Lions 2017

First topic message reminder :

I understand and respect all the arguments against this kind of post 18 months before but the proper journalists are all having a so we might as well. It happens after every tournament.

For what it's worth I'd pick:

1. Marler
2. Hartley
3. Nel
4. J. Gray
5. AW Jones
6. Faletau
7. Warburton
8. Vunipola
9. Webb
10. Sexton
11. North
12. Henshaw
13. Joseph
14. Watson
15. Hogg

16. McGrath
17. MacInally
18. Lee
19. Itoje
20. Stander
21. Youngs
22. Biggar
23. Halfpenny

Would Gatland even take the Lions job again? He seemed to distance himself from it back in January. New Zealand are a lot better than Australia were at the time and Wales aren't as strong.

I don't think Lancaster would actually be the worst option. Whatever happened towards the end of his time with England, one thing that is not in doubt is that in 2012 he did a great job of putting a largely new team together at short notice and coming pretty close to a grand slam. I suspect that his weakness was more in the minutiae of on-field coaching and tactics, but that he'd be very good at the planning and team-building element, which would be the main requirements of the role given the time pressures anyway.

What about a Southern Hemisphere ex-pat Lions XV? So much fuss was made over Flutey playing for the Lions in 2009, why is there no such complaint over WP Nel, or- perhaps most glaringly considering the tour is in NZ- Hardie being included?

I know people will take issue with the comparison of a player who had played for a nominally international team with the two players currently in the Scottish team, but really the principle is the same. They are all playing for their adopted nations for various professional/monetary reasons. Fair enough, I don't really think we need to debate this; as long as the rules remain as such, Test sides should employ people who qualify under said rules as they see fit.

So, the criteria of this is to specifically include journeymen who made the swap once adults or professional rugby players. So, Billy Vunipola does not count as Australian, but WP Nel certainly counts as South African. There is some murkiness around the likes of Dylan Hartley and Manu Tuilagi. If I'm running out of numbers, I'll include them, but as they moved before their 18th birthdays, I'd rather not.

1.
2.
3. WP Nel
4.
5. (Mouritz Botha?)
6. CJ Stander
7. John Hardie
8. David Denton

9. (Isaac Boss?)
10. Gareth Anscombe
11. Sean Maitland
12. Brad Barritt
13. Jared Payne
14.
15.

16.
17.
18.
19.
20. Nathan Hughes [C] (Only makes the bench, but is honoured with the captaincy, as he's not even British &/or Irish as I type. Impressive.)
21.
22.
23.

Nathan Hughes aside, who seems an anomaly as he's already being included in future England set ups despite not being qualified, I've only included players who have been capped, and therefore count as journeymen. For a rather outdated example, though Paul Tito could have played for Wales, he would be ineligible for such a journeyman team, as he turned down the chance to represent Wales. Good on him.

Also, double points go to Kiwis who have to play against the All Blacks.

Anyone got any suggestions? Must be loads I'm missing out. I'd like to make the team as competitive/as good as possible, so bring up alternatives to the positions I've already filled as well. The more recent the better, hence the players in parenthesis.

Dave Denton should not be in there - he came to Scotland once he had finished school ( not sure quite how old but around 18 IIRC) because he considered himself(at least part) Scots. He was not a pro rugby player prior to his arrival in Scotland again from memory.

Hardie and Maitland both fit your definition tho - and I can also give you Tennessee Tam ( Tommy Seymour) Tim Visser, Josh Strauss, HUgh Blake, Grayson Hart, and Tim Swinson from the Scotland camp.

TJ wrote:Dave Denton should not be in there - he came to Scotland once he had finished school ( not sure quite how old but around 18 IIRC) because he considered himself(at least part) Scots.  He was not a pro rugby player prior to his arrival in Scotland again from memory.

Hardie and Maitland both fit your definition tho - and I can also give you Tennessee Tam ( Tommy Seymour)  Tim Visser, Josh Strauss, HUgh Blake, Grayson Hart, and Tim Swinson from the Scotland camp.

18's old enough for me to feel obliged to include Denton, as is his accent.

