The Lions 'power' myth

Gatlands selection has been based around form players in winning 6N teams this year, highlighted by 15 of the double winning Welsh and 10 of the GS deciding English, but has Gatland really based his selection on power as opposed to talent or nous?

I'll start by naming what I think would be the most powerfull and destructive team we could...

Sheridan
Hibbard
Jones
Hines
POC
Ferris
SOB
Morgan
Phillips
Wilko
North
Roberts
Tuilagi
Cuthbert
Kearney

So it's true 10 of those players have been selected to travel, but what of the other 5?

Sheridan - N/S
Hines - N/S
Feriis - injured
Morgan - injured
Wilko - declined

So only 2 ruled out with injury.

But it's where we have selected in each position I think proves that Gatland has gone for a nice mixture of quality mixed with a hint of form...

Jenkins and Vunipola over James, James is clearly the better scrummager and grafter in the tight.
Youngs over Rees, Best, Youngs mobility is the saving grace to his average game.
Sheridan over Murray, again mobility
Grey over Hines, again workrate around the park
Croft/Lydiate over Robshaw, again workrate and mobility prefered

Infact I'd say the only selection that favours power over mobility without reducing quality is the selection of Murray over Care/Laidlaw.

Phillips is the standout 9

Roberts and Tuilagi are unrivalled in their positions tbh

North and Cuthbert have been too effective to drop

So to sum up I think Gatlands squad looks a lot more mobile and agile than anyone is giving them credit for, the backline is big, but it's just the fact that those are the players on form with the highest quality, I mean Murray aside we all basically selected the backline before the actual selection itself, it's in the pack where Gatland has made numerous selections based on mobility outweighing weaknesses in the all round games, such as Youngs, Lydiate, Croft, Jenkins, Vunipola, Stevens, and Grey.

So is Gatlands pack underpowered? is he looking to match the Aussie style of play? Or has he simply looked at his best available backline and thought 'Wow that is full of big ball carriers, why bother with the set peice specialists when I can pick a pack with less carrying duty who can get around the park more?

BLuesman, I think the ultimate answer will lie in the first test, we will then see Gatland's selections, his game plan and what is going to work.

I guess in many ways the same type of questions will be asked from Deans.

And at this stage both are as clandestine as James Bond in an underground mine.

The pack is no great issue IMO. A good blend of power and pace and enough mobile men

Its in the backs. It would appear ( and we don't really know until the first team is selected) that Gatland wants to play the slow, structured, low risk game. Philips is only the standout 9 if thts the way you want to play. Its not Phillips if you want to play the way most top teams such as Aus do with pace and creativity

compare Your choice of
Phillips, (sexton), Roberts, Tuilagi, North, Cuthbert (1/2P) with
Youngs, Sexton, JD2, Scott, Maitland, Hogg, 1/2P.

The first selection is the one for the structured low risk game - and IMO will be unable to break down Aus. the 2nd selection will be able to move the ball around far quicker and would IMO be more likely to create space and to get in behind the Aus backs. Much higher risk game tho, the wings selection is not important however inthi s as all the avilaibale wings are good players with enough pace

and if you care to look many great pundits / player believe Phillips to be slow - its clear he is. To some this is outweighed by his positives, to others it is not. I like to see the game played in the way the all blacks, Aus play which is all about pace.

TJ wrote:The pack is no great issue IMO. A good blend of power and pace and enough mobile men

Its in the backs. It would appear ( and we don't really know until the first team is selected) that Gatland wants to play the slow, structured, low risk game. Philips is only the standout 9 if thts the way you want to play. Its not Phillips if you want to play the way most top teams such as Aus do with pace and creativity

compare Your choice of
Phillips, (sexton), Roberts, Tuilagi, North, Cuthbert (1/2P) with
Youngs, Sexton, JD2, Scott, Maitland, Hogg, 1/2P.

The first selection is the one for the structured low risk game - and IMO will be unable to break down Aus. the 2nd selection will be able to move the ball around far quicker and would IMO be more likely to create space and to get in behind the Aus backs. Much higher risk game tho, the wings selection is not important however inthi s as all the avilaibale wings are good players with enough pace

and if you care to look many great pundits / player believe Phillips to be slow - its clear he is. To some this is outweighed by his positives, to others it is not. I like to see the game played in the way the all blacks, Aus play which is all about pace.

