Will Lancaster learn anything from the Lions win?

First topic message reminder :

Or will he blindly keep calm and carry on? Some tips from me are:-

#1. Power blended with pace wins rugby matches. Soften them up with the bludgeon and then apply the finish with pace.

This means:-
1. Tom Youngs is too under-powered to start a test match. Much better off the bench.
2. Corbs is the real deal at loose-head.
3. Cole is a little under-powered at scrum time but may get better. Hopefully.
4. Croft was found out by Gatland. He is lightweight and goes absent from the coal-face too often. Let him go like Gatland did.
5. Stop playing people out of position FFS. Put wingers on the wing, #8s at #8 and full-backs at full-back for goodness sake.
6. Let Chris Ashton go even though you think he's a nice boy. He has had his chance to show he can tackle and failed.
7. You must power-up the back-line. Will Greenwood stood well above both Roberts and Davies when he interviewed them. You must find some big boys and develop them. You only have 2 years left.

Oh and lastly, under-estimate the power of the Welsh team at your peril. They were magnificent in Aus.

LondonTiger wrote:

beshocked wrote:I don't think Croft should be discarded. I just think he needs to be used properly. Easier said than done.

The backrow that got spanked by Wales had very poor balance - Wood is not a no 8 for example. Croft is not your typical 6.

Morgan has proved himself to be a very important player for England.

Croft functioned properly when paired with Robshaw and Morgan.

I think the Lions tour told Lancaster that balance is key.

Parling should be retained as should all involved on the tour except for Stevens.

Disagree 100% with your selections B, far too many lightweight kitty cats

Hookers should be Webber and Hartley.
TH Props - Wilson and Stevens
Second Rows - Attwood, Borthwick, Launchbury & Lawes
Blindsides - Wood and Haskell

Are you saying stevens is better than colé??? Colé is immense but is not helped by having a very small hooker, a front Roe of corbs, Webber, colé would flatten most front rows. Stevens is a fat piece of cake who.cant scrum at the top krcel

sirtidychris wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

beshocked wrote:I don't think Croft should be discarded. I just think he needs to be used properly. Easier said than done.

The backrow that got spanked by Wales had very poor balance - Wood is not a no 8 for example. Croft is not your typical 6.

Morgan has proved himself to be a very important player for England.

Croft functioned properly when paired with Robshaw and Morgan.

I think the Lions tour told Lancaster that balance is key.

Parling should be retained as should all involved on the tour except for Stevens.

Disagree 100% with your selections B, far too many lightweight kitty cats

Hookers should be Webber and Hartley.
TH Props - Wilson and Stevens
Second Rows - Attwood, Borthwick, Launchbury & Lawes
Blindsides - Wood and Haskell

Are you saying stevens is better than colé??? Colé is immense but is not helped by having a very small hooker, a front Roe of corbs, Webber, colé would flatten most front toes.

I believe London Tiger was, I presume tongue-in-cheek, suggesting Lancaster should not select tigers players to allow them to play for their club hence dropping T. Youngs, Parling, Croft and Cole and the comment on "lightweight kitty cats".

jeffwinger wrote:Whilst I wont back the idea that Lancaster has failed as England coach - it's clearly far to soon to make a judgement either way - I lean towards agreeing with the notion that his appointment was a mistake.  It was the result of an absurd bandwagon instigated by rag touting journos and backed by a vocal army of casual fans.  So soon after we had all been so quick to denounce the decision to appoint such an inexperienced coach in Johnson we fell right back into the same pattern.  Lancaster has been a very good PR face for the RFU.  He's an all round good bloke, he seems hot on discipline and he makes all the right noises in the press, while being friendly and open enough that writers tend to look on his work from a positive perspective.

So far I remain unconvinced, but am slowly coming round - albeit slower than I had hoped.  

Selections and tactics have generally been poor and while consecutive second places in the Six Nations is just about acceptable, our performances have been poor more often that they have been good.  I don't really get how going from winning the 6N playing attacking expansive rugby under Johnson to second place playing Gatlandball-light under Lancaster is viewed as progress by the vast majority of writers.  Yes the attitude among the players appears more positive, and they all come across as jolly nice fellows - but that wont win games.

However, this summer's tour has proven that there is scope for progress under this management team.  Hopefully the shackles have come loose and they will be confident enough to make positive selections and tactical decisions.  The upcoming Autumn Internationals and Six Nations are make or break in my eyes.  Selections will be a key indicator.  If we see players like Barritt and Goode lining up in the backs then I will fear for our World Cup hopes.  But there is still plenty of time for this group to progress in the way we all hope, it has just taken a little longer than it should have done up until this point.

