't see the point in that. Henshaw has the credentials against New Zealand, has had a very good World Cup, has been a clear improvement on Te'o for Leinster. He does what Ben Te'o does and more. Te'o has had an up and down time with Leinster, a season with Worcester and one England cap. Yes a good tour, but I just don't get it. To be fair to Te'o (and to Farrell too), it wasn't easy on Saturday, when their pack was coming a clear second.

I give the lions more of a chance in the second test than I thought I would though RTB. O'Brien's try was a real O'Driscoll Gabba moment for Liam Williams, a really superb try and the lions were able to stress them offensively to a point where they should have scored more than they did. That was a surprise to me and I was happy for Gatland on that, because those selections were a departure for him. Right or wrong moves, they were surprising in themselves. Throw the sink at them physically as has been said and attack them and it's not as impossible as it seemed. I actually think Eddie Jones and Schmidt will be looking and see opportunity from Saturday. The only thing is New Zealand will be ironing out their own defensive issues and are going to get better themselves too.

This always draws me in, but gimme a bi-annual World Cup instead and I'd take it.

[leinsterforever]

Very interesting game to try and analyse.

The Lions pack lost too many collisions, both with and without the ball, for them to establish a foothold in the game. Not many people expected that to happen [including me]. They have not been a free-scoring side this tour, but the Saturday team [vs Crusaders and Maori] have been able to squeeze the opposition and build up points from penalties. All their scores came from penalties against the Crusaders [4 penalty kicks in a 12-3 win] and 25 of their 32 points against the Maori came from penalties [six kicks and a penalty try].

They couldn't get any purchase against the All Blacks eight and were more than edged out physically for practically the entire game. While it was short of outright physical dominance, the New Zealanders were operating at a higher physical pitch – better carries, harder tackles and more effective clear-outs. The Lions were hitting All Black jackals and not moving them off the ball [Furlong and O'Mahony on Retallick, for example] and they were giving up a lot of metres on the defensive side of things. When you are losing collisions and going backwards, you shouldn't expect to get any favours from the ref.

The AB starting pack collectively ran for 184m [averaging 23m gained per man] and were only credited with 4 defenders beaten; the Lions starting pack combined for 68m [8.5m gained/man] - with Sean O'Brien contributing almost half of that total on 37m gained – and credited with the same number of defenders beaten. The starting Lions forwards made 112 tackles and missed 8 – a 93% success rate, while the ABs made 58/missed 7 - an 81% success rate.

So how were all these All Black forwards getting so many metres over the gainline when they weren't beating defenders and when the Lions weren't missing loads of tackles? Well, because the widely available statistics don't account for the difference between tackles which stop somebody dead [or within a metre of the initial contact] and tackles which allow players over the gainline [and beyond]. The Lions were making way too many soak tackles, were failing with choke tackle attempts, were letting All Black carriers back on to their feet instead of holding on and completing the tackle, and were simply not meeting the physical standard set by the All Black forwards. I don't think I'm the only one who expected the Lions to be really raring to go, and it was surprising to see them look quite passive.

Gatland has talked all along about how the test series was his sole focus, and he's in a really tight spot now. He has no margin for error with a conclusive loss in the first test. Does he think that players who underperformed will bounce back and give him a massive performance to repay his confidence if he retains them, or does he take that underperformance as a no-second-chances-failure?

Kruis was probably the worst offender – despite an excellent tour thus far – and already looks like he's going to pay. He turned over the ball three times, missed three tackles, was penalised twice and has been demoted to the Tuesday side. Alun Wyn Jones was an iffy call to start and did nothing to show he deserved the spot ahead of Itoje. Going into the game, second row looked like the strongest element of the Lions squad on the basis of the tour thus far, but both starting second rows for the Lions on Saturday were the worst performing players on the pitch.

O'Mahony is in dicey territory too - mainly for failing to live up to the billing as a captain rather than any massive underperformance as a player. To my mind, he gave the performance that his form on tour suggested he would give. He's an excellent lineout forward [which he proved again] but in terms of winning collisions, both with and without the ball, he's ordinary and maybe even a little underwhelming for a blindside at this level.

The unfortunate thing for me is that he will likely be dropped in favour of Sam Warburton, who is nowhere near his best form. To me, the choice should be between Stander and Henderson, both of whom have played a lot of rugby at blindside, both of whom would add a significant physical presence in attack and defense, and both of whom have been a hell of a lot more productive than Warburton on tour. Stander doesn't have the lineout dimension, but has won the most turnovers on tour [5], aside from his more obvious contributions of 63 carries, 14 passes and 40 tackles [source: https://www.lionsrugby.com/players/cj-stander/ ]; Hendo does have the lineout credentials [8 wins on his own ball], has the turnovers [4] and has put in 28 carries, 13 passes, and 32 tackles [source: https://www.lionsrugby.com/players/iain-henderson/ ].