Firstly I'm not entering into the Phillips debate on here, it's on 2 other threads.

Have to take your backline selections though... OUCH!!! That second backline would be seriously punished on the international stage!!!

Youngs has flashes of potential but is prone to big errors, JD2 has never played 12 on the international stage and relies on Roberts defencively, Scott would be pummelled and is a season or 2 away from this level, Hoggs move to wing would be a waste ala Brown for England. Thats just a mishmash of players who you perceive as more talented then bigger guys, Bowe is far classier than Hogg at wing, Roberts defencive duties are unparalleled in the NH, and well Scott isn't even touring!!

Reality is a little distant to some with regards to quality of players / height!!

Everyone is talking about not being able to stop Aus, having to outscore them in tries, well thats just BS, they are not regularly beaten by 40 - 38, you wouldn't go to play Brazil in football and open up looking to score 5 goals, you contain them, limit their scoring opportunities while creating the best you can within the parameters.

Gatland will certainly play elements of a slower low risk game, purely because that game has put him within seconds of beating Aus home and away with a lesser squad, it has been silly errors that have cost a depleted Wales team, in key positions, why wouldn't he try the same thing with a better squad?

Does noone ever watch Wile coyote and think 'Hang on, that road runner trap was undone by a bit of fluke luck on his part, just initiate the same plan again and you got the little bugger'?????

Biltong wrote:BLuesman, I think the ultimate answer will lie in the first test, we will then see Gatland's selections, his game plan and what is going to work.

I guess in many ways the same type of questions will be asked from Deans.

And at this stage both are as clandestine as James Bond in an underground mine.

I suspect that the best combination will fielded in the second test as the SH nations routinely and bravely seek to keep their best players from Lions dirt-tracks.
Furthermore, the key player selections for the Lions were made in a foul, wet winter whereas Australian pitches will no doubt be hard due to the Global warming caused exclusively by Australian cow and camel farts.

greytiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:BLuesman, I think the ultimate answer will lie in the first test, we will then see Gatland's selections, his game plan and what is going to work.

I guess in many ways the same type of questions will be asked from Deans.

And at this stage both are as clandestine as James Bond in an underground mine.

I suspect that the best combination will fielded in the second test as the SH nations routinely and bravely seek to keep their best players from Lions dirt-tracks.
Furthermore, the key player selections for the Lions were made in a foul, wet winter whereas Australian pitches will no doubt be hard due to the Global warming caused exclusively by Australian cow and camel farts.

Do you not think Gatland has over compensated for the 'hard pitches' though Grey? With the likes of Youngs, Vunipola, Grey, Croft, Lydiate who have all been selected due to their mobility over harder ground rather than their quality all round?

Bluesman 0- you do realise Scott was the one of if not the best centre of the 6N? 15 stone and pace to burn. Tackle count, yards made etc etc A far superior player to Roberts. I should have had Hogg and 1/2 p the other way round.

Its just an example of how you can select and see in different ways - the 2nd selection has far more pace, skill and guile and would try to run round the opposition. Its a much higher risk strategy for sure and to go all the way down that road would be wrong.

greytiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:BLuesman, I think the ultimate answer will lie in the first test, we will then see Gatland's selections, his game plan and what is going to work.

I guess in many ways the same type of questions will be asked from Deans.

And at this stage both are as clandestine as James Bond in an underground mine.

I suspect that the best combination will fielded in the second test as the SH nations routinely and bravely seek to keep their best players from Lions dirt-tracks.
Furthermore, the key player selections for the Lions were made in a foul, wet winter whereas Australian pitches will no doubt be hard due to the Global warming caused exclusively by Australian cow and camel farts.

I think it will be the first test, the Wallabies usually do start a bit rusty, if you look at the Lions in 2001 that is exactly when the Lions had their best session during the series, the first 40 of the first half.

That is the best opportunity for Gatland to strike with some creative running and pace on the ball.

thebluesmancometh wrote:

greytiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:BLuesman, I think the ultimate answer will lie in the first test, we will then see Gatland's selections, his game plan and what is going to work.

I guess in many ways the same type of questions will be asked from Deans.