For now, I'd also stick to Southern Hemisphere journeymen. They seem more glaringly opportunistic for a few reasons; the standard of rugby is better down there, so harder to play their national times (understandable why Visser doesn't play for the Netherlands), and they can earn more money playing club rugby in the North. Also, the sheer distance is important. If we were to include dual-national British players, a lot of the Welsh players would be questionable due to qualifying for England in some way, namely due to birthplace. Even when considering the obviously-not-Welsh-actually-English-players feel different, too. To make the jump from the West Country to South Wales (Aaron Jarvis, amongst others) seems less explicitly contrived as coming from the other side of the World. That's obviously debatable, but for now, Tommy Seymour, Tim Visser, and Tim Swinson are all out.

I will, however, kindly accept Josh Strauss, Hugh Blake, and Grayson Hart.

Also, if we could end with a completely SANZAR team, excluding the Pacific Islands etc., that would be great; a Lions side comprised of players who have to play against their home nations.

Seagultaf wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Apart from the payers mentioned above JD2 was very average in the first 2 tests and in the 2nd test Bod was outstanding at 13.
Welsh & non welsh fans will never agree on this selection in the 3rd test and of course the fall back is the result. However, many including myself will say that isn't the point.

JD2 was one of the great successes of the tour and played out of position in the first 2 tests as both Roberts and Tuilagi were injured.

BOD is one of the best players I have ever seen, an all time great but by the time of the last Lions tour was well past his best. He had experienced a poor 6N and looked off the pace (certainly not outstanding) in the Lions tests, consequently was dropped on form as Roberts and Tuilagi were available. I thought he had stayed on a season or so too long but to be fair to him he came back strongly in the next season for Ireland and went out on a high.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jun/29/australia-lions-second-test-player-rating

Yes JD2 was shoehorned in out of position but he was poor & Oz were beaten up in the last test & all our squad played well.
These ratings were pretty accurate imo

JD2 was better than BOD in the warmups as well though. The most effective centre pairing on the tour prior to the third test was actually Tuilagi/Davies but it's likely Gatland would still have gone with Roberts over Manu if both had been fit for the first test.

thomh wrote:JD2 was better than BOD in the warmups as well though. The most effective centre pairing on the tour prior to the third test was actually Tuilagi/Davies but it's likely Gatland would still have gone with Roberts over Manu if both had been fit for the first test.

I think that's an understatement - of course Gats would have gone for Roberts even if the form player was Manu.

I would also have had Obrien for Warburton , Bod for JD2, Wade or Zebo for Cuthbert.

As mentioned earlier Murray for Phillips was a no brainier & showed bias/stubbornness on Gats part.

TJ wrote:

Fanster wrote:I am a little shocked by some attitudes here, Gatland wins a series which culminated in a demolishing in test 3 and it was won despite him?

Thats awfull, I didn't notice many people in Australia complaining about selection before the tour, or even during, come to think of it the only time player selection was a huge issue was when BOD was dropped and the lions finally performed how they had threatened to for the month previous.

Many of us protested at the time.  I bet some of the threads are still on here somewhere.  The selection for the squad was poor - but the test team selection was clearly wrong in many eyes.

Gatland was poor and nearly cost us the series with his poor selections.

I posted the last test 23 above and with the exception of Phillips over Murray who would you have had in the 23.

No Lions selection will ever please everyone as we all have some form of National bias even if not like to admit. Even back in the days prior to social media these sort of discussions went on in rugby clubs length and breadth of the UK and Ireland.

thomh wrote:I don't think Lancaster would actually be the worst option. Whatever happened towards the end of his time with England, one thing that is not in doubt is that in 2012 he did a great job of putting a largely new team together at short notice and coming pretty close to a grand slam. I suspect that his weakness was more in the minutiae of on-field coaching and tactics, but that he'd be very good at the planning and team-building element, which would be the main requirements of the role given the time pressures anyway.

The reports from the England camp at the World Cup suggested that it wasn't a happy camp, and that the players were micro-managed within an inch of their lives such that they weren't trusted to socialise. I don't think that's a recipe for success on a Lions tour.

I don't think Lancaster is a bad coach, but he isn't in the same league as Gatland. Not even close.

Engine#4 wrote:Would Gatland even take the Lions job again?  He seemed to distance himself from it back in January.  New Zealand are a lot better than Australia were at the time and Wales aren't as strong.

