Impartiality in the Lions.

First topic message reminder :

I don't know if this has ever been done before, but here goes.

Since Gatt's has been announced as the Lions head coach there is a lot of players names being banded about as shoe ins, and talk of 50-50 calls going Wales' way in terms of squad selection.

I know there is a lot of Rugby to be played before then but lets just say for arguments sake the tour was leaving as scheduled so injured players can be picked and players out of form can come good.

Pick your test XXII. One condition...... you cannot pick anyone from your nation in your test team.

This will hopefully negate national bias and through the collated names we should get a squad that the best players rise to the top.

It is quite tough to do this so being Scottish here is my Lions Test XXII. In brackets are players who I would have liked to pick from my country to play in the Lions test squad.

1. Cian Healy (I)
2. Rory Best (I) (Ross Ford)
3. Dan Cole (E)
4. Alan-Wyn Jones (W) (Richie Gray)
5. Paul O'Connell (I)
6. Steven Ferris (I)
7. Sam Warburton (W) (Ross Rennie)
8. Sean O'Brien (I)

9. Ben Youngs (E)
10. Toby Flood (E)
11. Tommy Bowe (I) (Tim MacVisser)
12. Scott Williams (W)
13. Johnathon Davies (W)
14. George North (W)
15. Ben Foden (E)

16. Adam Jones (W) 17. Dylan Heartley (E) 18. Luke Charteris (W) 19. Tom Croft (E) 20. Danny Care (E) 21. Johnny Sexton (I) 22. Rob Kearney (I)

As I said harder than it looks. The backrow is particularly hard.

So give it a bash and we'll see what names come up most often.

thebluesmancometh wrote:I have done based on form of last season and the summer...

Healy
Ford
Cole
Gray
Kellock
Ferris
Rennie
SOB
Laidlaw
Sexton
Bowe
BOD???
Tuilagi
Visser?/Ashton?
Kearney

Sadly without the welsh boys though the team, looks lacking a little, especially the backline.

The wing spot just has no real options, Ashton needs time to settle at sarries and some int form, Visser needs to prove himself, Jones is down the pecking order but close to those two as is Zebo IMO.

I nearly sacrificed Ferris for Robshaw for his work on the floor, but decided once you pick your team around your oppositions strengths youve already lost.

SOB is the most dynamic and usefull 8 at present, and has destroyed the Oz team before, as has Rennie got the better of Pocock.
Quick question Blue, how do you think your pack will hold up to Pocock and Higginbottom at the breakdown? You have no natural fetcher, 2 very mobile locks with no nous at the ruck, and even your front 3 aren't particularly usefull at ruck time.

Well, I have Warbs on the bench if it all goes pear-shaped! My thinking was that Australia aren't the biggest pack, and hence chose a really really physcial backrow. Ferris and SOB are excellent counter-ruckers (Ferris especially), and between them, that's more than enough power to overcome Pocock. I didn't pick a fetcher to start simply because I think Pocock's one of the best fetchers in the world, and we don't currently have anyone of his calibre who could compete on the same level (When Warbs is fully fit, he's up there, but given his recent injuries; that's my thinking).

Best and Healy are excellent at the ruck, so not sure where that came from...? They're both like extra flankers and incredibly strong over the ball.

I went for two locks who I think compliment very well. Evans impresses me with his physciality (recent Ospreys game, aside!), and has got that aggressive streak. Gray is just....Richie Gray. He defies physics and evolution. He has to be there.

I agree to a degree bluesman, we want to look carefully at the balance of the team and picking the best 15 in each position won't do that. The gameplan needs to come before the team is picked

thebluesmancometh wrote:Rugger

How as he gone on a long tour?
How many has he scored V SH opposition?
Whats his 6N record like?
How does he stand up defencively to top international pressure?

Long Tour - Yep in the Summer when he went to Oz, Fiji and Samoa
Tries V SH opposition - 2 vs Fiji
6N record - Unknown
Defence during top international pressure? - Unknown.... but he did well in the HC against the likes of Cardiff, Toulouse and Ulster full of international calss talent.

I agree the 6N will be the acid test for Tim Visser. If he plays in the 6N with the same skill and ability as his Rabo, HC and early international games suggest he will be hard to ignore.

That opens the whole new can of Worms of whether or not residency based players should play for the Lions. I personally think they shouldn't but if he scores tries and wins us the series I don't think most people (myself included) will care.