And at this stage both are as clandestine as James Bond in an underground mine.

I suspect that the best combination will fielded in the second test as the SH nations routinely and bravely seek to keep their best players from Lions dirt-tracks.
Furthermore, the key player selections for the Lions were made in a foul, wet winter whereas Australian pitches will no doubt be hard due to the Global warming caused exclusively by Australian cow and camel farts.

Do you not think Gatland has over compensated for the 'hard pitches' though Grey? With the likes of Youngs, Vunipola, Grey, Croft, Lydiate who have all been selected due to their mobility over harder ground rather than their quality all round?

It depends on who gets selected of course along with the conditions but the indications seem to be that the wet-weather squad will be the first to be called upon.

Plus if Gats is true to his word that he's prepared to drop Warburton in order to make way for a better balanced team selection - always the danger of picking a back-rower as skipper.

Thats it your not playing Wales, England,Ireland, France and Italy on the lions tour your playing against a that regularly compete and beat New Zealand and South Africa so playing a backline of Youngs/Sexton/JD2/Scott/Maitland/Hogg/Halfpenny with very little international experience and some not even the best in their positions would get taken apart by a side that has the best most exciting back line in world rugby and knows how to turn up when it matters like they did in the world cup, 4 nations and when it beats the sides that are called thee British and Irish Lions,

TJ wrote:Bluesman 0- you do realise Scott was the one of if not the best centre of the 6N? 15 stone and pace to burn. Tackle count, yards made etc etc A far superior player to Roberts. I should have had Hogg and 1/2 p the other way round.

Its just an example of how you can select and see in different ways - the 2nd selection has far more pace, skill and guile and would try to run round the opposition. Its a much higher risk strategy for sure and to go all the way down that road would be wrong.

Scott was good, but he is not there yet, he's a good club player doing a job in an average backline for Scotland. To say he is a far superior player is a joke, Roberts is in total control of the Welsh defencive effort, and is the lynchpin of our backline. He isn't quick, he isn't a great distributor, but the flashy stuff is about 5% of the game TJ, you seem to think the more errors and risks a player takes the better he is, you are 100% the wrong way around in your opinion in the modern game!

Hogg isn't a good player because he is electric ball in hand, he is a good player because he has a solid all round game, doesn't make mistakes and is electric ball in hand. See the difference!

Biltong wrote:

greytiger wrote:

Biltong wrote:BLuesman, I think the ultimate answer will lie in the first test, we will then see Gatland's selections, his game plan and what is going to work.

I guess in many ways the same type of questions will be asked from Deans.

And at this stage both are as clandestine as James Bond in an underground mine.

I suspect that the best combination will fielded in the second test as the SH nations routinely and bravely seek to keep their best players from Lions dirt-tracks.
Furthermore, the key player selections for the Lions were made in a foul, wet winter whereas Australian pitches will no doubt be hard due to the Global warming caused exclusively by Australian cow and camel farts.

I think it will be the first test, the Wallabies usually do start a bit rusty, if you look at the Lions in 2001 that is exactly when the Lions had their best session during the series, the first 40 of the first half.

That is the best opportunity for Gatland to strike with some creative running and pace on the ball.

I think test 1 will be the acid test, Aus blew us away last summer in the first test, Wales were underprepared and were selected all wrong granted, but the breakdown went one way only!! 2nd and 3rd tests Wales were the better team but that first game they were excellent. Didn't help that half the team had a run out the week before V Scotland as a warm up too mind.

I do like to see a player take risks and without taking risks we will not beat aAus

Glasgow are a great example - bringing in a mad fijian at SH - Matawalo has improved their game no end. He does make mistakes and cost you tries - but he also creates far more thru his pace and high risk game

he is subbed on and off as required tho as the situation demands

Where is your preferred back line going to score tries from? How will they create space?

In the end its a philosophical issue. I prefer a high risk, high tempo exciting entertaining game and I believe this would be our best chance of beating Aus

Hines, Sheridan and Wilkinson are all retired from test rugby, didn't play in the 6N and are play for Claremont and Toulon... both of which will compete in the final in all probability on the 1st June... 1 week after the lions depart and the same day as the first test.

Gatland made selection conditional on the player being available when the plane leaves the week before.

