VAR: Very Awful Refereeing

At least a decade after rugby and cricket introduced video technology to help on-field referees and umpires fairly adjudicate matches, English football is now experimenting with it for FA Cup games. The results are rather amusing:

At times, fans had no idea what was going on as the referee waited for instructions in his earpiece and the half-time whistle was greeted by a chorus of boos from home supporters.

Lamela’s early goal was disallowed after the VAR ruled Llorente had pulled Harrison McGahey’s shirt – but it took about a minute for the officials to reach their decision, by which time both teams had lined up for the game to restart.

After Son had fired Spurs ahead from 12 yards when he was afforded too much space, the hosts were awarded a penalty when Trippier was fouled by Matt Done. At first, the referee gave a free-kick on the edge of the area before pointing to the spot after another VAR delay.

Son scored from the spot but the celebrations were cut short when Tierney ruled it out without allowing it to be retaken because the South Korea forward, who was booked, had stopped in his run-up.

Video technology had teething problems when first introduced to rugby and cricket, but not like this. For a start, there seems to be some debate over what the rules actually are, never mind how they are applied in a video replay. The video assistant referee (VAR) awarded the penalty last night because, although the foul had “started” outside the area, it “continued” into the penalty area. This could well be the first time in footballing history that such a justification has been used to award a penalty. It happens occasionally in other sports, but rarely does one get the impression watching replays in rugby or cricket that the assistant referee or third umpire is watching entirely different footage and applying quite different rules from what we’re used to.

Moreover, the entire system is a shambolic, amateur effort. In a previous match, the screen the referee reviews was propped up at the end of the tunnel, and he had to run over to watch it.

This happened at Anfield, where there is no big screen. Then during a Manchester United match this graphic popped up on millions of TV screens around the world as viewers waited for the VAR to rule on an offside call:

Somebody later explained this line wasn’t actually used to make the offside call:

But nobody explained what the hell this “wrong image” was supposed to be depicting. Why did it even exist?

I suppose I should have known better, this being football, but I’d have thought the FA would have brought in some serious professionals, trained the referees and technical people properly, coordinated with the broadcasters, and done several weeks of dry practice-runs using old footage to iron out any teething problems. Instead, it looks as though they’ve handed the whole lot off to a bunch of amateurs who are making it up as they go along. Sure we can expect a few problems in the first few weeks, but given how long this technology has been around, you’d have thought the world’s number one sport could do better than this.

I’m half-minded to think this is being done deliberately, to justify not taking the VAR system any further. If so, they’re doing a good job of it.


Poisoned Chalice

I’ve written before about the state of the England woman’s football association, which is less known for any on-field success than the various parliamentary inquiries, investigations, grievances, and internal reviews related to a certain Nigerian-born lawyer who is doing a good job of shaking the organisation down. All the fuss concerned the previous manager Mark Sampson, who supposedly engaged in racial discrimination against Chelsea and England striker Eniola Aluko. He got the boot, and yesterday ex-Manchester United and Everton defender Phil Neville was appointed to the role. Predictably, within hours:

Phil Neville’s appointment as head coach of the England women’s football team has been overshadowed by allegations of sexism.

Shortly after the former Manchester United and England footballer was named as the Lionesses’ new boss, Twitter users began to share controversial tweets that the star wrote six years ago.

Controversial? So what did he do? Downplay FGM? Sing the virtues of Sharia law? Condone wife-beating? Not quite:

In 2012, he had posted: “Morning men couple of hours cricket be4 work sets me up nicely for the day.”

Asked why he only referred to men in his post, he replied: “When I said morning men I thought the women would of been busy preparing breakfast/getting kids ready/making the beds-sorry morning women!”

Sorry, but my pearls remain unclutched.

The 41-year-old deleted the posts and took down his Twitter account as criticism grew.

He’d have been better off tweeting “Fuck this for a game of soldiers!”, resigning on the spot, and doing something else in a field which contains the occasional adult. It’s not like he needs the money.


Best I stick to polyamory and carrier bags

Occasionally readers who I know in real life tell me they like my blog, but skip the posts on sport. To be honest, I can’t say I blame them. This is what I said ten days ago:

Alistair Cook has failed miserably, and hasn’t had a run of decent scores for years;

At the time I wrote that I’d have been happy to see him dropped for the next test. Only I woke up this morning to find he’s sitting pretty on 244 not out at the MCG, overtaking Jayawardene, Chanderpaul, and Lara on the all-time run scorers list. This is probably why the ECB aren’t urgently calling me for advice on such matters.