Actually I'd have North or Cuthbert on the bench rather than Visser at the moment

Another thing that confuses me is that a lot of posters here view Pockock as invincible at the breakdown.

Rennie handled him effectively in Scotlands match with Australia over the summer and SOB handled McCaw very well in their test against New Zealand.

IMO Warburton is significantly behind those 2 players in the openside pecking order.

Chequered

I agree totally, but basing that gameplan on what the opposition team does is losing mentality.

Look at the 6N, I don't think Wales were the best team, but they had the biggest reputation, the only team who went out to match and beat them were Ireland who shouldve done so, England, Italy, Scotland and france all went out to contain the Welsh backs, and none really looked like beating Wales. They all kept it tight, they all stiffled us but there was never any real danger, I bet England wished they had taken the game to us more and imposed what they wanted to do instead!!!

Blue

I have to disagree with Healy and Cole being like flankers, Healy is the better but still is small and ive seen him bounce off players at breakdowns, and he will bounce off higginbotham!

Ferris I agree with, he's what we'll need, but Denton at 8 and SOB at 7... Genia would be rubbing his hands together at the prospect of all those holes!!

Gray and Evans are both huge, big ball carriers and dynamic but wheres the muscle coming from? The breakdown was bossed by Oz v Wales because Wales didn't have the muscle, AWJ and Charteris were too ineffectual, and both are better breakdown men than Gray and Evans (debatebly Evans mind)

I just think youve picked too lightweight a pack and it's the exact opposite to how the Kiwis crushed Oz recently!

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:.............That opens the whole new can of Worms of whether or not residency based players should play for the Lions. I personally think they shouldn't but if he scores tries and wins us the series I don't think most people (myself included) will care.

I don't like the current residency rules. But I believe if a player is qualified to play for their country, then they can play for the Lions. Not sure it makes sense for the Lions to have different residency rules than the Home Nations.

I think if we make Pocock tackle all day he won't be at many breakdowns to win them!

thebluesmancometh wrote:

I have to disagree with Healy and Cole being like flankers, Healy is the better but still is small and ive seen him bounce off players at breakdowns, and he will bounce off higginbotham!

Both are excellent on the ground. Healy's better with ball in hand, Cole better at scrum time. Healy small...? Not quite sure how to answer that Bluesmancometh.

Also, a lightweight pack?! Mine's heavier than yours!

Rugger

Undervalue Pocock at your peril!!!

Youve manipulated facts massively, Rennie played V Pocock and a massively weakened Oz team in glasgow and a half weather, neither team could get going, or put anything together and Oz had one eye on the Wales games!!

SOB certainly did not do a job on Mccaw, he was instrumantal in many turnovers and tries for NZ, and was a continual thorn in the side for Ireland.

Not sure why youve brought Warbs into it, at the possibility of a wind up maybe but as Ive said a thousand times he is about 4/5th choice at present because of form and injuries.

Blue

I'll answer it for you, if your LH can be tackled high and knocked flat on his back 2 yards from the try line by Jonne Murphy he's not a big front rower!!

Would you like me to name 10 front rowers who are much bigger than him?

Gething Jenkins near 118kg's,
Franks 119
beast 118
Corbs 118
Court 118
Jacobson 115
Healy 111

Of course all weight fluctuate, and size doesn't mean good floorwork, but my point stands, healy is great around the park but isn't destructive at the breakdown! He tries to fetch rather than win the battle.

Blue

Are you telling me that Gray and Evans would win the muscle battla over POC and Kellock?

GRay and Evans are both flair players to a degree, you can't afford both in the same team IMO.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Blue

I'll answer it for you, if your LH can be tackled high and knocked flat on his back 2 yards from the try line by Jonne Murphy he's not a big front rower!!

Would you like me to name 10 front rowers who are much bigger than him?

Gething Jenkins near 118kg's,
Franks 119
beast 118
Corbs 118
Court 118
Jacobson 115
Healy 111

Of course all weight fluctuate, and size doesn't mean good floorwork, but my point stands, healy is great around the park but isn't destructive at the breakdown! He tries to fetch rather than win the battle.

That seems like a constructive thing to do, ok.

My point stands. I think Healy is an excellent player, and contrary to what you watched or have seen, his all round game is very good.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Blue

Are you telling me that Gray and Evans would win the muscle battla over POC and Kellock?