Wilkinson comprehensively out played Farrell in the HC SF yet he did not go... not out of merit but out of the above conditions... all this I'm hanging on rubbish was just a side issue.

So the 5 you chose

Hines - wasn't available
Sheridan - wasn't available
Wilkinson - wasn't available
Ferris - injured
Morgan - injured (just back with only 1 or 2 minor club games to prove fitness)

If the above 5 were playing in Britain & Ireland and fit in all probability they would have travelled and I would see all 5 being close to the lions test 23 had they been so.

welshboii15 wrote:Thats it your not playing Wales, England,Ireland, France and Italy on the lions tour your playing against a that regularly compete and beat New Zealand and South Africa so playing a backline of Youngs/Sexton/JD2/Scott/Maitland/Hogg/Halfpenny with very little international experience and some not even the best in their positions would get taken apart by a side that has the best most exciting back line in world rugby and knows how to turn up when it matters like they did in the world cup, 4 nations and when it beats the sides that are called thee British and Irish Lions,

I think you make a very important point here, experience is vital.

Goodness - I was not expecting to play that backline and said so - what I said was that would be a much quicker and more creative backline that the stodgy one propsed

TJ wrote:I do like to see a player take risks and without taking risks we will not beat aAus

Glasgow are a great example - bringing in a mad fijian at SH - Matawalo has improved their game no end. He does make mistakes and cost you tries - but he also creates far more thru his pace and high risk game

he is subbed on and off as required tho as the situation demands

Where is your preferred back line going to score tries from? How will they create space?

In the end its a philosophical issue. I prefer a high risk, high tempo exciting entertaining game and I believe this would be our best chance of beating Aus

Club signings, and club play is a totally different issue though, risk taking at club level pays off far greater than mistakes are punished!!!

The point is in todays rugby THE BACKLINE DOESN'T CREATE SPACE!!! The team play, tactics and execution does, backs are merely strike runners and finishers!!! It is a statistical fact that tries are easiest to score from turnover ball, it is also a statistical fact that turnover occur fare more frequent when the ball goes wide, hence why the ball doesn't go wide until there is an opportunity to score.

Todays rugby is chess not 7's!!!

On the international stage one mistake is a gamechanger, and offers a loss from the jaws of victory, ask ROG, ask RP, and numerous other players who have ended games recently with their heads in their hands due to a silly error that has lost a game.

so the tried and tested backline of guys like Roberts, Phillips et al are better suited because they have experience?

Want to know these guys record vs. 3N sides are let alone AUS?

Even BOD has a 1 win in 6 record for the lions.

Experience is only good if you can take positives from it.

thebluesmancometh wrote:
Croft/Lydiate over Robshaw, again workrate and mobility prefered

Woah hang on there. I agree with a lot of what you've put on this thread, but no-one beats Robshaw for workrate. I think you're being a bit harsh on Tom Youngs saying that his game is average. He has had a much better season than Best and Rees. That's not just a tactical selection.

I also think the team you've selected as a 'power' one is slightly misleading, since all 5 that Gatland hasn't selected (if you're counting Morgan, who is back now but hasn't had a chance to play) are unavailable through injury or club commitments. Hines will be with Clermont for the French playoffs, just as Sheridan will be with Toulon and he asked Wilkinson to go. The fact that only 10 of the 15 are going doesn't really prove much because there's a strong chance that all 5 of the others would have gone if they were fit and available.

Your main point is right though. The most likely back row, for example, is 3 of Croft, Warburton, Tipuric, Heaslip and Faletau. All mobile and skillful rather than big lumps.

fa0019 wrote:Hines, Sheridan and Wilkinson are all retired from test rugby, didn't play in the 6N and are play for Claremont and Toulon... both of which will compete in the final in all probability on the 1st June... 1 week after the lions depart and the same day as the first test.

Gatland made selection conditional on the player being available when the plane leaves the week before.

Wilkinson comprehensively out played Farrell in the HC SF yet he did not go... not out of merit but out of the above conditions... all this I'm hanging on rubbish was just a side issue.

So the 5 you chose

Hines - wasn't available
Sheridan - wasn't available
Wilkinson - wasn't available
Ferris - injured
Morgan - injured (just back with only 1 or 2 minor club games to prove fitness)

If the above 5 were playing in Britain & Ireland and fit in all probability they would have travelled and I would see all 5 being close to the lions test 23 had they been so.