+ 1,000,000!

Lancaster alone wouldn't be too much of an issue for me, as I don't think he does too much coaching himself and he is exceptionally good at manipulating the press and keeping them onside which is a key skill.

But then teaming him with Catt (no experience other then 1 season coaching at an abject LI team) because he happened to be free, and Farrel (not a defence coach and at one of the most boring clubs in the NH at the time) was utter madness.

Sadly I see a lot of the positives from this summer tour having come from coaches who won't be there for the AI's.

Robbie Deans as a technical adviser????

Yappy is that news or your suggestion??

Nah Yappy, Deans as first team selector. Pick him for his strengths

Yet our backs played well in the summer tour with Catt involved which was an area we struggled in during the 6 nations. Farells and rowntrees lions experience can help the eng squad imo.

jeffwinger wrote:Whilst I wont back the idea that Lancaster has failed as England coach - it's clearly far to soon to make a judgement either way - I lean towards agreeing with the notion that his appointment was a mistake.  It was the result of an absurd bandwagon instigated by rag touting journos and backed by a vocal army of casual fans.  So soon after we had all been so quick to denounce the decision to appoint such an inexperienced coach in Johnson we fell right back into the same pattern.  Lancaster has been a very good PR face for the RFU.  He's an all round good bloke, he seems hot on discipline and he makes all the right noises in the press, while being friendly and open enough that writers tend to look on his work from a positive perspective.

So far I remain unconvinced, but am slowly coming round - albeit slower than I had hoped.  

Selections and tactics have generally been poor and while consecutive second places in the Six Nations is just about acceptable, our performances have been poor more often that they have been good.  I don't really get how going from winning the 6N playing attacking expansive rugby under Johnson to second place playing Gatlandball-light under Lancaster is viewed as progress by the vast majority of writers.  Yes the attitude among the players appears more positive, and they all come across as jolly nice fellows - but that wont win games.

However, this summer's tour has proven that there is scope for progress under this management team.  Hopefully the shackles have come loose and they will be confident enough to make positive selections and tactical decisions.  The upcoming Autumn Internationals and Six Nations are make or break in my eyes.  Selections will be a key indicator.  If we see players like Barritt and Goode lining up in the backs then I will fear for our World Cup hopes.  But there is still plenty of time for this group to progress in the way we all hope, it has just taken a little longer than it should have done up until this point.

Hate to say but I completely agree. So far his one coaching success seems to have been to fool Scotland, one team, with a game-plan based around forwards shipping the ball on one just before contact. Fairly smart, unless it's the ONLY thing you have. The press and others wet themselves in excitement at it, like it was a piece of Wayne Smith back-move brilliance. It wasn't, and every other team dealt with it fairly easily. At which point our game got progressively worse throughout the 6Ns.

I'm not going to lay into Lancaster. He's there, it is what it is, let's see what happens in the AIs. But I feel his appointment was a mistake. Zero coaching credibility, very little to suggest he's a better choice than Johnson other than an ability to make the right noises and placate the press. His team seems built around coaching tyros (maybe a bit unfair on Rowntree, but he's a scrum coach so far, not a forwards coach) that will not be able to challenge his authority and that provide the right 'no nonsense' PR. The approach against a very ordinary Argentina side seemed promising, but I'm concerned it was more a result of Baxter coming in.

jeffwinger Johnson's team got royally humped by Ireland. The performances in the 6 nations were hardly impressive then.

You are right of course Yappysnap. Andy Farrell as defence coach was a really poor selection. He's achieved nothing - not part of an AP winning club setup, not part of a Lions tour win.

England's defence has been appalling in general. Leaking tries left right and centre. Lions defence was awful in the three tests vs the Aussies.

I think Lancaster has been getting a lot of criticism. England have been solid since his appointment. Sure he's got things wrong but the only side in the NH who has beaten England is Wales in Lancaster's reign.

Before Lancaster England struggled vs Ireland. Hadn't beaten NZ for 10 years. England have been consistent. Of course there is room for improvement but that's a good thing no?

Lancaster has laid down a solid platform. Now the sparkles,bells and whistles can be added.

We'll be fine, just got to pick players as units not individuals, pick in position and pick players that suit playing against certain teams

beshocked wrote:jeffwinger Johnson's team got royally humped by Ireland.