GRay and Evans are both flair players to a degree, you can't afford both in the same team IMO.

Kellock is a good player, but physicality is not his strongest asset at all. Case in point: when Foden knocked him out during the 6N last year.

The key part of your last post was 'IMO'. That's all this is. Some people have opposing opinions to you Bluesman.

I never said he wasn't a good player, I have him on par with Jenkins at present for a test, but my point is that in your pack you have tons of good ball carriers, lots of dynamism but it will be outmuscled at the breakdown.

And the breakdown is Aus's area at present, if they get parity Genia will have a field day!

Robinson went with 2 fetchers V Oz, and the weather was awfull, but that may well be the answer, with the likes of Rennie, Robshaw, Warbs, Tipuric, Barclay putting 2 on the field may be what we need to negate Pocock (who leads Aus with everything he does) or maybe go the other way and just target the breakdown with shear power...

Jenkins
Ford
Cole
Kellock
POC/Evans
Ferris
Robshaw
Heaslip

Look to outmuscle the Ozzys, but then you have little mobility in there, and run the risk of being whipped if they arent able to dominate up front.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Rugger

Undervalue Pocock at your peril!!!

Youve manipulated facts massively, Rennie played V Pocock and a massively weakened Oz team in glasgow and a half weather, neither team could get going, or put anything together and Oz had one eye on the Wales games!!

SOB certainly did not do a job on Mccaw, he was instrumantal in many turnovers and tries for NZ, and was a continual thorn in the side for Ireland.

Not sure why youve brought Warbs into it, at the possibility of a wind up maybe but as Ive said a thousand times he is about 4/5th choice at present because of form and injuries.

I have never Wound up on here bud. I always try to comment on what I see and don't set out to agitate other posters.

As I have said many times Warburton in the RWC last year played some of the best games of rugby in the 7 position I have ever seen. Better even than some of McCaw's performances. If he can recapture that form not only would he be starting at 7 for me but would Captain the Lions too.

However I don think you are being unfair to Scotland. They bullied the Autralian pack in the way you are suggesting the Lions should but at the same time you are saying the result has no merit since Australia didn't care.

Thats a bit disingenuous at best. Furthermore blaming the weather is another bad example. It was raining for the Australian players too in that match and they were still 2nd best. Mostly because the likes of Gray, Barclay, Rennie, Ford, Grant and Strokosch physically dominated the game up front, the weather had nothing to do with it. Wales' pack in either of their 3 test matches never dominated physically.

However the differance in the Oz vs. Scotland match was not Pockock, it was Genia, who came up against 2 scrum halves as good as he was in the form of Blair and Cusiter. You go on about the gaps that big players like Denton and SOB will leave..... I would be more worried about the big gaps left by a big lumbering scrum half like Phillips leaves when he forgets he is a scrum half and gets burried on rucks!

Nulify Pockock and Genia and you'll beat Australia.

Ferris gave another demonstration of how to deal with Genia in the RWC. By picking him up and scragging him like a child and caryying him 10 yards back. That will have played in his mind for the rest of that game.

thebluesmancometh wrote:I never said he wasn't a good player, I have him on par with Jenkins at present for a test, but my point is that in your pack you have tons of good ball carriers, lots of dynamism but it will be outmuscled at the breakdown.

And the breakdown is Aus's area at present, if they get parity Genia will have a field day!

Robinson went with 2 fetchers V Oz, and the weather was awfull, but that may well be the answer, with the likes of Rennie, Robshaw, Warbs, Tipuric, Barclay putting 2 on the field may be what we need to negate Pocock (who leads Aus with everything he does) or maybe go the other way and just target the breakdown with shear power...

Jenkins
Ford
Cole
Kellock
POC/Evans
Ferris
Robshaw
Heaslip

Look to outmuscle the Ozzys, but then you have little mobility in there, and run the risk of being whipped if they arent able to dominate up front.

Bluesman, you've started by saying that my pack have 'tons of good ball carriers, lots of dynamism', but then finish with 'you have little mobility in there'. It's a complete contradiction.

Personally, I think the pack I've chosen is very powerful at the breakdown, and also good with ball in hand. Despite the lack of a fetcher, I seriously think they could compete very well. If not, then Warbs on the bench is there to sub on as a natural 7.