Missing the week of playing the Baa Baa's doesn't rule a player out of a whole tour, Gatland also said he wouldn't pick players outside of Wales for Wales, apart from the half dozen he does of course!!!

Hines and Sheridan weren't selected through merit, as I agree with you nor was Wilko, Morgan IMHO wouldn't have gone anyway, but Ferris might have. Why exactly would he have taken Sheridan when Paul James is as destructive a scrummager? Why take Hines over POC?

Gatland has put a clear emphasis on mobility up front, but has he gone too far and overcompensated for the 'hard grounds'?

the back line does not create space?


tell that to the all blacks. they score off set piece ball a lot and in open play because thats what their back line does. there is more than one way to skin a cat.

thomh wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:
Croft/Lydiate over Robshaw, again workrate and mobility prefered

Woah hang on there. I agree with a lot of what you've put on this thread, but no-one beats Robshaw for workrate. I think you're being a bit harsh on Tom Youngs saying that his game is average. He has had a much better season than Best and Rees. That's not just a tactical selection.

I also think the team you've selected as a 'power' one is slightly misleading, since all 5 that Gatland hasn't selected (if you're counting Morgan, who is back now but hasn't had a chance to play) are unavailable through injury or club commitments. Hines will be with Clermont for the French playoffs, just as Sheridan will be with Toulon and he asked Wilkinson to go. The fact that only 10 of the 15 are going doesn't really prove much because there's a strong chance that all 5 of the others would have gone if they were fit and available.

Your main point is right though. The most likely back row, for example, is 3 of Croft, Warburton, Tipuric, Heaslip and Faletau. All mobile and skillful rather than big lumps.

I agree with Robshaw mate, his workrate is up thereI persoanlly wouldve taken him, I'm talking flat out mobility though. Robshaw does a lot of work, but in far tighter areas than Lydiate and Croft like to hunt in.

And Youngs, well you can't say he's had a better season because Englands lineout was the worst in the tournament, their scrum really struggled at times, and props either side of him struggled to scrummage and hold onto him. His positive is how he gets around the park, not his set peice which is very avreage at best!!! Cole is a good scrummager, but became exposed with Youngs inside him, compounded by Marler at times too!!

TJ wrote:the back line does not create space?


tell that to the all blacks. they score off set piece ball a lot and in open play because thats what their back line does. there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Go and check how many first phase tries come from backs set moves at int level!!!

Now go back and check who scores the most first phase tries from backs moves at int level!!!

Very few teams score from first phase ball, most plays are prep plays, either forwards loops, crash balls, or mauls, and the NH team that score the most first phase tries...

I think thats the limited backline of Wales isn't it? (please correct me if I'm wrong)

Hines and POC are not the same type of player. Hines is more like AW Jones no???? and I would argue Hines is a better player then Jones and in a straight out fight (rugby wise) would come out on top.

Hard ground or not.... remember its winter in AUS, conditions will be at their most soft for them at least and rain may feature a lot.
If the lions were playing in Feb then sure, sides would need to change but June much less so.

I still think he should have gone for James over Gethin myself. Experience is good and all but he still looks a little off the pace and may just feature in the dirt tracker side.... Healy looks like he could be No.1... Vunipola will be energised and a good alternative option for a bench spot.

On the contrary I think James could have really challenged for a test spot. Gethins selections looks like it was a "jobs for the boys" choice.

thebluesmancometh wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Hines, Sheridan and Wilkinson are all retired from test rugby, didn't play in the 6N and are play for Claremont and Toulon... both of which will compete in the final in all probability on the 1st June... 1 week after the lions depart and the same day as the first test.

Gatland made selection conditional on the player being available when the plane leaves the week before.

Wilkinson comprehensively out played Farrell in the HC SF yet he did not go... not out of merit but out of the above conditions... all this I'm hanging on rubbish was just a side issue.

So the 5 you chose

Hines - wasn't available
Sheridan - wasn't available
Wilkinson - wasn't available
Ferris - injured
Morgan - injured (just back with only 1 or 2 minor club games to prove fitness)

If the above 5 were playing in Britain & Ireland and fit in all probability they would have travelled and I would see all 5 being close to the lions test 23 had they been so.