Then there was the time I wrote about Manchester City’s Pep Guardiola:

Of the three top-name newcomers to Premier League management, Guardiola has the furthest to fall and seems to be struggling the most.  I suspect that explains his rather odd behaviour in the interview I linked to in my opening paragraph, in which he hints at retirement.  Things can change quickly of course and Man City are still in the Champions League, but Guardiola is likely going to have to work harder in the next five months than he has in his entire managerial career.  Welcome to England, Pep!

One year on and Manchester City are 15 points clear at the top of the Premier League, the widest ever margin at this point in the season. They have yet to be beaten in the league and have won a record-breaking 18 successive league matches, and are playing and winning in a manner their closest rivals could not even hope to match. Guardiola and his men will win the league at a canter. In Europe, they finished top of their Champions League group with ease and face FC Basel in the first round of knockout matches. I suspect this turnaround in fortunes came as a result of Guardiola finding my blog post and taking to reading it aloud in the changing room before vital matches. Whatever success he achieves this season will be thoroughly deserved.

Happily, Liverpool’s defence is still crap so I don’t yet have to revisit my critique of Jurgen Klopp. If the £75m they are spending on Van Dijk shores them up at the back I may soon have to: their attack is phenomenally good.


Another Ashes Humiliation

I notice that Australia have regained the Ashes in the shortest time possible, thumping England once again to take an unassailable 3-0 win in the series. I haven’t been following this series for two reasons. Firstly, the rights were bought by BT Sport which I don’t have (splitting sports between Sky and BT is stupid; you end up having to pay two providers for comprehensive sports coverage, even for the same competition in the case of the EPL). Secondly, and more importantly, I was massively put off when the ECB decided to exclude Ben Stokes from the squad after he was involved in a brawl outside a nightclub in September.

The decision to suspend Stokes on full pay was made before the police had charged Stokes with anything, and indeed they still haven’t:

Team supremo Strauss said: “We’ve had no information from the police. We’re waiting for them to make a charging decision and, until that happens, nothing has changed. We’re in the same situation as we have been for quite a long time now.

So why is Plod dragging its feet? Do they really need two months to decide whether to charge someone? Or are they doing it on purpose, to make themselves feel superior? You can be sure that if it were a politician involved or someone else with connections, this would have been closed out in double-quick time. And what the hell is the ECB doing? I get it has an image to protect, but if Stokes hasn’t even been charged, let alone found guilty of a crime, why is he being suspended? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? And this leaves aside the possibility that Stokes intervened on behalf of someone else who was being attacked.

Now I might be a little biassed here in that had David Warner (say) been caught parking on double-yellows I would be calling for his immediate execution, but the decision to suspend Stokes still pisses me off. He is an exciting all-rounder with considerable talents and would be an asset in most (if not all) international teams. Moreover, he has in spades what the England team has lacked for years: balls and aggression. Notably, he was the only player to make a hundred in that disastrous Ashes tour of 2013/14 and one of the few who came home with his reputation intact. He is one of the most exciting players to watch and very popular with the fans, upon whom the game depends. But he’s rough and tattooed and aggressive, and what the ECB really wants is a team full of fresh-faced goody-two-shoes in blazers who granny would like tea with. The fact that they can’t bat for shit doesn’t seem to matter; preserving the squeaky-clean image of the ECB is apparently their top priority.

They might have got away with this had England not been trounced Down Under, but now they have questions will be asked. It’s glaringly obvious that an absence of Ben Stokes isn’t the main issue and his inclusion wouldn’t have changed much, but it is indicative of how the ECB is focusing on all the wrong stuff. The fans don’t care that Stokes filled in some scallies outside a club, but they care very much that England’s batsmen can’t handle fast bowling. Alistair Cook has failed miserably, and hasn’t had a run of decent scores for years; Joe Root has done what all England captains do and forgot how to bat, which might not be so bad if he looked like he could captain; England’s bowlers are 10mph slower than their Aussie counterparts, and our spinner – though very likeable – has been outclassed by Nathan Lyon. The newcomers to the side –  Stoneman, Vince, and Malan – have done pretty well but the story with England has been the same for years now: the openers fail to provide a decent platform, and the middle-order have to fight like hell to reach a respectable score. Until we get a decent top order that can regularly get us to 150+ for 2 or 3, our bowling attack doesn’t really matter. If we could also get a player with such remarkable consistency as Stephen Smith – who also has the burden of captaincy on his shoulders – that would be mighty fine too. Joe Root showed extraordinary promise early in his career, whereas Smith was a bits-and-pieces player for several season before he settled into the side. Root should be where Smith is now, but instead he’s floundering at the crease and all at sea in the field. But who else is there? Well, Stokes, now you mention it.

