These British and Irish Lions are different

South Africa had Brussow and Frans Louw; England had Tom Wood, who although is a 6, had played 7 for his club all season and James Haskell who had played 7 during the preceding 6N; Scotland had John Barclay and Ross Rennie; Ireland started O'Brien but had Shane Jennings; Italy had Mauro Bergamasco and Barbieri. Basically every major nation had an alternative 7 in the original squad. France and Argentina don't play traditional 7s.

The way the Lions are playing this year shouldn't be so much of a surprise - it owes a lot to the way they played four years ago in South Africa under McGeechan. Gatland, Howley & Rowntree were all part of the coaching set-up then too. The only real question was whether the squad could gel quickly enough to get used to the gameplan. It also hasn't been stress-tested against top opposition so there are no guarantees the strategy will hold up against the Wallabies.

i want deans gone too but only because i think mckenzie is better tactically and has way more flexibility. i think deans is a good coach but way too inflexible with his tactics. atleast we have depth now, whether that was deans or just inevitable who knows. have a google of the wallabies squads circa 06/07... its embarrassing and depressing.

I'm far more concerned with what he's doing now to beat the Lions. However, I really hope he has learnt from is mistakes in the past and that we won't see chips, grabbers and the Wallabies basically looking lost with the ball in hand. This time he has three weeks to prepare and his team should have their tactics spot on. No excuses like Samoa or Scotland this time. But if Deans continues with his 'play what's in front of you' tactics, then the Wallabies will lose, badly. This could be his sporting nadir.

Most of the established posters on here don't imagine the Wallabies as the All Blacks. Most of the established posters on here that want Deans removed want him removed for the following, simple reasons: 1. He has had his chance. As you say he has neither failed or succeed in the task set him, he has been average. That being said, if he isn't going to be great, why give him another two (2) to four (4) years? 2. We play a horrible brand of rugby now. I don't mind losing, I am a Reds fan, I am well versed. What I can't stand is losing whilst playing poorly (think Waratahs 2012). If we aren't going to be the All Blacks, then I'd rather play exciting open rugby and go down trying. Deans has for some time now picked teams based around minimising loses - he has set us up so that our only chance of winning is to keep the score tight and then hope for a penalty or late error to snatch a victory. 3. Failing to pick on form or in fact failing to properly express his thoughts on selection and tactics. Again, I don't mind losing, but if we're going to lose, let's at least play players in position and pick blokes with some form. If that mob lose, so be it, but at least we won't die wondering. Instead we are now going to sit through a Lions series and if we lose it, we'll all sit back and go "gee, I wonder if Cooper would have won it for us" or whatever. It's really not that hard to follow the reasoning of the genuine posters on here about why Deans has to go and what his problems are.

Australia's defensive system and the way they play is built around an on ball player, whether it is Pocock or whoever. That is how Deans plays. The All Blacks targeted this in the semi and it was pretty obvious. If you bothered to actually look at my posting history you will see I have been very critical of Mckenzie at times throughout the past 3 years. But you're too lazy to bother and would just rather chuck out blanket statements.

Mmickey - Point out where I have displayed statistically ignorant irrationality please, in what posting? I do not dislike Deans at all, there is no personal malice about it whatsoever. I happen to think his record is below average compared to the other Wallaby coaches in the professional era. He has served far too long, is overpaid for what he delivers, not only is his win/loss record below average but the style of rugby is predictable and his tenure has correlated with a dramatic loss of support / interest in rugby. The broader view is the wallabies have performed significantly better under other coaches. That comparison is the most apt taking into account the relative position in the world of australia in terms of finance, number of rugby players, and being the 3rd (now 4th under Deans) football code.

Gill would have been fine. He'd won a Super Rugby title by then. But Hodgson was a better bet for the squad than Palu, as Mr Turnbull above correctly notes.

You are clearly from the leroy school of thought in which: if we win its the players doing it all and nothing to do with the coach. If we lose the players can hold their heads up high as its 100% deans fault. The funny thing is reds supporters do the opposite with Mckenzie. He never gets blamed, despite losing repeatedly to teams like the force (the Scotland of super rugby).

It wasn't that it was built around pocock. It's just that he was our only world class forward to combat it. And why do you then go on to say "if you watched New Zealand closely, which I doubt you did" That's just petty. Are you the only one who watches rugby properly and is allowed to comment????

Who were our number 7 strengths you speak of??? Smith made himself unavailable, and gill/hooper were far too green. Beau demonstrated against Samoa that he doesn't have what it takes.

I don't think the McCalman selection was senseless for the RWC in 2011 - I think his selection as a back up 7 for the RWC was foolish. The poor selection was actually of Palu who was fighting to get fit for that tournament and it showed in the tournament that he was not playing his best rugby nor was TPN. McCalman did his best but he is no 7 and should not be criticised for being asked to play there.