Missing the week of playing the Baa Baa's doesn't rule a player out of a whole tour, Gatland also said he wouldn't pick players outside of Wales for Wales, apart from the half dozen he does of course!!!

Hines and Sheridan weren't selected through merit, as I agree with you nor was Wilko, Morgan IMHO wouldn't have gone anyway, but Ferris might have. Why exactly would he have taken Sheridan when Paul James is as destructive a scrummager? Why take Hines over POC?

Gatland has put a clear emphasis on mobility up front, but has he gone too far and overcompensated for the 'hard grounds'?

Because he is much better form, playing for a top club and not coming back from injury - simples

fa0019 wrote:Hines and POC are not the same type of player. Hines is more like AW Jones no???? and I would argue Hines is a better player then Jones and in a straight out fight (rugby wise) would come out on top.

Hard ground or not.... remember its winter in AUS, conditions will be at their most soft for them at least and rain may feature a lot.
If the lions were playing in Feb then sure, sides would need to change but June much less so.

I still think he should have gone for James over Gethin myself. Experience is good and all but he still looks a little off the pace and may just feature in the dirt tracker side.... Healy looks like he could be No.1... Vunipola will be energised and a good alternative option for a bench spot.

On the contrary I think James could have really challenged for a test spot. Gethins selections looks like it was a "jobs for the boys" choice.

I just complimented you on the other thread and am about to do so here too...

I have been calling for James over Gethin for a year, Gethin just hasn't been fit or played enough rugby to keep churning out poor performances at int level, however you have to say he gets stronger as he plays more, so by test time he might be a challenge for Healy (although at present I don't think so) I would probably have taken James instead of Stevens though, James can play both sides too and is far more dependable, Vunipola is a nice option IMHO!!

With regards to the 'hard grounds' thats my point, I think Gats has thought too much into it, and over compensated when it might be softer than predicted and Robsahw wouldve been handy to have!

thebluesmancometh wrote:
And Youngs, well you can't say he's had a better season because Englands lineout was the worst in the tournament, their scrum really struggled at times, and props either side of him struggled to scrummage and hold onto him. His positive is how he gets around the park, not his set peice which is very avreage at best!!! Cole is a good scrummager, but became exposed with Youngs inside him, compounded by Marler at times too!!

The scrum is an odd one, as we struggled just as much with Hartley there, and the Leicester scrum has been very strong all season. I tend to think that the lack of weight in the back 5 after Morgan's injury was at least partly to blame for it. Launchbury/Parling/Wood isn't a heavyweight group, and our scrum was in control against Scotland before Morgan went off.

On the lineout I take your point, but by the end of the tournament I don't think the percentages were actually that different between England and a few other teams. I never got the impression that the problem was Youngs' throwing particularly either, and was slightly surprised by all the plaudits Parling has been getting for his lineout work as a result.

When I said better season I wasn't claiming better than Hibbard - just better than Best (whose lineout throwing has not been good, and hasn't made much impact around the park) and Rees (who has lost his place in the Wales team).

thomh wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:
And Youngs, well you can't say he's had a better season because Englands lineout was the worst in the tournament, their scrum really struggled at times, and props either side of him struggled to scrummage and hold onto him. His positive is how he gets around the park, not his set peice which is very avreage at best!!! Cole is a good scrummager, but became exposed with Youngs inside him, compounded by Marler at times too!!

The scrum is an odd one, as we struggled just as much with Hartley there, and the Leicester scrum has been very strong all season. I tend to think that the lack of weight in the back 5 after Morgan's injury was at least partly to blame for it. Launchbury/Parling/Wood isn't a heavyweight group, and our scrum was in control against Scotland before Morgan went off.

On the lineout I take your point, but by the end of the tournament I don't think the percentages were actually that different between England and a few other teams. I never got the impression that the problem was Youngs' throwing particularly either, and was slightly surprised by all the plaudits Parling has been getting for his lineout work as a result.

When I said better season I wasn't claiming better than Hibbard - just better than Best (whose lineout throwing has not been good, and hasn't made much impact around the park) and Rees (who has lost his place in the Wales team).