If he didn't take the job I doubt it would have anything to do with NZ being strong and Wales being less strong than last time.

If he does have reservations it would probably be around the scheduling for the tour, which is pretty insane.

Still, he's taken on some pretty hefty challenges in the past. He took on Wasps when they were a shambles (bottom of the league) and turned them into the best team in Europe. He took on Wales when they were a shambles (Wooden Spoon) and turned them into the best team in the NH. He took on the Lions who had gone 16 years (three tours) without a series win and won a series.

Terrible coach. Doesn't know what he's doing.....

He's a good coach but I thought he made a meal of the last tour. Granted took 2 coaches which everyone has now said are rubbish and a big contributer in Lancaster's fall. Maybe he just needs to take the entire Welsh coaching staff?

No 7&1/2 wrote:He's a good coach but I thought he made a meal of the last tour. Granted took 2 coaches which everyone has now said are rubbish and a big contributer in Lancaster's fall. Maybe he just needs to take the entire Welsh coaching staff?

I think this tour party will have a different feel to it. Wales are not the 6 Nations champions at present and I don't think they will be next year. England are on the up and I'd expect that to continue through to the Lions selection. We know that Gatland's preference is to build from what already exists, rather than reconstruct an entire XV, so I'd expect successful combinations (e.g. the England lineout operation) to make the squad en masse.

Not something I'd want to see either.

I'd be fine with Gatland and Edwards going along, but I think the backs in particular would be better served by input from Ireland, England or Scotland than by Rob Howley.

Gregor Townsend, as an example, would make a fine backs/attack coach for the Lions. He's got international playing and coaching experience with Scotland, a former Lion himself and coached Glasgow to the Pro12 title last year playing a cracking brand of rugby. There are also one or two Lions candidates in his Glasgow backline (Dunbar, Bennett, Seymour and Hogg can all make a case).

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

Seagultaf wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Apart from the payers mentioned above JD2 was very average in the first 2 tests and in the 2nd test Bod was outstanding at 13.
Welsh & non welsh fans will never agree on this selection in the 3rd test and of course the fall back is the result. However, many including myself will say that isn't the point.

JD2 was one of the great successes of the tour and played out of position in the first 2 tests as both Roberts and Tuilagi were injured.

BOD is one of the best players I have ever seen, an all time great but by the time of the last Lions tour was well past his best. He had experienced a poor 6N and looked off the pace (certainly not outstanding) in the Lions tests, consequently was dropped on form as Roberts and Tuilagi were available. I thought he had stayed on a season or so too long but to be fair to him he came back strongly in the next season for Ireland and went out on a high.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jun/29/australia-lions-second-test-player-rating

Yes JD2 was shoehorned in out of position but he was poor & Oz were beaten up in the last test & all our squad played well.
These ratings were pretty accurate imo

Wasn't little Jonathan intimidated by the great Brian O'Driscoll? So Gatland,instead of dropping JD, drops BOD.

Guardian Player Ratings:
13 Brian O'Driscoll 7/10 This was a man on a mission. His tackling was insatiable, his hands soft and the little chips punishing. Was allowed his tussles at the breakdown, but got carried away with one as the pressure built in the second half.

12 Jonathan Davies 4/10 Not bad, but he hasn't quite shone in the Test series. There were good moments of the perspiration kind but also the odd error – a loose chip here, a spill there and he dropped off Ashley-Cooper for the try.

.....and in the Guardian for the 3rd Test:

13 Jonathan Davies 7/10 A day in the spotlight thanks to Brian O'Driscoll's omission and he did little wrong. Typically eye-catching in defence and one kick to touch by the Australia try line was utterly perfect.

12 Jamie Roberts 7/10 Back in the side to smash holes up the middle and certainly battered the Australia midfield. Capped it with a try thanks to the most perfect of running angles on to Conor Murray's pass.

Just in case this point hasn't been made, the Lions won the decisive 3rd Test 41-16. A record margin. The Lions have never won so convincingly. They performed better as a team and as a backline without BOD than with him. The combinations selected by Gatland triumphed and then some. The Lions won. Gatland won. History made.