Before Lancaster England struggled vs Ireland. Hadn't beaten NZ for 10 years. England have been consistent. Of course there is room for improvement but that's a good thing no?

When we choose to be selective we can cut things other ways too. After all under Johnson England managed to beat Wales home and away, beat Australia home and away and secured a win in Dublin.

Right at the moment Lancaster as a coach is at the same crossroads that Johnson was just before RWC11. Things look like they are progressing, but there has been the downer of a humping when playing away from home for the Grand Slam. In the end RWC11 was a disappointment - mainly due to off field stuff that was blown out of all proportion - but we still only lost one match. Johnson was not the right appointment back in 2008, and he should never have accepted the stipulation that he had to keep the old coaching staff. However we can be pretty sure that Johnson would have learnt from the mistakes and changes would have happened.

It is coomon for people to talk down the achievements and abilities of players/coaches to prove that their favourite is better. All that does is create a pointless circular argument.

I like much of what Lancaster and mob has done, but they are an inexperienced crew. Rowntree, Catt and Farrell all had limited experience in the areas they are coaching. Rowntree was a scrum coach, Farrell was not Sarries defence coach. The signs are promising, but we need to see some real progress this season.

Londontiger you are correct. Farrell was Saracens head coach.

Martin Johnson's England picked up a win in Dublin in an inconsequential warm up match. I wouldn't look too much into that. In matches that mattered the Irish won.

Your being selective again B as home and away wins over Aus and Wales were the more prominent part

Fact is in terms of clear hard results Lancaster has not delivered anything that Johnson did not - but we have more hope, which is fine.

It is a fact that the England management and players were inexperienced (and note I refer to the Leicester man as much as the Saracen) but the only way you gain experience is by having a go.

Come Autumn 2015 we will know how we have done and if we developed - hopefully we will see Lancaster do what Johnson failed to and that is push on and have a team whose performances on the field and off make us proud of them (note that does not mean winning)

Lancaster was never going to create a world beating team on day one. You can only properly measure his performance after a couple of seasons and there should be no reason to step in and panic unless there are real signs of problems. Whatever he does there is a significant amount of luck involved as to what players show signs of being able to be internationals and who suffers poor form or most significantly gets injured (and for how long)

He has done well so far - plenty of wins - some very good wins and some poor losses. There is however a lot riding on this season as far as how England develop. There are players such as 36 and the new wings who might just be the real thing. If they kick on under Lancaster's leadership and England develop their style of play then it could be a very good year.

Hopefully the main lesson is that you need proper power up front. It is not just about looking at feedback on the laptop showing how much ground and how many tackles a forward has made, but more about their impact in the game. It is about winning the set piece and gainline battles. Get that right and the backs can then determine by how many points the win will be.

Therefore, Vunipola and Youngs are not a great combo but they can make an impact in matches for sure, especially Youngs who could start with Corbs and Cole/Wilson alongside him. Parling can only be accomodated if our front row is performing well otherwise I would rather have Attwood alongside Launchbury. Morgan is vital at 8.

Injuries are crucial to all sides, but Corbs and Morgan are looking more and more vital to England. Brian Ashton took a depleted England side to South Africa prior to the RWC in 07 and they got smashed. He had that side filled with creative ball players and decided afterwards to load up on big lumps. They made the final which shows that if you get the foundations laid you have a chance. In terms of big matches in the next RWC I would be worried indeed if Marler and Mako were up against Adam Jones.

England must start regularly beating teams ranked below them and then pick off the countries above them.
Same applies to Wales.

I don't think I have truly arrived at a firm opinion about Lancs yet. He came in and did some necessary work with the press and squad and he has one major asset which no one else in the running group (a stupidly small one incidentally) had; that is an understanding that the primary need in an international team is to create the right environment and motivations.

He has emphasised that ethos with some varied methods including going into players' pasts and inviting guest speakers. This is not just gimic stuff it is critical to creating that environment. An environment which the players begin to take over and re-affirm what it means to play for your country. Our great country.

That, to my mind had been lost since SCW. Lancs has gone a long way to restoring it.

The other major asset he's brought to the table is his knowledge of the age-groups and EQPs. That enabled him to bridge that gap between the likes of Easter and Ben Morgan, with almost no one available in between. It has also meant he's formed much better relationships with the clubs and instituted a universal 'style of play' something lacking prior to last year would you believe?!