To my eyes, you have to address the issues that the All Blacks showed up in the first test, rather than overthinking about what else they can bring. They can bring everything. Bring out the physical monsters and the big hitters and throw the kitchen sink at them up front - Itoje in the second row, Henderson at blindside, CJ and Lawes on the bench.

I think the difference in the collisions is coming from the New Zealanders coupling physicality with great technique in the carry. Defenders can't set themselves to make strong tackles because the All Blacks players keep the passing option open until far nearer the tackle, and are very nimble with their footwork. They're just very skilful and honed rugby players. Murray Kinsella has an article on the 42.ie with a few GIFs that highlight the NZ forward's carrying techniques.

I agree with you about Henderson coming in at blindside. Even his counter-rucking alone would be a big asset

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I'd be reluctant to drop POM given that the lineout was one of the few success stories. Also think it's a bit disingenuous not to mention that he made 13 tackles (in 57 minutes) considering he was criticised for that last week.

I get the point about physicality but in the circumstances I think the only change I'd make to the starting team would be to bring Itoje in and hope that he improves things and that Kruis makes amends. It's also worth remembering that the game pretty much ended once the Lions blew the maul near the NZ line and Ioane scored soon after, the stats in that first hour are probably more telling than the ones over the 80 mins. I'd fully expect Kruis to redeeem himself but looks like he won't get the chance. Lawes has been in great form too and would add serious physicality, wouldn't have an issue with him being ahead of Henderson but both would be good options. Warburton did absolutely nothing to suggest that he should start although Murray Kinsella seems to think that he will. I think I'd go with CJ on the bench too and then a toss of a coin between Lawes and Henderson.

I'd also expect Farrell to get his runners working off him in the same way he does for Saracens. For Saracens (and England when at ten) he constantly feeds passes to their big men and just keeps reloading until they've got sufficient momentum and he can bring the outside backs into play. The front five, SOB, Faletau and Te'o are well capable of doing that for him and in theory it should mesh very well with Warrenball. I don't think a massive change is needed for the Lions to just be a bit more dominant up front and for a sharper Farrell to play better off that.

The problem is that the Lions could improve hugely and it won't matter because NZ will probably be much better. It was a great game for an hour yesterday and obviously they played some good stuff to pull away, but I don't think they got out of 3rd gear to be honest. I'd argue that half the pack were fairly average, Barrett was quiet by his standards (in both positions), Ioane didn't get much ball etc etc. With their high standards and what we see week in week out in super rugby I'd be surprised if they don't put in a more dominant and well rounded performance next weekend, think it could end up being similar to the second test 12 years ago.

[CiaranIrl]

Different outlooks provide differing analysis of what actually happened on Saturday and what the Lions might do about it.

As those who are regulars will know, my assessment has been that this NZ Squad and team is better tban any team or Squad the Lions can select - in every Unit in their team without exception, even the second row.

Starting from this perspective, the loss, and disruption to the NZ team, of Ben Smith and Ryan Crotty, severely inhibited the NZ capacity to score points after they were replaced. Cruden and Lennart-Brown were limited replacements but neither was exposed by the Lions.

Rugby is physical chess, or can be guerilla warfare. If you acknowledge that you are playing a superior team, it is still possible, in our game, to score more points and win a game. However, to do so it is essential that you recognise the realities and develop and deploy tactics which prevent your opponents employing their strengths, whilst ambushing them with your own point scoring ploys.

This is not witchcraft. Many of us have seen various schools teams plan and execute "surprise" victories over fancied opponents by tactical nous, over the generations. Occasionally, in every sport, we see upsets and in professional field sports it almost inevitably requires an element of surprise. Nothing the Lions did surprised NZ. I would suggest that Ireland caused NZ more surprises in Chicago, in small detailed aspects of play, than any that Gatland unveiled or planned to unveil.

So the Lions might have a better outcome if they start to plan from the standpoint that they are playing a better team, so how can we beat them by guile and tactics?.

I personally doubt it could happen with Gats as Coach, or within the timeframe of a week. Its not an outlook that is familiar to SA, English, NZ, or, more recently, Welsh rugby people. But maybe they can learn from the Celts. Personally, I doubt it.

Fine post. Fine posts on here all round actually. The question on my mind is, is there any scenario or series of tactics where they can win? Probably not. It's hard to see any path to victory for them given how they have been set up and given how far ahead NZ are in skill levels. Even if they're down 2-0 after this Saturday, NZ are the mind of team that won't take their foot off the throat even a little bit. Especially with Read on his 100th cap.

What faint hope they have will rely on them no being blown out of it at the breakdown. If they can win some of the contact, and they can slow the pace of the game down a bit, they might have a remote chance of keeping within range of them.

