Lions explain why Biggar made just three measly passes in 2nd Test
Gregor Townsend had defended the intricacies of how out-half Dan Biggar played in last weekend's second Test Lions defeat to the Springboks, a Cape Town loss that prevented them from clinching the series with one match to spare. Welsh out-half Biggar has been selected again to start at No10 for this Saturday's series decider versus the South Africans, a selection that came despite much focus getting placed on how Biggar only passed the ball a measly three times in the 27-9 loss. Truth be told, though, it was only one pass less than the four he made in the previous week's 22-17 win.
Overall in his 57 second Test minutes for the Lions, Biggar made three passes, made two metres off three carries and kicked for 331 metres while the previous week when he played 67 first Test minutes, he made four passes, gained eight metres from two carries and kicked for 275 metres.
Reflecting on the most recent Test performance of Biggar, attack coach Townsend defended the impact of the Lions No10 by insisting one stat can't be looked at in isolation as it doesn't reflect their overall view. "We kicked a few times when we got into the opposition half and that sometimes brought rewards and sometimes it didn't - that was obviously a strategy," explained Townsend when quizzed on the Biggar stat of just three passes.
"And then in the first half we felt that we were gaining momentum a lot playing off nine and when you play more off nine, your ten is not going to touch the ball on too many occasions but in terms of a half of rugby, we were pretty pleased with a lot of what had gone on. We could have moved the ball more, we could have taken those opportunities when we got into the 22 to come alive a little bit more but it was a half of rugby where Dan was at 10 where he made really good decisions and was very accurate with his kicking game.
"Dan didn't play a huge amount in the second half so if we are looking at a passing stat, he obviously didn't play 80 minutes and in that second half, we didn't get that much ball. But whether a ten passes a lot or not it is not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing. We want our tens to take on this blitz defence.
"When some people are rushing up on the outside, you can play around it, you can play between it or you can take it on as a first receiver and Dan did that a couple of times well. There are more nuances and a bit more in behind those stats. But in terms of a first half of rugby when Dan was at ten we felt we did enough to control that game and put more points on the board."
Biggar was just one of two Wales starters in last weekend's loss along with Alun Wyn Jones, the lowest representation of the four countries that made up the team, but the Welsh now have the largest XV representing for the third Test after front-rowers Wyn Jones and Ken Owens, along with full-back Liam Williams and winger Josh Adams, were called up to start.
Asked what he wants from the Welsh pair in the back three, Townsend replied: "To bring their individual strengths. They are outstanding rugby players. There is a lot of focus on Josh around his finishing and Liam around his aerial strengths but I see them as outstanding rugby players. They make good decisions in attack and defence, they connect really well with others in the backline, really good people and they deserve their chance with how well they played and trained on this tour."
Latest Comments
I have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.
Go to commentsYeah, and ours is waaay bigger than yours. Just as you's get a semi…oh hold on that never happens
Go to comments