All of that he has managed to work through and he's now had a season and a half in charge to do that. To a large extent I feel he's done very well in those areas and it may bode well for the future.

On the negative side I think we have to address his playing philosophy and style. He wasn't picked for his tactical ability or coaching. That I can accept given his other attributes, but i'd like to have seen him pick some more developed coaches. Andy Farrell comes with an excellent reputation and Gatland wouldn't have picked him if he wasn't an inspirational motivator. This is the core of a good defence and he epitomises it.

Attack on the other hand hasn't appeared to be his forte and whilst Catty is a legend, it's taking him time to get to grips with international coaching and set plays. Even in Argentina we saw some nice moves but very little off first phase. We had some nice counter attacks and a nice Wade move with Morgan. That was about it. Lancs realises he needs those X-factor players like Eastmond in the side to play what's in front of them and rip up the play-book sometimes.

Ultimately international rugby is about mentality, attitude and culture. Lancs gets that I think and he's done some great work in that area. I think we lack in tactical nous and for that i'd really like to see someone like Rob Baxter come in. At the moment I don't think we've got a settled enough developed side to win the RWC. But there is still some time.

What i'd like to see is Lancs come out like SCW and say 'We want to be the best in the world. Period.' I have never heard that and that should be their pursuit going forward.

When's the EPS named? It'll be interesting to see Lancasters decisions there.

Corbs was great but I really rate Morgan

I would watch out for him next 6n potential player of championship

yappysnap wrote:When's the EPS named? It'll be interesting to see Lancasters decisions there.

Early July last year. I inderstand that first week in August is the latest it can be announced - so clubs can start to understand which players will have their match time regulated by Lancaster (ie he pulled Parling from 3 Tigers matches last season outside of windows but as per agreements).

Having looked this up last week for the article I wrote on the subject, 1st of August looks the favoured date.

Taffineastbourne wrote:England must start regularly beating teams ranked below them and then pick off the countries above them.
Same applies to Wales.

England do that already. In regards to Wales yes I would agree.......

In terms of big matches in the next RWC I would be worried indeed if Marler and Mako were up against Adam Jones.

Handoff, i think Marler's fine. He's alot more solid in the scrum than Mako...and to be fair even in that infamous Lions game when Mako struggled he came back into it well and a few of the Lions scrums smashed the Aussies.
Corbs is way ahead our number 1...but i worry about his injuries...hes only 24/25 and seems to be spending long chunks on the physio bench.

Sarries will continue to work on Makos scrummaging as will Quins with marler...but I wouldnt worry about Marlers scrummaging now....he's not destructive yet...but hes solid now.

Let's see how everyone copes with the new scrummaging laws, shall we? Plus there's a whole 6-7 months of rugby for young props like Mako and Marler to improve their scrummaging and they shall

Totally agree CJ, but judging from the few trial reports coming out its not making much difference. We'll see in the Prem of course.

Lancaster:-

Plus side:- Excellent team manager, culture building, media handler.

Must do Better:- Gatland showed the way. Team selection with extreme power foremost in his mind must be the way. Play people in their rightful positions. Don't be afraid to drop 'big' names if they ain't performing.

Gatland showed the way. Don't scrape through two games on a knife-edge of bad tactics and then play your best tactics (that was always available to you) in the last.

Gatland showed the way. Don't play games with tactics or you just might be choked by your own bluff.

Id rather see a team that can match the most physical yet have players like Wade in who create things from nothing. A nice balance as the Kiwis have done for years and years...

I think Lancaster has done a pretty decent job with England so far, and the tour of Argentina produced some very encouraging performances. As for the Lions, Youngs and Vunipola proved themselves excellent impact subs, and Parling played strongly throughout. Youngs wasn't quite at the races but we know he's a class player, and Owen Farrell will have learned a fair bit through the experience, as will his Dad as defence coach. England will be very competitive in two years time.

I think Lancasters done well and is building nicely, he's had some very good results (NZ) and bad ones (Wales).

He had to get rid of a lot of expereinced players and get his own squad together that didnt have any of the shackles of the previous regime.

He did that, he tightened up the defence, he got a good team morale going, he got his players on his side. Then he starting tinkering and adding to that defensive gameplan and eventually you came out with the intelligent attacking displays against argentina this summer. Admittedly Argentina were poor, but you can only play whats in front of you and what better way to start getting used to a slightly different gameplan than against a team like that?