I'd personally love to see one of Itoje, Lawes or Henderson at blindside. Lawes should play some where from 4-6. He's exactly the kind of reckless, physical specimen that they need. A pack of Itoje, Kruis, Lawes, O'Brien, Falatau, with Henderson and Stander on the bench could really do damage. I'd also start McGrath and bring Vuinipola on at halftime to try to hammer them a bit more. Backline: Daly should fall out of the team as well. He made mistakes on Saturday that looked like he just didn't have enough wing experience. I'd personally bring Nowell in, who's looked decent. Best should be on the bench ahead of Owens, who adds very little to any team. I'm very unconvinced by Sinkler too. Dan Cole is a canny breakdown operator with a load of experience. A player like him coming off the bench can really attack the scrum based on what he's been watching. Halfpenny adds nothing to the bench.

All in all, I'd go with: McGrath, George, Furlong (attack the scrum), Itoje, Kruis, Lawes, O'Brien, Faletau, Murray, Farrell, Nowell, T'eo, Davies, Watson, Williams. Subs: Best, Vuinipola, Cole, Henderson, Stander, Sexton, Webb, North.

[brenno]

Different outlooks provide differing analysis of what actually happened on Saturday and what the Lions might do about it.

As those who are regulars will know, my assessment has been that this NZ Squad and team is better tban any team or Squad the Lions can select - in every Unit in their team without exception, even the second row.

Starting from this perspective, the loss, and disruption to the NZ team, of Ben Smith and Ryan Crotty, severely inhibited the NZ capacity to score points after they were replaced. Cruden and Lennart-Brown were limited replacements but neither was exposed by the Lions.

Rugby is physical chess, or can be guerilla warfare. If you acknowledge that you are playing a superior team, it is still possible, in our game, to score more points and win a game. However, to do so it is essential that you recognise the realities and develop and deploy tactics which prevent your opponents employing their strengths, whilst ambushing them with your own point scoring ploys.

This is not witchcraft. Many of us have seen various schools teams plan and execute "surprise" victories over fancied opponents by tactical nous, over the generations. Occasionally, in every sport, we see upsets and in professional field sports it almost inevitably requires an element of surprise. Nothing the Lions did surprised NZ. I would suggest that Ireland caused NZ more surprises in Chicago, in small detailed aspects of play, than any that Gatland unveiled or planned to unveil.

So the Lions might have a better outcome if they start to plan from the standpoint that they are playing a better team, so how can we beat them by guile and tactics?.

I personally doubt it could happen with Gats as Coach, or within the timeframe of a week. Its not an outlook that is familiar to SA, English, NZ, or, more recently, Welsh rugby people. But maybe they can learn from the Celts. Personally, I doubt it.

Fine post. Fine posts on here all round actually. The question on my mind is, is there any scenario or series of tactics where they can win? Probably not. It's hard to see any path to victory for them given how they have been set up and given how far ahead NZ are in skill levels. Even if they're down 2-0 after this Saturday, NZ are the mind of team that won't take their foot off the throat even a little bit. Especially with Read on his 100th cap.

What faint hope they have will rely on them no being blown out of it at the breakdown. If they can win some of the contact, and they can slow the pace of the game down a bit, they might have a remote chance of keeping within range of them.

I'd personally love to see one of Itoje, Lawes or Henderson at blindside. Lawes should play some where from 4-6. He's exactly the kind of reckless, physical specimen that they need. A pack of Itoje, Kruis, Lawes, O'Brien, Falatau, with Henderson and Stander on the bench could really do damage. I'd also start McGrath and bring Vuinipola on at halftime to try to hammer them a bit more. Backline: Daly should fall out of the team as well. He made mistakes on Saturday that looked like he just didn't have enough wing experience. I'd personally bring Nowell in, who's looked decent. Best should be on the bench ahead of Owens, who adds very little to any team. I'm very unconvinced by Sinkler too. Dan Cole is a canny breakdown operator with a load of experience. A player like him coming off the bench can really attack the scrum based on what he's been watching. Halfpenny adds nothing to the bench.

All in all, I'd go with: McGrath, George, Furlong (attack the scrum), Itoje, Kruis, Lawes, O'Brien, Faletau, Murray, Farrell, Nowell, T'eo, Davies, Watson, Williams. Subs: Best, Vuinipola, Cole, Henderson, Stander, Sexton, Webb, North.

Ciaran, would agree with a lot of that team, but Gatty fielding a 23 with just 5 Welsh is a non-starter even though form might justify it.

[simonokeeffe]

Lawes is a curious case, hes been on fire this tour following on from 6n but has been shown zero love for the test side
Only issue I can is his 2 head knocks but hes starting Tuesday so the coaches dont see it as an issue

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Lawes is a curious case, hes been on fire this tour following on from 6n but has been shown zero love for the test side
Only issue I can is his 2 head knocks but hes starting Tuesday so the coaches dont see it as an issue

I think they just had the first 3 guys pencilled in before the tour started. I don't want to see Itoje or Henderson at 6 but CiaranIRL has got me thinking that it's a possibility, particularly Itoje at 6 with Lawes in the second row. I still think Warburton will start but they might have that combo up their sleeve at some stage.

[brenno]

Gas to read Quinny - the Voldemort of the dark arts - going on about the NZ use of the dark arts in the Indo today. Good analysis though the rest of it