Nothing to do with the midfield picked however, just a much better performance by the forwards in general, Corbisiero, Hibbard anf O'Brien made a great difference.

21 of those 41 points were scored after Conor Murray came on (at 51 mins). Up to that, the Lions were totally reliant on 1/2 Penny's boot.

Why didn't Gatland keep the Murray / Sexton partnership together? Both were playing really well together? Both had actually played in a game together that defeated Australia in the SH.

Why should BOD have been dropped for Davies (its not as if BOD hadn't played with Roberts before!) when Davies put in a 4/10 performance?

Gatland cheated that win by playing the Welsh team with a few key guests. It went against the ethos of the Lions. The end didn't justify the means.

Sin é wrote:21 of those 41 points were scored after Conor Murray came on (at 51 mins). Up to that, the Lions were totally reliant on 1/2 Penny's boot.

Why didn't Gatland keep the Murray / Sexton partnership together? Both were playing really well together? Both had actually played in a game together that defeated Australia in the SH.  

Why should BOD have been dropped for Davies (its not as if BOD hadn't played with Roberts before!) when Davies put in a 4/10 performance?

Gatland cheated that win by playing the Welsh team with a few key guests. It went against the ethos of the Lions. The end didn't justify the means.

Seriously?? He "cheated" (i.e. acted unfairly and dishonestly) the Lions to a record win by selecting the team he felt best equipped to produce a crushing historic record victory. Winning a Test series in such an emphatic fashion is "against the ethos of the Lions"?? Is it the Lions ethos to lose in heroic fashion by just picking "legends"??

It seems to me that we're really talking about two selections: JD2 for BOD and Phillips for Murray. I personally would have picked Murray. I think the JD2/BOD decision was 50/50. But we're still talking about two selections at the end of the day. And....here it comes again....THE LIONS WON THE 3RD TEST BY A RECORD MARGIN - 41-16.

This is what it must feel like being a Democrat talking to Trump supporters!!

Yep, he cheated the win by using a team that usually played together. This I presume was to a) protect his job with the WRU by picking as many Welsh players as he could squeeze into the team with the hope that he would build their confidence into eventually being able to beat a SH team.

It was obvious from the start that players like Hogg, Zebo, Maitland, SOB, BOD were only brought along as side kicks. How he could have made Warburton captain with Paul O'Connell there is just so obvious that he just wanted to build up the confidence of this Welsh team.

Parachuting in Tommy Bowe was a disgrace considering he wasn't fit, but was probably a ploy to just shaft BOD and be able to say, but I selected Tommy Bowe (who had played most his recent rugby in Wales and who was a popular figure there).

The Welsh team (he even got retired Shane Williams in on the act) + guests won the 3rd Test by a record margin over the worst Australian team in history.

It just goes down to if you believe the win was due to Gatland's inspirational brilliance or Australian ineptitude. The likelihood is probably somewhere in the middle.

It did seem to be a selection to antagonize everyone except the Welsh. I am not sure we have had a situation where two team captains were left at home before, particularly when the incumbent Welsh player in the position they played or were most suitable to playing (e.g BS) was just coming back off injury and had not shown any recent form. Robshaw was pretty shot at the time and needed the summer off but Kelly Brown should have gone.

It also felt insane not choosing POC as captain as he was the outstanding candidate and crucially was not Welsh, given Gatland was Welsh coach and the Welsh made up the largest portion of the squad. I think having a captain from a different team than the coach should be an unofficial rule, as it helps to reinforce the idea of the Lions representing all 4 teams not just the one plus guests thing which rightly or wrongly is very much how a lot of us see the last tour.

Sin é wrote:Yep, he cheated the win by using a team that usually played together. This I presume was to a) protect his job with the WRU by picking as many Welsh players as he could squeeze into the team with the hope that he would build their confidence into eventually being able to beat a SH team.

It was obvious from the start that players like Hogg, Zebo, Maitland, SOB, BOD were only brought along as side kicks. How he could have made Warburton captain with Paul O'Connell there is just so obvious that he just wanted to build up the confidence of this Welsh team.

Parachuting in Tommy Bowe was a disgrace considering he wasn't fit, but was probably a ploy to just shaft BOD and be able to say, but I selected Tommy Bowe (who had played most his recent rugby in Wales and who was a popular figure there).