He's made some bad selections (people out of position) but what coach doesnt? (Gats putting Hogg at 10 for the Lions for godsake?!) but its generally been done to cover for injuries. Which probably says more about his view on the depth at the moment and the fact that a big number of players are probably going to come into the EPS over the next year or 2 and establish themselves.

We always talk about teams being in transition, but this England side genuinely has been, and it has the rollercoaster memories to prove it. IF Lancaster were to leave today, he's left England in a much better place than when he arrived.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

In terms of big matches in the next RWC I would be worried indeed if Marler and Mako were up against Adam Jones.

Handoff, i think Marler's fine. He's alot more solid in the scrum than Mako...and to be fair even in that infamous Lions game when Mako struggled he came back into it well and a few of the Lions scrums smashed the Aussies.
Corbs is way ahead our number 1...but i worry about his injuries...hes only 24/25 and seems to be spending long chunks on the physio bench.

Sarries will continue to work on Makos scrummaging as will Quins with marler...but I wouldnt worry about Marlers scrummaging now....he's not destructive yet...but hes solid now.

Lot more solid in the scrum than Mako? Based on what exactly? Marler's scrummaging is solid? I don't think so.

I know you and others like to point out how poor Mako's scrummaging is based on 20 minutes of a Lions test but that doesn't tell the whole story. I certainly don't see Marler as the superior loosehead prop in any category.

I guess just personal opinion Beshocked...but this season will tell us all...

I think they both have highs and lows so its too difficult to tell which is truly better, and both will probably always be different styles of prop anyway.

Looking forward to Wilson and Webber playing for Bath next season, the new ultra-Wilson was very impressive last season.

Agree with Beshocked on this, I don't think Marler is a superior scrummager to Vunipola. Mako has more power, he just doesn't always get the hit right, and his bind can be dodgy. When he gets it right though he isn't short on power at all. Accordingly Mako can get punished by the ref but he's rarely outmuscled, whereas I've seen Marler take a few real physical beatings by his opposite number.

Academic really, Corbisiero was outstanding for the Lions and must be the presumptive starter for England in the AIs.

Agreed on Wilson and Webber, plus Attwood as well. Big things expected from that Bath front five this season - they have plenty to play for.

yappysnap wrote:I think they both have highs and lows so its too difficult to tell which is truly better, and both will probably always be different styles of prop anyway.

Looking forward to Wilson and Webber playing for Bath next season, the new ultra-Wilson was very impressive last season.

 Ha, like that. So true too. He is new and ultra!

 Of course you don't see Marler as better than Mako in any category, Beshocked, nobody would expect you to

New scrum laws this season and we'll see them play and face off soon enough. Until then it's all conjecture. Both will be in the EPS, both have had reasonably good though very different summers which will act as learning experiences. Both are behind Corbs for England. Beyond that we will see

But whilst I was impressed by Mako on the whole in Australia, I can't help but feel that the Argentina tour has seen some serious double atandards. Kvesic plays well against a weak Argentine side (but not very noticeable in the warm ups) and is hailed as the new saviour at 7 ahead of the England captain. Marler wins a MotM, is in the running for another, helps destroy the Argentine scrum as much as Corbs did the Australian one, and is fantastic all Tour in the loose and the tight but he is still apparently crap. I know we aren't flavour of the month anymore but it still galls...

Hey CJ...i was supporting Marler  

I have noticed that double standards aswell mate. I though Marler accounted himself very well in Argentina...in all areas hence why i do believe he is currently slightly ahead of Mako.
But as i said...this season will be a cracker and the new laws will be interesting.

I am nervous of writing this in case it prompts another he-who-shall-not-be-named rant, but for me I would rank the England looseheads as:

1) Corbs
2) Marler
3) Mako

Dare I ask why you have Marler ahead of Mako?

I'm not a Sarries fan incidentally, I just think Mako is the more destructive ball carrier and is on a par with, if not ahead of, Marler as a scrummager - albeit with some technical deficiencies that need working on. In terms of physical power, and impact off the bench, I'd give Mako the edge.

I suppose were Corbs to be injured though there could be a case for starting Marler and using Mako as impact sub - he performs that role superbly well.

It's not a bad problem to have. Behind Ryan Grant Scotland have very few credible options at loosehead.

Thank you FES. I agree.

Chequeredjersey no double standards from me. I still think the 7 shirt is Robshaw's. Ksevic,Fraser and Wallace have a lot to do to shift him.