Deans built the entire Wallaby pack around Pocock being an on baller. It is his ability to slow down the opposition and win penalties getting the Wallabies out of their own red zone was what the RWC and a bit of last year was built on. Go watch him in that Wales game for example. That is why Ireland easily blew over the Wallabies pack, because they didn't have worry about Pocock. That is why the Wallabies beat South Africa, because Pocock put out so many fires and prevented South Africa getting real ball. And If you watched the NZ closely, which I highly doubt you did, you will notice AIG runners targeting Pocock and taking him out of the play. McCaw hasn't been an on baller for a couple of years and fills a much more diverse role. It is why your point about NZ not having a back up 7 is completely redundant. Building a pack around an on baller and then not having a backup on baller is just inane, but its what Deans did.

Agreed Justin2. I've called for Folau to be tried on the wing at Super rugby level because I think he'd be good there... but I think it's a huge gamble for a guy to play his first time in a position (in rugby) in a test match like this. Despite this, I'm actually still keen to see how he goes. It's an interesting question to pose as to what the most and least similar positions are in rugby. Someone clever could probably make a good infographic on this. I'm totally off topic here now but my thoughts: Every position has a unique set of skills, positioning, etc. required but: - 11 and 14 are pretty similar - 4 and 5 are fairly similar 10 and 12 are kinda similar... sometimes. But there are 12s you would never realistically consider playing at 10 (e.g. Jamie Roberts). There are very few locks who would also make it in the back row (and visa versa). And those few who can interchange between 6, 7 and 8 are usually much better at one of them.

I can't help myself whenever this one comes up. Deans definitely erred in his backrow selections. He took extra cover at 6/8 instead of a player that could potentially cover a short term injury to Pocock. Palu, Elsom and Samo were all under injury clouds so he took extra back up in that space in the form of Ben McCalman and Scott Higginbotham. To say other teams only took one openside and hold NZ up as an example ignores that Vito and Thomspson are much more adept at covering the role in the case of a short term injury than a player like MacCalman was. Picking all of Palu, Elsom, Samo, Higginbotham and McCalman was the issue - he needed to pick someone like Hodgson who could cover different roles and spell Pocock during the course of the tournament. Expecting one of Australia's most crucial players to play 80 minutes of every match was a poor choice in a tournament like the WC. It was obviously a risk pre-tournament and unfortunately for Deans, the Wallabies and Aussie fans the issue impacted the teams results in the tournament.

Wing and 15 are not as similar as many like to make out. IMO Folau should only play one position at Test level. Thats 15. League and Union wingers have very different roles in attack and defence. He also hasnt played wing in either code for basically 4 years (I think) or so.

Rob why does it matter what the other teams do? Thats the problem with Deans, he isnt ahead of the curve in his tactics. Our open sides are a strength, our 6/8s arent. And if you had a good openside we may well have won some ruck penalties and turnovers against Ireland who didnt have a specialist 7. Its called a point of difference. And they matter...

Actually, the problem arose due to selecting one openside, and that openside being injured for 1-2 weeks, so no replacement was brought over. But yeah, the AB's only picked one, but probably had a better backrow fill-in than McCalman, the Saffas dont have two opensides in the whole country, the French play a backrow of two 6.5's, and I assume England and Ireland both were prepared to bring in a replacement in case of injury to their first choice 7. Many people saw Deans squad selection at the time as risky, and as it turned out, the risk did not come off.

Hopefully they continue to play in the same vein throughout the test series and it will provide an ugly contrast to Deans limited Wallaby game plan. As a side comment I think the UK press have been provided with an accurate reflection as to how rugby struggles for coverage in our market and how critical it is to have a Wallaby side playing expansive rugby. Talking to a few Lions fans on Saturday night they couldn't believe how much coverage the Origin/Socceroos and AFL get and how little the Lions tour was being reported. The IRB also need to pay attention around removing rules that make the game so stop start.

A good article and some good observations from PeterK above. I'm sure some people smarter than me have seen some other weaknesses but the only one I've seen so far is, with the Lions "rushing COMPRESSED defence" (PeterK's accurate description), one way to beat it is a long pass to get outside it. Both the Reds and the Tahs did this successfully. It can be very dangerous since you are open to an intercept and have to be accruate to avoid a forward or otherwise bad pass. At least once it was done OVER the defenders head... which is, again, dangerous. Foley also put a short kick wide to the winger on one occaison that worked (despite being a dog of a kick). That's another tactic that will work but, again, it is high risk. Unfortunately neither JOC nor Beale are known for their long passing. As PeterK says, Lealifano is probably our best hope. Having someone like McCabe or Horne at 12 would not be good. They have neither the long pass nor the kicking game to go around the Lions defense and nor do they have the bulk or the step to go through it. I can't say whether this Lions team is genuinely different from previous ones but they do feel different to me. Their backline seems very good - polished, fast and classy. Observations others have made on here recently that Sexton doesn't offer much, BOD is past his best and Halfpenny is not an attacking weapon are absolute bunkum.