England went into the last game with an 82% lineout, and Youngs overthrew 3 in that game alone. His scrummaging can be hidden more at club level because of the lesser units he faces, but when the big scrums come to town (Northampton/Ospreys) they did struggle.

I agree also Hartleys scrummaging isn't the best, but he is better than Youngs, he offers more size and agression, Hartley at least does what he needs to to compete.

I agree about Rees, he hasn't been much good, mainly because he has been ousted by Owens, Bests 6N form dipped, but his club form was immense, far better than Youngs, Hartleys, Hibbards etc...

For the record my pecking order wouldve been...

Owens
Best
Hibbard
Hartley
Ford
Youngs

And I wouldve been happy with any 3 combination of the top 4 going, as it stands I really would be worried if Youngs was even on the test bench!

Riskysports wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Hines, Sheridan and Wilkinson are all retired from test rugby, didn't play in the 6N and are play for Claremont and Toulon... both of which will compete in the final in all probability on the 1st June... 1 week after the lions depart and the same day as the first test.

Gatland made selection conditional on the player being available when the plane leaves the week before.

Wilkinson comprehensively out played Farrell in the HC SF yet he did not go... not out of merit but out of the above conditions... all this I'm hanging on rubbish was just a side issue.

So the 5 you chose

Hines - wasn't available
Sheridan - wasn't available
Wilkinson - wasn't available
Ferris - injured
Morgan - injured (just back with only 1 or 2 minor club games to prove fitness)

If the above 5 were playing in Britain & Ireland and fit in all probability they would have travelled and I would see all 5 being close to the lions test 23 had they been so.

Missing the week of playing the Baa Baa's doesn't rule a player out of a whole tour, Gatland also said he wouldn't pick players outside of Wales for Wales, apart from the half dozen he does of course!!!

Hines and Sheridan weren't selected through merit, as I agree with you nor was Wilko, Morgan IMHO wouldn't have gone anyway, but Ferris might have. Why exactly would he have taken Sheridan when Paul James is as destructive a scrummager? Why take Hines over POC?

Gatland has put a clear emphasis on mobility up front, but has he gone too far and overcompensated for the 'hard grounds'?

Because he is much better form, playing for a top club and not coming back from injury - simples

I wouldn't say Hines is in much better form than POC. POC has hit the ground running since he's been back and has been very impressive. Sure, Hines was on top for the HC semi final with a much more dominant team but I still think if you had swapped Hines for POC that day Munster would have lost by more.

Fitness is a worry though, POC was carrying an injury against Clermont, nothing too serious but he's embarking on a long tour. He should be fresh enough though after being out for so long.

thomh wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:
And Youngs, well you can't say he's had a better season because Englands lineout was the worst in the tournament, their scrum really struggled at times, and props either side of him struggled to scrummage and hold onto him. His positive is how he gets around the park, not his set peice which is very avreage at best!!! Cole is a good scrummager, but became exposed with Youngs inside him, compounded by Marler at times too!!

The scrum is an odd one, as we struggled just as much with Hartley there, and the Leicester scrum has been very strong all season. I tend to think that the lack of weight in the back 5 after Morgan's injury was at least partly to blame for it. Launchbury/Parling/Wood isn't a heavyweight group, and our scrum was in control against Scotland before Morgan went off.

On the lineout I take your point, but by the end of the tournament I don't think the percentages were actually that different between England and a few other teams. I never got the impression that the problem was Youngs' throwing particularly either, and was slightly surprised by all the plaudits Parling has been getting for his lineout work as a result.

When I said better season I wasn't claiming better than Hibbard - just better than Best (whose lineout throwing has not been good, and hasn't made much impact around the park) and Rees (who has lost his place in the Wales team).

Has to be mentioned for right or wrong, SL did formally question scrum management in the MS game

thebluesmancometh wrote:

thomh wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:
And Youngs, well you can't say he's had a better season because Englands lineout was the worst in the tournament, their scrum really struggled at times, and props either side of him struggled to scrummage and hold onto him. His positive is how he gets around the park, not his set peice which is very avreage at best!!! Cole is a good scrummager, but became exposed with Youngs inside him, compounded by Marler at times too!!