Attempts will be made to explain away this defeat by pointing to the trend of home teams winning series. Last time the Australians came to England they got whipped, although not as badly as England are now, and complained bitterly that the ball was “swinging too much”. People mentioned at the time that Australians no longer play much county cricket as they used to leaving them exposed when it came to English conditions; I am now hearing that rubbish pitches and congested schedules leave English batsmen woefully short of experience facing genuine quick bowling. The home/away factor will certainly play a part here, but nothing should detract from the fact that aside from a few cameos by the newcomers and middle-order, England have barely shown up.

Someone at the ECB needs to pay the price for this, and his replacement needs to adjust priorities such that sending a decent, prepared side into a test series ranks higher than virtue-signalling. Where this leaves Trevor Bayliss I don’t know. 3-0 is pretty damning; 5-0 will be worse.


An Update on Women’s Football

Remember the story from September about the England woman’s football coach being sacked after a string of allegations of racism coming mainly from one person, Nigerian-born Eniola Aluko?

Well, here’s the latest:

After three inquiries, former England manager Mark Sampson was found to have used discriminatory language to two players – Aluko and Drew Spence.

The Football Association has since apologised for its handling of the case, adding there was “much to learn from this episode”.

But England striker Aluko, who has won 102 caps and lost her place in the team after making unproven allegations of bullying in a 2016 FA cultural review, says she has had no communication from her international team-mates, except for those she plays with at Chelsea.

Why, it’s almost as if having a player accusing the coach of racism, pocketing £80,000 in settlement monies, then continuing with the complaint resulting in his sacking is detrimental to team spirit! I yearn for the day when the field of sports psychology is mature enough to properly understand these things.

This is despite the 30-year-old believing England players may “benefit” from improvements to the Football Association’s grievance process resulting from the case.

I’m going to go out on a limb here, but maybe her teammates don’t have grievances, and if they do, they sort them out among themselves.

Aluko has previously criticised the England players for running over to celebrate a goal with Sampson during their World Cup qualifier against Russia, which proved to be the 35-year-old’s last game in charge.

The problem isn’t one troublemaking individual, it’s everyone else.

She believes they need to adopt the policy of other international teams, who have fought equality issues as a “collective voice”.

Players should be forced to show solidarity.

She told BBC Sport: “Would there have been a different response if homophobic statements were made to players? I think there would be.

“Some of this is just a lack of appreciation of what racism is.

That race card is being waved with more enthusiasm than any English flag spotted at a woman’s football match.

A lot of this is, ‘it hasn’t happened to me, I can’t relate to that, so I’m not going to comment’. That, to me, can’t be a team.

“I’ve got to be able to put myself in your shoes and say, ‘even though I can’t understand what it may feel like, I’m going to try and understand and I’m going to support you regardless’. That is a team.

And there was me thinking teamwork was about putting the collective interests before your own petty grievances. Incidentally:

She chose to remain loyal to the English coaches who had given her the opportunity to play international football, but said: “The main thing for me is for people to understand that choosing to play for England doesn’t mean that I don’t support Nigeria. I’m as much Nigerian as I’m British. Of course Nigeria means a lot to me, it’s part of me, but I’ve been brought up by English coaches.”

Presumably the English coaches were easier to manipulate, shake down, and get fired.

Aluko has regrets about things she has said throughout the process, and apologised for criticising the players on Twitter when they ran over to celebrate with Sampson during the game against Russia.

“I think [the celebration] was naive and perhaps wasn’t the best thing to do for the players,” she said. “Some of them may have a special relationship with Mark Sampson and they have every right [to celebrate with him], but I think about the sensitivity at that time, and it wasn’t respectful.

Me me me me me me me! Five seconds later:

“We need to look at other examples and ask why this isn’t happening with a team ranked third in the world. Is the togetherness we keep banging on about actually being put into action or is it just a hashtag on Twitter?