Anyway, that's my chosen starting line up. It's a long way away yet, with lots of rugby to be played, so let's just see what coach Gatland does.

Firstly I'm not being harsh on Scotland, it was a good win in poor conditions against a weakened Oz side. They are facts not opinions.

Oz have been hit by injuries, and were weakened again for Scotland.

There were half a dozen 3rd choice players in that lineup for Oz!!

Are you claiming that a storm doesn't affect a scrum halfs ability to run with ball??? Wind whistling through the stadium, torential rain???!!!

In that case Genia must be a defencive whizzkid as he didn't miss a tackle (and we all know he's not)

The difference in the Oz match, aside from the storm, and third choice Oz players was nothing to do with SH's, it was Rennie, Barcaly, Ford, Strokosch, and Kellock who were invincible as a team at each and every breakdown. They struck a balance between carrying, supporting and destructive floor work. Gray ran his usual headless chicken routine a few times, and both teams kicked poorly and made mistakes.

I really start to think your on the wind up when you talk about SH defencive work, there really isn't any tactic to work your SH into a defencive position around the ruck to snag the opposing SH!!

When Phillips is criticised for being in rucks it's on attack, when the ball slows down. If he's in a ruck in defence it matters not a jot to the defencive line, depending on if they are running a sweeper, which most teams don't these days!

OK Blue one last question.

Warbs is on the bench as cover 'just in case' yes?

Don't you think thats very negative, and your setting yourself up for failure, I'd much prefer to have a player on the bench who could come on and add to what I have on the pitch already, not cover for when things go wrong.

Warbs is no impact player, if he doesn't start he's not involved, you'd be far better off with someone like SOB, Denton or even Morgan on the bench!!!

thebluesmancometh wrote:Firstly I'm not being harsh on Scotland, it was a good win in poor conditions against a weakened Oz side. They are facts not opinions.

Oz have been hit by injuries, and were weakened again for Scotland.

There were half a dozen 3rd choice players in that lineup for Oz!!

Are you claiming that a storm doesn't affect a scrum halfs ability to run with ball??? Wind whistling through the stadium, torential rain???!!!

In that case Genia must be a defencive whizzkid as he didn't miss a tackle (and we all know he's not)

The difference in the Oz match, aside from the storm, and third choice Oz players was nothing to do with SH's, it was Rennie, Barcaly, Ford, Strokosch, and Kellock who were invincible as a team at each and every breakdown. They struck a balance between carrying, supporting and destructive floor work. Gray ran his usual headless chicken routine a few times, and both teams kicked poorly and made mistakes.

I really start to think your on the wind up when you talk about SH defencive work, there really isn't any tactic to work your SH into a defencive position around the ruck to snag the opposing SH!!

When Phillips is criticised for being in rucks it's on attack, when the ball slows down. If he's in a ruck in defence it matters not a jot to the defencive line, depending on if they are running a sweeper, which most teams don't these days!

This is pretty crazy stuff! You are talking about an Australia side who were beaten by a NH team in their own back yard and you are saying that it wasn't well earned.

Lets not forget that that's the 2nd time in 2 games that Scotland have beaten Oz.

I also find it funny that you are mentioning the weather as a factor as if the conditions were ideal for both teams. Why can't you give credit where credit is due.

It's been what 7 games without a Welsh win over Oz?

Ireland, England and Scotland have all managed wins over Oz in the last couple of seasons.

Just saying.

I DID NOT SAY IT WASN'T WELL EARNED!!

What are you reading, I was stating the FACTS that Oz were heavily weakened by injuries and weakened again because they needed players for Wales, I was also stating a fact that it was storm weather, no backs were able to get into the game and there were tons of mistakes from both sides.

I never once took credit away from Scotland, just stated facts!!!

I'm not a wind up merchant as you obviously enjoy being at present, I deal with situations and facts.

thebluesmancometh wrote:I DID NOT SAY IT WASN'T WELL EARNED!!

What are you reading, I was stating the FACTS that Oz were heavily weakened by injuries and weakened again because they needed players for Wales, I was also stating a fact that it was storm weather, no backs were able to get into the game and there were tons of mistakes from both sides.

I never once took credit away from Scotland, just stated facts!!!

I'm not a wind up merchant as you obviously enjoy being at present, I deal with situations and facts.

