Lions Lose Despite 70% Possession Domination

The Crusaders have the best New Zealand pack, yet the Lions pack were able to dominate them for most of the match.

The Crusaders were very clinical in taking their limited opportunities to score.

The Lions just did not seem to back themselves for the win. Penalty kicks for goal when they took control of the game in the 2nd half was a mistake, and should have backed their line out. The Lions were dominating the collisions, and should have carried the ball more. 

The Lions also allowed the Crusaders to counter attack by kicking deep, which is the worst thing to do when playing against New Zealand teams. 

Kicking when half your team is in front of the kicker is the worst possible thing, as it creates gaps to counter attack for the opposition. Some of the tries by the Crusaders were a bit soft, due to the wrong kicking tactics by the Lions. Better to kick shorter, and avoid quick lineouts and counter attacks- and form a line on defence with all 15 players behind the ball. 

This looks promising for the 4 nations, but our flyhalfs lack kicking games, so allot of this responsibility will have to be carried by Faff Deklerk.

I dont think our forwards were dominated at all, in fact far from it.

Basically every time we got down into your half we quickly scored (in the first half) , we didnt have to put together multiple faze's again and again to achieve this. Also though the Lions held possesion for long periods of time they went nowhere quickly and our defense shut your forwards down very effectivly especially at the rolling mall

The Lions played very well but the score line accuratly reflected the difference in the 2 teams

Not even Beeno would claim that his forwards with 30% dominated possession. New Zealand were fortunate once again for only getting one player sent off for cynical play in the red zone.

I am not refering to dominating possesion I am replying to you stating that the Lions forwards dominated our forwards. Which is complete nonsense on your part

Unless the Lions have perfected the backwards rolling maul and the pop-up scrum I cant see where they dominated ?

Surely 70% possession is a result of forward domination?  

70% territory can mean more kicking, but possession is down to the forwards outperforming the opposition pack...

Poor tactical kicking, that resulted in turnover tries are where the Crusaders scored from. If the Lions had made shorter kicks, and had a better inside centre to make more of the attacking opportunities - the tactics and execution the Lions would have scored more tries and leaked less.

Marx threw your pack around at ease, and Kieren Read was average at best. Not sure if he gained 1 cm in the tackle collisions the whole match.

The Lions backs stuffed things up because they always overan and were too flat, instead of having strike runners at angles. 

The fact we smashed them at the rolling maul had to be the most pleasing, the Lions from memory were pushed back every single time they tried it and that was supposed to be their strongest weapon  

Nope, just holding possesion and going nowhere does not signify domination of the opposition.

Also I would have thought after watching that  you would be seriously concerned for the upcoming rugby championship.

The signs are there that the All Blacks will be better this year than last and the gulf between us and the rest is as big as ever.

The Saders have looked the part all season long.

They deserve the win.

We gave it our best shot ... had our opportunities ... were kept out by a superb defense ... Marx was kept relatively quite ... Jantjies was awful under pressure as usual ...

Saders were just too good.

Congrats to the Lions for making it three finals in a row.

Proud of you boys.

Surely 70% possession is a result of forward domination?  

70% territory can mean more kicking, but possession is down to the forwards outperforming the opposition pack...

Another day, another tale.

The 70 % is the result of the NZ side approach to the game. It was forced on the SA side. The SA side did not conquer it, it was handed to them because it suited the NZ side strategy.

As usual, and no different from other SA sides, this SA side existed where the NZ side let them exist.

There is a habit of squandering resources in SA. Granted. But in other places, people try to figure out how they best use available resources.

Defending against possession of ball takes energy.

Conservation of the ball takes energy.

The NZ side figured out that letting the ball possession was the better allocation.

SA rugby, clueless, helpless, toothless as usual when it comes to attacking moves. They can have the ball all day, they wont score. They do not know how to build up momentum, change pace, play between lines, initiate back line play etc

Giving them the ball was the way to go to get a nice show.