“I’m not encouraging further discord between me and the players, not that I think there is any discord. As far as I’m concerned, last time I was in the team, everything was fine and nobody had any issues.

“So if anybody has any issues, they need to have specific examples, because what I’m not going to have are insinuations or stereotypes or perceptions to almost excuse what I’ve been through, because it doesn’t excuse it.”

Now it’s generally true that footballers aren’t very bright which could explain such a lack of self-awareness, but this woman has ambitions of becoming a lawyer:

She subsequently went to study Law at Brunel University, where she graduated with a First class degree in 2008. In July 2009 it was announced that Aluko would spend the 2009–10 US off-season studying for the New York bar exam before taking a similar exam in England, her aim being to have an entertainment law practice in both England and the United States.

So she’s not stupid, just highly manipulative and prepared to say absolutely anything to further her own interests. The sooner she gets out of football and into the legal profession where she’d be quite at home, the better for everyone.


The Pussyfication of Society, Rugby Edition

From the BBC:

The UK’s chief medical officers (CMOs) are being urged to protect children from the risks of rugby injuries by removing contact from the school game.

Let’s see who’s driving this:

Prof Allyson Pollock, from Newcastle University, is presenting new evidence that banning tackling would reduce concussion, head and neck injuries.

So a woman is trying to ban the fundamental aspects of a sport that boys have enjoyed for generations. At this point I’d say the feminists have pretty much won, wouldn’t you?

A spokesman for World Rugby said it was unaware of any new evidence that would challenge the current position.

Good. Stick to your guns, boys.

Last year, the CMOs rejected a call for a ban on tackling in youth rugby.

Another relentless campaign. Who’s funding this crap? Want to bet it’s the taxpayer?

They said the benefits of learning, training and playing rugby outweighed the risks of injury.

And who’d want to bet that none of those trying to force these changes ever played rugby to any standard?

I hear the same thing is happening with American football across the pond: over-protective mothers and meddling feminists are running around waving scare stories about concussion, causing participation rates to plummet.

Prof Pollock said children who wanted to could still play contact rugby outside school, for clubs, but schools should not be able to enforce contact rugby.

Look, I grew up in Wales where rugby was a near-religion. I couldn’t run, pass, or tackle which meant I could only play prop, but I weighed six stone soaking wet and was skinny as a beanpole so that was out too. (I also knew to come in from the rain, further ruling me out as a prop.) So what did I do? Well, the lads who were decent got put in one group and the rest (like me) were put in another. The first lot did some proper rugby training and we just had a bit of a run about, enough to get us warm(ish), muddy, and out of breath. I don’t remember putting in many tackles, but you could if you wanted. But it was the boys in the first group who really benefited, because they would later go on to play club rugby and one or two even for Wales. If they were relying on clubs to teach them the basics most of them would never have gone, particularly the working class lads. Going to a rugby club relies on having parents who both care and have the time and means to take their kids there on a Saturday morning. Aren’t we forever being told we need to be more inclusive? It didn’t come much more inclusive than school rugby.

She said: “We call on the chief medical officers to act on the evidence and advise the UK government to put the interests of the child before those of corporate professional rugby unions and remove harmful contact from the school game.”

Oh please. Rugby has been a feature in schools since way before the game even turned professional. This woman hasn’t got the first clue what she’s on about.

The authors reported research that girls were found to be three or four times more likely than boys to be affected by symptoms of concussion for 28 days, and they also highlighted the links between head injuries and an increased risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.

Wasn’t the argument for girls not playing rugby that they would not be up to it physically? Perhaps we ought to have listened, eh?


The State of Women’s Football

The BBC has been running this story on its front page since last night, possibly assuming more than a dozen people give a shit:

Mark Sampson has been sacked as England women’s manager following evidence of “inappropriate and unacceptable” behaviour with female players in a previous role.

The Football Association says that last week it was made aware of the full details of safeguarding allegations made against Sampson in 2014 relating to his time as Bristol Academy manager.

Mark who? Oh, right. Okay. Women’s football. Sorry, where did I leave my paint-drying specs?

Saying that, I found the article illuminating but probably not in the way the BBC would want me to.

Sampson was also cleared this year of wrongdoing following discrimination allegations made by England [women] players, including Chelsea and England striker Eniola Aluko.