Ok let me help you with some Facts. The Scotland side was a weakened team too. With no Kelly Brown, Dave Denton, Lee Jones and Jim Hamilton. It's ok though the Rain only affected the Australian players......

oh and Ryan Grant was given his 1st cap and Matt Scott was earning his 2nd Cap and Stuart Hogg his 3rd Cap.

Really, weather doesn't affect scorelines???

You are really dissapointing me! If your not willing to put games into context your pretty one eyed!

Out of interest how do you feel about the poor decisions and cards that led to Wales's last gasp win over Scotland in the MS, fanttastic Wales performance culminating in a glorious victory, or Scotland on the day were the better team and were unlucky not to win the match?

No decision is good if it's wrong.

Lawson deserved to get binned for his blatant and stupid antics right under the nose of the Ref and I feel that Byrne did make more out of the contact between Godman and himself.

Neither of those points have any bearing on the game when Mike Blair could have punted the ball out on the full from the restart and taken the draw. In that aspect we let Wales come back into the game and we were rightly punished for it.

Scotland were the better team for 70 minutes but crucially at the end Wales were better and took their chances. Sure Scotland were unlucky but Wales were better, the score line shows it.

Not sure what bearing that has on Scotland beating Australia in the summer though.

CONTEXT!!!

PS Blair couldn't kick dead from a restart without a bounce, the game wouldve played on.

Interesting thread and comments so far. I'm particularly in agreement with the point about selecting the best team to play together and compliment each other, which is made a bit more difficult given we're knocking out one nation. It is however, interesting to see which names, removing national bias are proffered.

Excluding England, and looking to play a relatively varied attacking game here are my choices:

1. G Jenkins - (A Sheridan)
2. R Best
3. A Jones - (D Cole)
4. R Gray
5. P O'Connell
6. S Ferris - (T Croft)
7. R Rennie
8. T Faletau
9. M Blair - (B Youngs)
10. J Sexton
11. G North
12. J Roberts
13. J Davies
14. T Bowe (C Ashton)
15. R Kearney

16. R Ford 17. C Healy (A Corbisiero) 18. M Ross 19. I Evans 20. D Denton 21. M Philips 22. R Preistland (T Flood) 23. K Earls

I've tried to combine some carriers in the forwards, combined with some good ground work in the likes of Gethin, Best and Rennie. SH is a real struggle and whilst Philips does raise his game for the big occasions, i'd like someone a bit more attuned to sniping and creating running lines.

Sexton is the best available FH and hopefully Presitland might get his game back together again. A big back line generally, but people like North are there on merit not just for impact. 12 is a problem position as I see it, Roberts has the experience but i'd like more of a ball player there - and I don't see one of those in any of the home nations at present.

Chjw

You don't see ball playing 12's anywhere at present...

Nonu,
Mccabe
JDV
Roberts

Are all big strong guys who aren't renowned for their guile.

The trend tends to be moving the ball player to 13

BOD
Davies
Smith
Aplon (ish)

Chjw131 wrote:. 12 is a problem position as I see it, Roberts has the experience but i'd like more of a ball player there - and I don't see one of those in any of the home nations at present.

Every nation has their Bolters. Scotlands is Matt Scott. A 12 who does play with guile, vision and Flair. Scotland's biggest problem is try scoring. With Matt Scott at 12 insead of Can't Pass (Sean Lamont) and Won't Pass (Graeme Morrison) we might remedy that problem as well as unearth a potential Lions 12 that will rely on more than brute force.

A good season for Scott and he may make an appearance as one of the youngsters like Halfpenny and Earles in 2009.

Rugger

I like Scott but isn't his defence a little shoddy. I havn't seen anywhere near enough of him yet though.

We are short of 12's, behind Roberts theres no real quality, Mcfadden is struggling, Morrison/Deluca aren't up to it, and IMO bOD won't make it, Barritt well the less said the better!

Long time reader 1st time poster - please be gentle!!

My Lions team without any Welsh players:-

1.C Healy
2.R Best
3.D Cole
4.R Gray
5.P O'Connell
6.S Ferris
7.R Rennie
8.D Denton
9.D Care
10.J Sexton
11.T Bowe
12.M Tuilagi
13.B O'Driscoll
14.C Ashton
15.R Kearney

Not a bad team I think...and a nice mix of nationalities.

Welcome Hooker2

Matt Scotts defence seems to be ok at club and HC level and he did pretty well in the summer tour. As with Visser still to be trully tested at international level.