SA players are so inept at attacking that their attack attempts end being more dangerous for themselves than for the opposing team.

During this game, three or four phases of bump bump rugby then the team is left out of idea, and quickly disorganized.

The NZ side had it easy to defend against that, they outnumbered SA players at collision and the rest was so readable they lodged a few heavy tackles in the mix. The SA side was roughed up.

On the other hand, the SA defensive grid was poor and the NZ side was on the score whenever they want twist.

They took the lead, let the ball to the SA team, let them waste their energy in loser rugby. When, by accident, the SA team managed to score, the NZ side replied immediately. They even managed the trick playing 14 vs 15.

They structured their game for it to be a nice show.

They could have retained possession. For no other result than troubles for themselves. 60 6 at the end of the game. Another crisis in SA rugby, more whining, more lamenting. SA rugby are a few crisis from termination. Viewers unsatisfied because they expected a contest. WR angry because outrageous domination is bad for business. NZ players tired a bit when the season is not over yet.

Troubles for nothing more.

They managed the game to make everyone happy. They won, their fans are happy. They left a bone for SA rugby to gnaw at, kiddo, get the ball, you can not play rugby, so it does not matter but it will make yourself feel good. Viewers are happy, they had a show to watch, WR, networks, sponsors happy, viewers watched both halves.

The SA side existed where the NZ side let them exist. The SA side had no force, they were mere compliant partners. The NZ side told them pawl, they handed out pawl. The NZ side told them roll, they rolled.

The NZ side bossed the whole encounter, shaping it to their best interests.

Trad has a habit of torturing us with his STUPID!

The Saders had trouble getting out of their half, but they were by far the more physical team. They comfortably repelled the Lions time and again. When they were on attack the level of power they had to play through the Lions was awesome. The Lions couldn't punch through the Saders and thus tried going wide and at times ran out of ideas as space ran out. Clever Mike scoffed at my claims of the importance of physical domination, and here we see it claim another title. The way the Saders stuffed the Lions set pieces was awful, and they severely blunted the influence of Marx and Kwagga. I don't think either one won a turnover. It was a great and accurate performance by the Saders. The better team won, and that's the bottom line. Great reffing performance as well. 

The ABs which of course are bound to our Super teams rarely dominate possession ,how often do you see the ABs killing other sides with minimal possession.

Trad is actually quite correct in his analysis and you guys should at least give him credit for that.

... Exactly Cloudy, when the Chiefs won there title they scored more tries and points than any other team despite having the least amount of possession...70 % possesion domination is irrelevant...

RE: Scott Robrtsons bre ak dancing,pretty fly for a white guy eh ?

Indeed Cloudy thats why I said they should at least give him his due ,and for the most part it was quite a cogent argument.

Not a word about "bent refs " or "cheating kbbs" or Jesus and wot-not.

I don't think Possession is the key attribute. Territory and Field position is. Canes had decent possesion too in their semi final. But alot of it was in their half. Of course Saders were just far too Efficient. Same with the Abs. They may not dominate possesion, but they are ruthless when inside opposition 22. And make bang on decisions. Lions failed in that. Have to agree to by the semi. Canes looked overplayed and fatigued. Just no energy. 

It was certainly interesting how many tackles both teams missed. A product of gang tackles slipping bloating missed tackle stats? Secondary and third defenders failing? A more thorough assessment is in order. 

The Lions backs are not up  to it.

The needed Faf, Rohan and Dyanti and Dyamani as wings. Kwagga at 13. Now then they would have had a backline!

The Lions have some really poor players in their team and the weakest links are Jantjies and Cronje.   They are defensive sieves and a negative when it comes to attacking play.   I also have a problem withtheir lock combination.   While Mostert is good enough - Ori is a dead flop.   

Unfortuately Kwagga Smith is too small physically to be a loosie in such games and the Lions needs a real competitive opensider.  

Kwagga needs a good pack to be most effective. The Saders did their homework on breakdown defence. They lack pace in the backs.