Reds v Lions 7pm Friday 27th Mar
- Thread starter emuarse
- Start date
- Status
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
From what I saw it was a fairly average game. The Reds certainly give me the impression they are all out there trying their hardest, but somehow they all seem to be doing it individually and not as a unit. Maybe I wrong just impression I get. I still think Will Genia is tending to look real lost at times very indecisive, almost runs around in circles at times, still it pretty hard to come down to hard on any one player. I think also there was perhaps a bit much expectation that with returning players suddenly righting everything, they will help a lot, but I think maybe let them have a couple of games to get match fit (mentally and physically) before expecting miracles.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
I went back to 2009's crowd stats. Typical Reds crowds at Suncorp vs most teams were then around 19-20,000, vs the Lions 16,000.
At season end, the Reds had won 3 from 13 games, and were second last on the final table position.
Broadly, we seem to be heading right back to 2009's levels of crowd and game outcomes.
biggsy
Chilla Wilson (44)
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
I reckon that performance basically was a miracle compared to the debacles that came before it. So much better. But still not good enough.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
I thought Quade was average to good with some moments reminiscent of his best. A pretty good effort for his first outing this year and a huge improvement on what's been offered at No 10 in previous games. In my view, he was standing a bit deeper than he used to do. Would that just be nerves or is it a discernable game plan by RG?
He will no doubt improve.
Ant Fainga'a got over the gain line better than any other back while he was on, and his tackling is back up to standard also.
Thought Holmes made an impressive improvement to the scrum when he came on. Looking good for the Reds and maybe also for the Wallabies. Otherwise, no one stood out.
He will no doubt improve.
Ant Fainga'a got over the gain line better than any other back while he was on, and his tackling is back up to standard also.
Thought Holmes made an impressive improvement to the scrum when he came on. Looking good for the Reds and maybe also for the Wallabies. Otherwise, no one stood out.
liquor box
Greg Davis (50)
I would prefer "No mean No" "Stop forcing Dick on us"
liquor box
Greg Davis (50)
What benefit would that have for the team?
TO keep our players and have any hope at recruiting players we need to change or at least announce a new coach as soon as possible
Wilson
David Codey (61)
FWIW I think he was just providing an answer to the question of how to get RG fired, not arguing for him to see the season out. I do agree they need to at least announce that he won't be retained and they're looking for someone else sooner rather than later.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
Steady
Keps is part of a strong unit with Robbo and TPN. The only strong bloke we have is slipper. Add Holmes and we are still missing what the Tahs have - TPN - probably the strongest and best scrummaging hooker in Australia.
Its hard to c"compare" as blokes are in different packs with different strengths and weaknesses
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
Have sat through the highlights again - that really was a coach killing performace by the players.
Set aside the lack of penetration in attack and pretty passive defense, the Lions 10 points in the second half came from that diabolical lineout on the 5m line where no one even jumped, and Ben Tapuai's mind numbingly stupid penalty right in front (ignoring the forward pass preceding it).
Buck stops with Graham but he won't be thanking his players after that.
Set aside the lack of penetration in attack and pretty passive defense, the Lions 10 points in the second half came from that diabolical lineout on the 5m line where no one even jumped, and Ben Tapuai's mind numbingly stupid penalty right in front (ignoring the forward pass preceding it).
Buck stops with Graham but he won't be thanking his players after that.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
My thoughts on the Reds performance.
1) Their attacking plays remain one dimensional. They executed all but three plays with at most two passes from each breakdown. It was like watching unlimitted tackle League where the players were lucky to make the gain line because there is no 10 metre rule. On three occasions the Reds executed plays with players in motion with support runners around QC (Quade Cooper). They made great inroads through the Lions and some desperate defence was able to hold the Reds out. Three occasions in a game that they had over 60% of the possession they put something into their attack that was slightly unpredictable. The return of the big names to the side isn't the problem, it is the basic lack of attacking structures. It is so similar to the lack of any Wallabies attack in the 2010-2011 seasons one has to look for common factors, and I don't mean players.
2) The forwards are just ineffective at what they are doing. This is a pack that has 4 Wallaby capped front rowers, a lock and two backrowers also with significant test experience. Yet up against a side with minimal test experience, they struggle in basic facets of the game. Again IMO it comes back to the tactics to a large degree as none of the forward attack committed any defenders apart from the tackler and occasionally the tackle assist. The Lions didn't both to attack the ruck on most occasions as the Reds stacked their forward runners with support players to maintain possession, not force the attack. So they just held back. The Reds could have dominated the set pieces and most would say they certainly had the ascendancy, but there were inexplicable lapses in concentration that led to the Lions being able to drive the Reds back in the scrum or massive lineout blunders line the throw to the tail lead to the Lions try.
3) The drop goal. Comment has been made that QC (Quade Cooper) scuffed the attempt but he was a sitting duck from three phases before the attempt. Watch the Lions players not commit anybody at all to the rucks and stand off with the fastest backrowers and backs to charge down. the second pillar on the left was extremely close to offisde for the attempt BUT the fact is the whole set up was woefully planned and executed. By the time the ball went back to QC (Quade Cooper) he had no other option but to attempt the kick simply because there was nobody within shouting distance for him to pass the ball to. In short as with the rest of the Reds attack all eggs were in the drop goal basket and the Lions defended accordingly.
4) I thought Genia was slow and laboured for most of the game. He had small periods of elevated activity but on actual form (not potential) he would have to be ranked behind Stirzacker in the pecking order. I know he isn't in truth but on actual performance he is. This made QCs job harder and I thought he played an individually good game, and if the structures had been present to support him in attack the result could have been significantly different.