The scrum is an odd one, as we struggled just as much with Hartley there, and the Leicester scrum has been very strong all season. I tend to think that the lack of weight in the back 5 after Morgan's injury was at least partly to blame for it. Launchbury/Parling/Wood isn't a heavyweight group, and our scrum was in control against Scotland before Morgan went off.

On the lineout I take your point, but by the end of the tournament I don't think the percentages were actually that different between England and a few other teams. I never got the impression that the problem was Youngs' throwing particularly either, and was slightly surprised by all the plaudits Parling has been getting for his lineout work as a result.

When I said better season I wasn't claiming better than Hibbard - just better than Best (whose lineout throwing has not been good, and hasn't made much impact around the park) and Rees (who has lost his place in the Wales team).

England went into the last game with an 82% lineout, and Youngs overthrew 3 in that game alone. His scrummaging can be hidden more at club level because of the lesser units he faces, but when the big scrums come to town (Northampton/Ospreys) they did struggle.

I agree also Hartleys scrummaging isn't the best, but he is better than Youngs, he offers more size and agression, Hartley at least does what he needs to to compete.

I agree about Rees, he hasn't been much good, mainly because he has been ousted by Owens, Bests 6N form dipped, but his club form was immense, far better than Youngs, Hartleys, Hibbards etc...

For the record my pecking order wouldve been...

Owens
Best
Hibbard
Hartley
Ford
Youngs

And I wouldve been happy with any 3 combination of the top 4 going, as it stands I really would be worried if Youngs was even on the test bench!

Keith Wood had tipped Owens not only to tour but to start for the lions earlier in the year. Best was still good around the park though, even if his throwing was bad, he should have travelled.

Gretgael1 wrote:
Keith Wood had tipped Owens not only to tour but to start for the lions earlier in the year. Best was still good around the park though, even if his throwing was bad, he should have travelled.

As good around the park as Youngs?

thomh wrote:

Gretgael1 wrote:
Keith Wood had tipped Owens not only to tour but to start for the lions earlier in the year. Best was still good around the park though, even if his throwing was bad, he should have travelled.

As good around the park as Youngs?

Not as dynamic with ball in hand but for work rate there's not much better than best, imo. He's like another flanker, has good hands and a great engine. For Healy's try against Wales it was Best that chased Biggar down to block the ball, collect it and made a good pass to Heaslip and from this the try was scored. That's leading from the front. It's shame his lineout work was poor during the 6 nation.

Gretgael1 wrote:

thomh wrote:

Gretgael1 wrote:
Keith Wood had tipped Owens not only to tour but to start for the lions earlier in the year. Best was still good around the park though, even if his throwing was bad, he should have travelled.

As good around the park as Youngs?

Not as dynamic with ball in hand but for work rate there's not much better than best, imo. He's like another flanker, has good hands and a great engine. For Healy's try against Wales it was Best that chased Biggar down to block the ball, collect it and made a good great 20 yarder off his left at full tilt pass to Heaslip and from this the try was scored. That's leading from the front. It's shame his lineout work was poor during the 6 nation.

Fixed that

thebluesmancometh wrote:

Gretgael1 wrote:

thomh wrote:

Gretgael1 wrote:
Keith Wood had tipped Owens not only to tour but to start for the lions earlier in the year. Best was still good around the park though, even if his throwing was bad, he should have travelled.

As good around the park as Youngs?

Not as dynamic with ball in hand but for work rate there's not much better than best, imo. He's like another flanker, has good hands and a great engine. For Healy's try against Wales it was Best that chased Biggar down to block the ball, collect it and made a good great 20 yarder off his left at full tilt pass to Heaslip and from this the try was scored. That's leading from the front. It's shame his lineout work was poor during the 6 nation.

Fixed that

I'd have a check of your depth perception if you think that was anywhere near 20 yards, but he did do very well for that try admittedly. One off incident doesn't prove much though, and I didn't think he had a good tournament at all.

thomh wrote:I'd have a check of your depth perception if you think that was anywhere near 20 yards, but he did do very well for that try admittedly. One off incident doesn't prove much though, and I didn't think he had a good tournament at all.

I agree with the above Best was in superb form for the first half of the season, though he fell off his game after the England match. Maybe he is carrying a minor injury that had not been publicised?