However at 6ft2" and 15 and a half stone he's not a wee boy!

The purpose of this thread is to collate agroup of players who have been picked by posters who were unable to pick their own nations Favourites. The result hopefully will be a balanced and unbiased squad where the best will rise to the top.

thebluesmancometh wrote:
We are short of 12's, behind Roberts theres no real quality, Mcfadden is struggling, Morrison/Deluca aren't up to it, and IMO bOD won't make it, Barritt well the less said the better!

There seems to be few really good 12's around at the moment. I find that strange in that it should be one of the best positions to play. Fair bit of ball, lots of combat, license to do a bit of this and a bit of that without people questioning what you are doing.

I was actually considering uncapped Twelvetrees because of the lack of 12's

I think impartiality is overrated (lovely 606 word that ).

Are any of us impartial when watching though? Nope, not even when we're looking at two sides we've never seen before. One gets our vote eventually.

Being partial means you've made a judgement and that's better than doing a fence-sitting routine of trying to please everyone else's judgement.

The aim of this thread is to create a kind of impartial side since you can't pick your own nation. In a roundabout way if a player is rated as the best candidate he should be picked more than any other....... I think.

Hopefully 12 will sort itself out this year. Both England and Ireland are going to have to come up with some ideas at 12 this season, and Scotland will no doubt give Matt Scott some more time on the field so that we can see whether or not he's made of the right stuff.

It's a position ripe for a bolter to come through.

I'm looking forward to seeing him gowales. I've been hearing about him for years, but I've only seen still pictures. We might as well just have radio here.

I never had the chance to play much rugby, but 12 seems like it would be one of the best positions to play. Kind of like a superpimp who can get nasty when in the mood, but otherwise just walks around looking superb sending others into trouble.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:The aim of this thread is to create a kind of impartial side since you can't pick your own nation. In a roundabout way if a player is rated as the best candidate he should be picked more than any other....... I think.

Should a player be rated on stats (how much he has done on the field in a verifiable, if bleakly souless, way) or on opinion (Gatland's opinion)? Problem is, we'd all rate players differently both on opinion (naturally) and even when faced with stats (seemingly illogical)!

My theory is that Nonu and Robert's success at 12 has led other nations to think you need a boshy 12. They are wrong

SecretFly wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:The aim of this thread is to create a kind of impartial side since you can't pick your own nation. In a roundabout way if a player is rated as the best candidate he should be picked more than any other....... I think.

Should a player be rated on stats (how much he has done on the field in a verifiable, if bleakly souless, way) or on opinion (Gatland's opinion)? Problem is, we'd all rate players differently both on opinion (naturally) and even when faced with stats (seemingly illogical)!

That means we'd be using both opinion and facts in the selection which would surely be the best way to pick them?

I think the extra five metres off the scrum has influenced it

ChequeredJersey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:The aim of this thread is to create a kind of impartial side since you can't pick your own nation. In a roundabout way if a player is rated as the best candidate he should be picked more than any other....... I think.

Should a player be rated on stats (how much he has done on the field in a verifiable, if bleakly souless, way) or on opinion (Gatland's opinion)? Problem is, we'd all rate players differently both on opinion (naturally) and even when faced with stats (seemingly illogical)!

That means we'd be using both opinion and facts in the selection which would surely be the best way to pick them?

No, I'm saying I think Gatland is an instinct man...but of course instinct based on what he witnesses. I think he'll be after less of what all you are trying to do here (being nice to the other Unions ) and more on what he thinks he'll need. And I seriously think a lot of that will be based on his instincts about players with the right temperament to push through - not cold hard facts about that player runs more metres per game than that other guy.

I agree on both counts. It probably takes longer to develop a Horan than a McCabe aswell, and not many countries are patient / brave enough to wait, even if there is a possible there.

The stats have to be taken in context but if he disregards them, he is a fool. Instincts and facts are two separate tools to come to a correct decision. If you have access to both, why would anyone only use one? It is arrogant to assume one's instincts are infallible, when backing them up (or proving them wrong by accident) is so easy

ChequeredJersey wrote:The stats have to be taken in context but if he disregards them, he is a fool. Instincts and facts are two separate tools to come to a correct decision. If you have access to both, why would anyone only use one? It is arrogant to assume one's instincts are infallible, when backing them up (or proving them wrong by accident) is so easy

I didn't want to get into a detailed one on this - kinda embarrassed that I'm replying yet again to it when it's not really the subject of the thread anyway.