The concerns Eni Aluko raised were about perceived bullying and perceived racism. We have investigated those properly, there have been two separate investigations actually which have broadly concluded there’s no systematic evidence for that.

Top-flight women footballer complains about bullying and racism from her male coach. Subsequent investigation turns up no evidence to support the complaint. We then get a timeline (emphasis mine):

December 2013: Sampson becomes England manager having left Bristol Academy

May 2016: England forward Eniola Aluko is asked to participate in a cultural review of all England teams by the FA’s technical director Dan Ashworth.

December 2016: An independent investigation, led by barrister Katharine Newton, hears Aluko’s claims that during a meeting in 2015, Sampson made a “highly inappropriate remark”.

March 2017: The independent review clears Sampson and his staff of wrongdoing but it is understood that Aluko was paid £80,000 in a confidentiality agreement.

13 September 2017: FA says it received the full safeguarding review panel report on the allegations against Sampson.

14 September 2017: The FA says it could re-open its investigation into racism claims against Sampson after further evidence is submitted.

20 September 2017: Sampson sacked by FA

I’m building up a picture here. Are you?

Last week, the FA announced it was to re-open its investigation into separate discrimination claims against Sampson, first made in 2016.

Sampson was alleged to have asked mixed race England midfielder Drew Spence whether she had been arrested during a tournament in 2015, a claim which he denied.

The horrors!

The claim was first made by Spence’s England and Chelsea team-mate Aluko, and Spence has now submitted written evidence to support it.

In a further separate allegation, Aluko said Sampson told her to make sure her Nigerian relatives did not “bring Ebola” to an England game at Wembley in 2014.

Her background is Nigerian, eh?

Two investigations – one internal FA inquiry and one independent review led by barrister Katharine Newton – cleared Sampson of any wrongdoing.

He’s been cleared by two separate investigations, yet people are still unhappy.

Senior FA executives are set to face a parliamentary inquiry over the investigations after Aluko initially raised a “bullying and harassment” grievance against Sampson in response to an internal cultural review.

Parliamentary inquiries, investigations, grievances, internal cultural reviews? There is an entire sub-industry operating in women’s football it seems. Why, it’s almost as if…

Aluko, who has 102 caps and is a qualified lawyer…

Ah, they beat me to it.

Remember folks, this is a sport we’re constantly being encouraged to take seriously. Frankly, my solution would be to appoint a woman as the next England coach and let them get on with whatever the hell they want. Just don’t keep shoving stories about it under my nose, if I wanted high-drama about a load of women I’d watch Desperate Housewives.


Coming from Behind

I was on holiday without a TV and so missed England’s 4th-test victory over South Africa at Old Trafford, which saw them win the series 3-1. The match was pretty much over when England scored 362 in the first innings and South Africa were 84-2 in reply.

When England got absolutely thumped by Australia in the 2013/14 Ashes, I made this comment about the Australian team:

Despite their success, this team has yet to demonstrate it can follow even a modest first innings total or bat a second innings from behind

One of the great things about test cricket is that a team always has the time to overcome a massive deficit, and one of the defining features of a decent test team is its ability to bat patiently and relentlessly for hour after hour, accumulating runs or eating up overs. In the past, it was common for test batsmen to arrive at the crease some 400+ runs behind and be quite unfazed: the likes of Langer, Lara, Tendulkur, Chanderpaul, Sangakarra, Ponting, Smith, and Kallis understood their job was often to climb mountains when batting second or fourth. Not for nothing was Rahul Dravid called “The Wall”.

Nowadays, most test matches are decided on the first and second days: a side wins the toss and bats first accumulating a modest total of between 350 and 400 runs. The side batting second falls miles short, affected by what is called scoreboard pressure. If the side batting first can’t accumulate a decent total, they’ve pretty much lost the match. The last time I saw a test match where the team batting first scored a very good total (400+) and the other side came out and matched it, the players were very different from those we have today. Also, batting out for a draw seems to be a thing of the past: South Africa were the masters of it, with Faf du Plessis – the current Proteas captain – having taken part in a couple of great escapes himself. However, with the departure of AB de Villiers and the demise of JP Duminy, he lacks the partners to do the same now.