The Welsh team (he even got retired Shane Williams in on the act) + guests won the 3rd Test by a record margin over the worst Australian team in history.

You are a paranoid man.

I don't think you can say BOD was only brought along as a side kick. He started two Tests. Zebo at the time played on the left wing. Are you suggesting that he should have started instead of George North? Maitland didn't play well enough on the tour, neither did Hogg (although partly down to Gatland's mistaken belief that Hogg could play 10). Still, Halfpenny had the 15 jersey and was player of the series. As for Bowe, he'll have been cleared by Dr James Robson, rightly or wrongly.

Anyway, I think we are probably at the stage of agreeing to disagree (or got there a long time ago!).

BOD started two tests only because Roberts wasn't fit (i.e., a sidekick).
George North could have been moved to the right wing (he has played plenty of test games there) to facilitate Zebo on the left wing (with his left boot). Zebo was playing well. Remember this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=046s-F6OiFQ in Ireland's win over Wales in the Millenium Stadium in the Feb before the Lions Tour in 2013.

Hogg didn't get a chance. Gatland had his wales team picked as soon as he was announced as coach.

Why would you want to move North to accommodate Zebo?

Zebo is ok, but nothing special. Surprised he toured to be honest.

Cyril wrote:Why would you want to move North to accommodate Zebo?

Zebo is ok, but nothing special. Surprised he toured to be honest.

1) Not trying to accommodate Zebo. More like using a better player than Cuthbert or rushing back an unfit Tommy Bowe. North has played plenty on the right wing (including 3 AI tests for Wales the previous autumn).

2) Zebo was playing well. He only toured because of injury. This was despite Ireland beating Wales in the Mellinium Stadium with Zebo & Craig Gilroy on the wings.

Wales had North, Cuthbert & 1/2p as their back three, with Roberts and Davies in the centre.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

Seagultaf wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Apart from the payers mentioned above JD2 was very average in the first 2 tests and in the 2nd test Bod was outstanding at 13.
Welsh & non welsh fans will never agree on this selection in the 3rd test and of course the fall back is the result. However, many including myself will say that isn't the point.

JD2 was one of the great successes of the tour and played out of position in the first 2 tests as both Roberts and Tuilagi were injured.

BOD is one of the best players I have ever seen, an all time great but by the time of the last Lions tour was well past his best. He had experienced a poor 6N and looked off the pace (certainly not outstanding) in the Lions tests, consequently was dropped on form as Roberts and Tuilagi were available. I thought he had stayed on a season or so too long but to be fair to him he came back strongly in the next season for Ireland and went out on a high.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jun/29/australia-lions-second-test-player-rating

Yes JD2 was shoehorned in out of position but he was poor & Oz were beaten up in the last test & all our squad played well.
These ratings were pretty accurate imo

Strange posts, but what we've come to expect from those still bitter over their players not getting picked. I thought BOD was fairly useless in the tests - he didn't do anything of note apart from not really understand the ref's interpretation after several warnings and get penalised (just a measly 3 points here and there mind). JD2 wasn't much better, and he's our most overrated player, but he was better.

If Oz were beaten up then I guess it worked. That's the first series win in 16 years notched up in record breaking fashion, that is what history says anyway. Just like I'm sure that in a few years times nobody will remember this year's 6N as possibly the worst in its history, with all teams rebuilding after a poor world cup for the NH, at least the ones who played more matches.

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:Why would you want to move North to accommodate Zebo?

Zebo is ok, but nothing special. Surprised he toured to be honest.

1) Not trying to accommodate Zebo. More like using a better player than Cuthbert or rushing back an unfit Tommy Bowe. North has played plenty on the right wing (including 3 AI tests for Wales the previous autumn).

2) Zebo was playing well. He only toured because of injury. This was despite Ireland beating Wales in the Mellinium Stadium with Zebo & Craig Gilroy on the wings.

Wales had North, Cuthbert & 1/2p as their back three, with Roberts and Davies in the centre.

Ireland also came fifth that year after losing to Italy in the final round, whilst Wales smashed England to take the title.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Engine#4 wrote:Would Gatland even take the Lions job again?  He seemed to distance himself from it back in January.  New Zealand are a lot better than Australia were at the time and Wales aren't as strong.

