Du changement en profondeur pour le Chili avant d'affronter l'Angleterre

On the Porter stuff, I totally get that the LHP can be drawn into what looks like a boring-in position by a THP, or a 3 on 2 where an entire front row attacks opposing hooker and THP. However, it is also a way to depower and destabilize an opposing THP, which can often result in a penalty in your favor. For a LHP with good crouching stability there is a likelihood that the THP will go down or lose bind before you do. In the case of Porter it happens all the time, against different teams and THPs, including power front rows that have no need to do anything other than drive hard and square. I will watch it more closely, but right now I am not at all convinced that Porter is not the instigator.

The conditions did not favor flamboyant wide attack but great teams adjust, and both teams had plenty of time to do so.

The Boks games are going to be fascinating, especially the last 20m.

Parker has the added attraction of being another tall loosie who can play 6 too.

I don’t believe Parker’s selection has any impact on Va’ai remaining at blindside.

6 Va’ai, Finau

7 Savea, Lakai, Kirifi

8 Sititi, Parker

Obviously Parker off the bench can cover both 6 and 8, just as Lakai can cover 7 and 8.

Josh Lord’s selection as Jacobson’s injury cover earmarks Va’ai remaining as a blindside who covers lock.

So we’re agreed that the starting XV was therefore very close to a full B team?

16 Taukeo’aho, 17 Williams, 18 Tosi, 19 Parker, 20 Lakai, 21 Christie, 22 Tavatavanawai, 23 Love

Williams is expected to be fit for first test. But I expect they will manage him and have him play him the last 30 minutes off the bench along with Tosi. Two monster reserve props who are mobile, along with Taukeo’aho.

Lakai played too well vs France’s top team in November not to be on the bench and is younger, bigger, more explosive than Kirifi.

Parker is bigger, tougher, meaner than Finau.

Ruben Love outperformed McKenzie in Hamilton and will get the bench 10/15 spot.

The Aussie D was greatly helped by the conditions which made moving the ball wide well-nigh impossible. A George Ford or an Owen Farrell would have been ideal in those conditions!

The Porter scrum angle stuff is pure nonsense and should be punted. Anyone who been part of a scrum would know that when the THP moves in on the hooker, the opposing LHP has to follow him. He cannot scrum vs. thin air. I wrote a couple of articles pointing this out, but good luck to Nella he prob deserved some after a very difficult run in his career.

Now that RWC2027 in Aus will feature 24 Teams, the Pool Stages will come thick & fast with all of the Pool Games & up to the Final will be 52 Games so that will need some officiating with even the likes of Holly Davidson maybe making an appearance so QUALITY depth is required.

The Wallaby forward strength was the eye-opener for me. Credit to Skelton, Tupou, Hooper and other forwards (not to mention Valetini for in the 2nd test). But it also says something about Joe Schmidt, as one of the supreme tacticians in world rugby. There is a view of the Lions series that says the Lions were out-coached, and were nearly beaten by a rebuilding team built from scraps (relatively speaking), with limited full-team prep.

It looks like Schmidt focused on forward dominance, which is not a traditional Australian game plan. The Lions could not control set pieces, were not overwhelming at breakdowns or on the gain line, and struggled to get red zone forwards phases (mauls, pick-and-gos, etc) to pay off. But the Lions also did not have time and space for the backs to really get going.

Gibson Park and Russell were very good, but they were not playing behind a dominant pack, and against a well-organized Australian defense it was hard for them to find ways to unlock the game. Given the Australian approach I kept wondering if the Lions needed to trade out the cleverness and agility of Russell for the belligerence and physicality of Farrell at 10.

The Andrew Porter scrum shenanigans were obvious, and it’s a mystery that they were not called by the reffing teams. But they are also significant. If the Lions scrum were able to win scrums fair and square they would of course have done so. Instead we saw reversion to illegal disruptive tactics. Overall Porter did not vindicate his selection IMV. The Lions pack were not comprehensively beaten, but they were de-clawed, and could not reliably create a platform.

I would have predicted that Australia would aim to neutralize the Lions forward threat, and win the games with classic Wallaby intelligence, cheek, athleticism and sharp ball skills. Instead they more than neutralized the Lions pack, and delivered an impressive defensive showing, winning in a pressure game kind of fashion.

The weakness in this Wallaby game plan is that sustaining it for 80 minutes is very taxing, and ideally gets refreshed from the bench to close out the last quarter. One question against the Boks is whether we will see an arm wrestle before the bell rings for the bomb squad, followed by 15 or 20 minutes of Bok ascendancy. I also expect Rassie to have detailed plans on how to negate the impact of some of the Wallaby stars (Suaalii, for example), and intense pressure on whichever Wallaby 9 and 10 are selected. Joe will have some tricks up his sleeve, no doubt.

Regardless, I am super impressed with what Joe Schmidt pulled off. It is exciting to feel that the Wallabies are on a good upward arc. And Andy Farrell may be feeling that he dodged a bullet. The Lions still have a less than 40% win record against what they themselves call the “the sport’s most formidable opponents” (Australia, NZ, SA).