5) I think the final score flattered the Reds. The Kerevi try was lucky IMO as I think he was short of the line, in none of the replays I saw was the ball on the line. I may be going blind but thats how I saw it. It probably balances out the forwards passes the Lions threw in any event. The penalty try surprised me given there was no lead up penalties and these things are rarely that clear cut that early but hey I saw the Lions THP packing with his knees on the ground from the engage call so in the long run its hard to argue the ultimate fairness of that call as well.
Finally I think the Lions have played very well on the tour. They were obviously tired in this game and faded badly in the first 30 of the second half. What should be concerning the Reds and the Rebels IMO is that they were well beaten by a side that had less possession and less territory who actually used effective attacking structure instead of trying to grind out a statistical type win. Add to the fact that IIRC only Mapoe is a capped Springbok. I think the Bok could do a lot worse than pick Whitely at 8 he is a very impressive player and leader.
1) Their attacking plays remain one dimensional. They executed all but three plays with at most two passes from each breakdown. It was like watching unlimitted tackle League where the players were lucky to make the gain line because there is no 10 metre rule. On three occasions the Reds executed plays with players in motion with support runners around QC (Quade Cooper). They made great inroads through the Lions and some desperate defence was able to hold the Reds out. Three occasions in a game that they had over 60% of the possession they put something into their attack that was slightly unpredictable. The return of the big names to the side isn't the problem, it is the basic lack of attacking structures. It is so similar to the lack of any Wallabies attack in the 2010-2011 seasons one has to look for common factors, and I don't mean players.
2) The forwards are just ineffective at what they are doing. This is a pack that has 4 Wallaby capped front rowers, a lock and two backrowers also with significant test experience. Yet up against a side with minimal test experience, they struggle in basic facets of the game. Again IMO it comes back to the tactics to a large degree as none of the forward attack committed any defenders apart from the tackler and occasionally the tackle assist. The Lions didn't both to attack the ruck on most occasions as the Reds stacked their forward runners with support players to maintain possession, not force the attack. So they just held back. The Reds could have dominated the set pieces and most would say they certainly had the ascendancy, but there were inexplicable lapses in concentration that led to the Lions being able to drive the Reds back in the scrum or massive lineout blunders line the throw to the tail lead to the Lions try.
3) The drop goal. Comment has been made that QC (Quade Cooper) scuffed the attempt but he was a sitting duck from three phases before the attempt. Watch the Lions players not commit anybody at all to the rucks and stand off with the fastest backrowers and backs to charge down. the second pillar on the left was extremely close to offisde for the attempt BUT the fact is the whole set up was woefully planned and executed. By the time the ball went back to QC (Quade Cooper) he had no other option but to attempt the kick simply because there was nobody within shouting distance for him to pass the ball to. In short as with the rest of the Reds attack all eggs were in the drop goal basket and the Lions defended accordingly.
4) I thought Genia was slow and laboured for most of the game. He had small periods of elevated activity but on actual form (not potential) he would have to be ranked behind Stirzacker in the pecking order. I know he isn't in truth but on actual performance he is. This made QCs job harder and I thought he played an individually good game, and if the structures had been present to support him in attack the result could have been significantly different.
5) I think the final score flattered the Reds. The Kerevi try was lucky IMO as I think he was short of the line, in none of the replays I saw was the ball on the line. I may be going blind but thats how I saw it. It probably balances out the forwards passes the Lions threw in any event. The penalty try surprised me given there was no lead up penalties and these things are rarely that clear cut that early but hey I saw the Lions THP packing with his knees on the ground from the engage call so in the long run its hard to argue the ultimate fairness of that call as well.
Finally I think the Lions have played very well on the tour. They were obviously tired in this game and faded badly in the first 30 of the second half. What should be concerning the Reds and the Rebels IMO is that they were well beaten by a side that had less possession and less territory who actually used effective attacking structure instead of trying to grind out a statistical type win. Add to the fact that IIRC only Mapoe is a capped Springbok. I think the Bok could do a lot worse than pick Whitely at 8 he is a very impressive player and leader.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
You do realise that TPN didn't play against the Ponies? and IIRC you don't rate Skelton as THL either and then there is a test capped 6 playing LHL and horror of all horrors the 12 playing at 7.
biggsy
Chilla Wilson (44)
The off season recruiting seemed to be fine last year After the same results.
Also My reply was tounge and cheek, the longer he stays the worse its going to get for RG.It will really make him unemployable as a rugby coach if he is to continue which I think the Reds will do.
The only way I see him gettig the boot is by fan and media pressure.
I feel the playing team in general really wants to play rugby with each other and are excited about it, but the coaching side of things are not letting them play rugby they want. That's what I tell myself anyway.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I was think more along the lines of the dwarf farce at the wedding of King Joffrey in Game of thrones.
T
TOCC
Guest
It wasn't a great pass, but it wasn't the worst pass.. Even if it were a clean pass it would have been charged down given how quick the lions players were off the mark..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tomikin
Simon Poidevin (60)
Don't get me wrong, Holmes is a good THP but better then Kepu, Not at all. Plus Kepu didn't have TPN next to him last week, and Holmes had Finger and Hansen, who many would say are better then Latu.
I've heard some pretty big calls after a game the Red's lost and looked at sea. Basically one game back Quade's 10, JOC (James O'Connor) is 11 and Holmes is 3.. Maybe that will happen but one game, which you lose doesn't get you infront of the incumbents. Not saying they can't but jeez you'd be hard pressed to select them. I think Slipper should still be Wallabies 1 because his incumbent, but his more likely to lose his spot to Sio, then Kepu is to lose his spot to Holmes..
qwerty51
Stirling Mortlock (74)
When Kepu smashed the Brumbies Latu was the hooker
- Status