Final word though, stats are always right (technically) but are often proved fallible when the next young thing without the stats shows up and decides today is the day I'm going to kill my opposite number's superiority (based on stats). In other words, it's certainly not always the instincts of a coach that prove fallible, not always his hunches that prove unworthy when measured against the foolproof stats.

Having said that (in theory) I know the Lions will be a big stat operation and of course I'm going to see the guys with their computers in the stands. I'm saying if Gatland is going to be picking a Lions side based on hardyard stats in domestic leagues and perhaps 6N performances, and if English, Irish, Welsh or Scottish fans are going to be clammouring for their high stat guys to go on tour by right, and if he is going to fold under the pressure, then he won't be half the coach I think he is.

Some of the older players especially will be savvy enough to want to go on tour but wise enough to know they have to keep some juice in the tank for the tour itself if chosen. They'll be wiser to the ideas of micro managing their season's efforts - enough to show what they can do and not so much that they're wasted. So, in theory, their exploits in domestic and 6N this year mightn't get the oohs and aahs but they still might be some of the better choices for the real NH/SH battles next Summer. All I'm saying is that Gatland will be aware of how wiser players pace themselves and will choose accordingly - ie, a lot of instincts about what players have a potential to peak in certain climates.

SecretFly wrote:
Some of the older players especially will be savvy enough to want to go on tour but wise enough to know they have to keep some juice in the tank for the tour itself if chosen. They'll be wiser to the ideas of micro managing their season's efforts - enough to show what they can do and not so much that they're wasted. So, in theory, their exploits in domestic and 6N this year mightn't get the oohs and aahs but they still might be some of the better choices for the real NH/SH battles next Summer. All I'm saying is that Gatland will be aware of how wiser players pace themselves and will choose accordingly - ie, a lot of instincts about what players have a potential to peak in certain climates.

It's posts like this that make me love this place. I honestly would never have considered this sort of thing. Great post.

Fly

I'd take that one step further and by next 6N Gatland will have had a hand in certain players management techniques. I'd say Gatland will have an idea of who he wants now, and a core of players will be selected by the 6N and told how to effective manage their workload etc...

thebluesmancometh wrote:Fly

I'd take that one step further and by next 6N Gatland will have had a hand in certain players management techniques. I'd say Gatland will have an idea of who he wants now, and a core of players will be selected by the 6N and told how to effective manage their workload etc...

I agree Bluesman. The foundation players (players who might not actually get to Australia but who will be in his preliminary thoughts even now) will be advised on workload: or rather - to be politically corrrect - they'll have little chats with Lions officials about ideas on how best to arrive at Lions departure in best condition possible, without it of course directly and seriously impacting on or seriously compromising the demands of the players' clubs or nations)

ChequeredJersey wrote:My theory is that Nonu and Robert's success at 12 has led other nations to think you need a boshy 12. They are wrong

I would agree entirely Chequered, even Quins are doing it! I'm not saying it's the wrong way to play, but my preference would be for a bit more vision and awareness at 12, with either a heavier duty winger or 13.

Australia are trying to go down that road, perhaps more by default than anything else but it's got potential. The Rebels were also playing a 10/12 playing combo and Tigers do it more so over here in the Jeff with Allen at 12. We all know that if 36 can progress and develop some consistency he could be the answer as he combines that Frans Steyn sort of physicality with the pass, vision and kicking game. In fact I think SA could use F Steyn to much better effect with a proper FH.

Someone did say it's a ripe position for a bolter, but to my mind I don't think it's a position Gatland will take. He'll have a Wales-esque plan, which is fine, but that will revolve around Roberts/JD2 in midfield I believe. I can't see someone like 36 or Scott getting a starting jersey at 12. Doesn't Jonathan Davies play 12? That might be a better fit for a Lions style.

It seems to be a common phenomenon. Pocock comes along, has a great year, fetchers are the big thing, that appears to be fading a little after Richie was King again in the first NZ-Aus test! We've got to remain open to the idea that you don't NEED a specific type of player in a position, that is one thing I do respect about Gatland's love of Phillips- he may not be Genia but he doesn't need to be. Maybe SBW will have done enough to make ball-playing 12s (though he can play a direct game too) big again?