Seeing as Mako went with the Lions and was seen as one of the best looseheads in the AP this season I would say he is ahead of Marler.

Plus everyone on here says how appalling Stevens is. Mako has had to scrummage with him.

Geordie do you think Marler should have travelled on the Lions tour instead of Mako?

Mako did just fine in the 3rd test of the Lions too in the scrums but no one remembers that of course.

3rd string Argentinian scrum doesn't compare to 1st choice Aussie scrum.

None of the frontrow faced are in Argentina's squad for the rugby championships.

Destroying a much weaker scrum does not deserve as much credit.

The Aussie guys were also far more experienced.

Londontiger why though? You are of course entitled your opinion. I just don't understand your reasoning. It certainly is not based on last season.

Ok FES

Personally i feel that Marler is solid now...yeah he's had the odd going over but generally doesnt give away much.

Where i feel he has improved and this was highlighted in the summer tour (yes not great opposition) was his ruck / ground work and his clearing out. At times he was ferocious...and its this type of thing that we need all our players doing to get quick ball for the backs.

Mako has brought his carrying game to the international stage far better than Marler, but im not sure his close in game is quite as strong yet...Marler is maybe just a little more polished or down the road...but its a great position for England to be in.

Again just my opinion.

Beshocked,

I praised Mako all the way through the second half of the season and after his selection and above after his torrid time he was part of a few that smashed the Aussies...im not blind.

I personally wouldnt have taken either, i would have taken Grant and Corbs...but out of the two yes i would have taken Marler. Just for that more solid basics.

Now im quite prepared to stand up and change my opinions depending on what i see this season. I believe Makos improvment was much better and quicker than Marlers was this season.

We shall see how it runs this season....

I'd rate them as

1) corbs
2)Marler
3)Sheridan
4)Mako

FES glad you agree.

Geordiefalcon I don't understand how you can say Marler struggling against almost every opposite tighthead is solid. Wales in particular was a poor show.

Mako's ruck/groundwork and clearing out is superior to both Corbisiero and Marler. His power in the maul is quite clear to see. Look at the amount of tackles and turnovers he makes for a prop.

I do wonder if you actually watch Mako.

People just think he's a big powerful man but his workrate is immense and he makes himself a real nuisance.

Geordie - I agree that balance is key, getting a balance between forwards who can carry and those who prefer not to handle the ball and hit rucks instead is one that Lancaster didn't get quite right last season. Clearly you want players ideally to be equally good at both, but in the front row in particular that isn't always easy.

Assuming that Cole and Youngs are starting 3 and 2 respectively, and Launchbury and Parling at lock, then I think England could use a bit of brute power off the bench to complement an otherwise extremely mobile and techincally strong front five.

Both Marler and Mako are still on an learning curve though, and neither are the finished article, so as concluded by most above, let's see what the coming season holds for both. My prediction is that Corbs will cement his starting role, with Mako as impact sub.

Geordiefalcon I am really glad you weren't selecting as you don't seem to understand certain players.

Vunipola has been in red hot form in 2012-13. Marler has not. If you were basing selection on the 2011-12 season like Gatland did with some players then yes Marler would be ahead of Mako.

I am interested in 2013-14.

You talk about these more solid basics. It's just hyperbole sorry. I haven't seen any form from Marler to show he is ahead of Mako.

If Marler was as impressive as you said then Gatland would have picked him. I don't remember there being too many threads saying Marler was unlucky to miss out.

I'll look for how many voted him loosehead of the AP....

https://www.606v2.com/t44038-606-aviva-premiership-dream-team-lh-prop?highlight=loosehead+prop

How odd - Marler got 0 votes. Mako only got 13.

Comfort deary me. The worrying thing is I don't think you are joking!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/21849383

Example of Mako outclassing Marler with his all round game.

I'll put my thoughts in more detail in a bit when I have some better Internet access, but Mako is definitely ahead of Marler right now, he was a starting Lion. I don't think he is a better player, but like Beshocked must surely agree he is too, I am biased. As for this season: we'll see

Chequeredjersey thank you. That's what I think. Better player is obviously subjective but glad you agree on mako being ahead currently.

As you say we'll see what the pecking order is like closer to the AIs. As it stands this is my opinion:

1.Corbisiero
2.Mako
3.Marler

This is of course not set in stone.

I thought Marler had a far better 2011-12 than 2012-13. Mako had an incredible 2012-13.

We'll see what happens in 2013-14.

Where does Tim Payne fit into all this? Awesome player.