One of the most magnificent cricketing performances I’ve seen was in the first test of the 2010/11 Ashes in Brisbane, when England batted first and scored 260, then Australia replied with 481. Andrew Strauss and Alistair Cook walked out for the second innings staring at a 221 run deficit and the likelihood of a humiliating defeat. Strauss fell first having scored 110 with 188 runs on the board, and then Jonathan Trott came in. He went on to score 135 with Cook scoring 235, declaring on 517 for 1. The match was drawn but that batting performance from England’s top three when faced with such immense scoreboard pressure set the tone for the rest of the series, which England went on to win.

These days that would never happen. No two batsmen in the world today could walk out to a 221 run deficit and bat to 187-0. I don’t know if it’s the influence of T20 and one-day cricket meaning players are not exposed to scoreboard pressure, or if players are picked more on explosive power and all-round abilities rather than patient accumulation and a solid defence, but test teams rarely seem able to come from behind and win or save a match in the modern era. It’s a shame, because this was what made test matches exciting, and differentiated them from the shorter formats. I hope things go back to how they were.


Super Rugby descends into farce

Last year I wrote about the parlous state of sport in Australia, including rugby union:

Australia is also going through a low point in Rugby Union, which I don’t think is a mere blip.  Following a strong showing in the 2015 RWC (where they avoided South Africa and rarely worried the Kiwis in the final), their Super XV franchises did spectacularly badly the following season

Were it not for the wildcard system that ensures the playoffs are not dominated by the Kiwis, the Brumbies – Australia’s best side – would have finished joint 7th on points and miles adrift of 5 of the 6 New Zealand sides.  The Brumbies got dumped out of the knockout stages in the first round, and that was the Australian effort over for 2016.

Things are even worse this year, and this is the table as it stands today:

Once again the Brumbies are Australia’s best side, languishing ninth in the overall table standings, but thanks to the “conference” system they now enjoy a home quarter-final against the Hurricanes! Meanwhile, the Auckland Blues are eliminated. There has been some considerable grumbling about this on Twitter, particularly from South Africans.

The four best sides in the competition by a mile and a half are the Crusaders, Hurricanes, Chiefs, and Highlanders – all from New Zealand. The South African Lions finished top of the combined tablebecause they’re in a weak conference with only 3 other teams, whereas the Kiwis had to play proper opposition most weeks, i.e. each other. This season has seen the Kiwis see off most foreign opponents with ease, and usually only tasting defeat against one of their own teams (which makes the British & Irish Lions fighting them to a standstill all the more impressive). The conference system is supposedly designed to keep the competition interesting and all nations involved until the end, but what they mean is they don’t want four Kiwi teams contesting the finals every year with the Australians sulking on the sidelines. I have long suspected that much of the IRB’s efforts – including some decisions in matches, e.g. the penalty against Scotland in the last WC – are expended towards keeping Australia winning, thus ensuring interest in the sport Down Under. Australians are notoriously fickle when it comes to sport, and if their teams aren’t winning they’ll pretend they don’t exist (see their TV coverage of the Ashes when things aren’t going their way, for example). Australian rugby falling by the wayside will be a disaster for the international sport, which even now lacks top-tier sides that can make for proper international contests.

From what I am reading on Twitter, there are murmurings that the South Africans may leave the Southern Hemisphere setup and join the French Top 14 competition. This would makes sense for two reasons: the South African franchises are being stripped of talent by players leaving for the better money on offer in France, and it’s on a similar time zone (unlike NZ and Australia).

The Super Rugby organisers are trying to do something about this by reducing the number of teams and making the competition more sensible, but it might be too late. In a few years we might see the premier rugby competition in the Southern Hemisphere consist of five good NZ teams and two Australian ones.


Holidays and Sport

Tomorrow I’m off to visit some friends in Baden-Baden until Friday, so no blogging next week I’m afraid.

I was going to write a post on the Lions v New Zealand, but what’s there to say? The Lions played well but didn’t take two golden chances when they ran right up to the line, which you can’t afford to do against the All Blacks. The pack played well but so did that of the Kiwis, cancelling each other out. There was little penetration by the Lions for whole periods of the game, but the breaks by Liam Williams and Jonathan Davies were very good indeed and justified their selection. Nobody played badly for the Lions, in fact everyone played well, only the Kiwis played better.

It’s hard to know what to do for the second test. Perhaps play Itoje instead of Kruis? As I said, nobody played badly. The worrying thing is the All Blacks generally put in their weakest performance in the first test and get progressively stronger thereafter. Gulp.