If he didn't take the job I doubt it would have anything to do with NZ being strong and Wales being less strong than last time.

If he does have reservations it would probably be around the scheduling for the tour, which is pretty insane.

Still, he's taken on some pretty hefty challenges in the past. He took on Wasps when they were a shambles (bottom of the league) and turned them into the best team in Europe. He took on Wales when they were a shambles (Wooden Spoon) and turned them into the best team in the NH. He took on the Lions who had gone 16 years (three tours) without a series win and won a series.

Terrible coach. Doesn't know what he's doing.....

Best thing you've ever wrote lol. Except we were fifth I think? Just one shy of the spoon...

A lot of people have issues with Gatland's approach to the Lions because - like Woodward's before him - it was so out of kilter with the Lions ethos. He picked a squad to play in the Welsh style and players who didn't fit that mould had already been discarded in his thinking the summer before (judging by Stephen Jones's analysis looking forward to the Lions in 2012. I know he largely spouts tosh in his analysis, but he has a good line to some of the coaches, Gatland included).

He got away with it, but only just. A loose piece of turf at the end of the 1st test led to a missed Australian kick and gave the Lions a win they were very lucky to get. The 3rd test was a huge winning margin - but came largely from the changes in the pack. Having SOB and Corbs - the latter in what will probably be his last great performance - gave the Aussies no platform.

It was a series victory, but for me just didn't taste right. I'd rather see Martin Johnson coach the Lions than Gatland again.

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:Why would you want to move North to accommodate Zebo?

Zebo is ok, but nothing special. Surprised he toured to be honest.

1) Not trying to accommodate Zebo. More like using a better player than Cuthbert or rushing back an unfit Tommy Bowe. North has played plenty on the right wing (including 3 AI tests for Wales the previous autumn).

2) Zebo was playing well. He only toured because of injury. This was despite Ireland beating Wales in the Mellinium Stadium with Zebo & Craig Gilroy on the wings.

Wales had North, Cuthbert & 1/2p as their back three, with Roberts and Davies in the centre.

I still don't understand your reasoning for wanting to drop Cuthbert. In the 2013 six nations tournament, he was top scorer and scored in his only test start on the tour yet you think he wasn't deserving of a place and other players like Maitland or Zebo were.....frankly its a ridiculous statement to make

mikey_dragon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:Why would you want to move North to accommodate Zebo?

Zebo is ok, but nothing special. Surprised he toured to be honest.

1) Not trying to accommodate Zebo. More like using a better player than Cuthbert or rushing back an unfit Tommy Bowe. North has played plenty on the right wing (including 3 AI tests for Wales the previous autumn).

2) Zebo was playing well. He only toured because of injury. This was despite Ireland beating Wales in the Mellinium Stadium with Zebo & Craig Gilroy on the wings.

Wales had North, Cuthbert & 1/2p as their back three, with Roberts and Davies in the centre.

Ireland also came fifth that year after losing to Italy in the final round, whilst Wales smashed England to take the title.

So, Wales (at home) lost to a team that lost away to Italy.

As for England, was anyone calling for Mike Browne, Billy Twelvetrees or Chris Ashton to start in the final test?

True Raven wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:Why would you want to move North to accommodate Zebo?

Zebo is ok, but nothing special. Surprised he toured to be honest.

1) Not trying to accommodate Zebo. More like using a better player than Cuthbert or rushing back an unfit Tommy Bowe. North has played plenty on the right wing (including 3 AI tests for Wales the previous autumn).

2) Zebo was playing well. He only toured because of injury. This was despite Ireland beating Wales in the Mellinium Stadium with Zebo & Craig Gilroy on the wings.

Wales had North, Cuthbert & 1/2p as their back three, with Roberts and Davies in the centre.

I still don't understand your reasoning for wanting to drop Cuthbert.  In the 2013 six nations tournament, he was top scorer and scored in his only test start on the tour yet you think he wasn't deserving of a place and other players like Maitland or Zebo were.....frankly its a ridiculous statement to make

Cutbert was dropped for an unfit Tommy Bowe (who played poorly) for some reason. Can you explain why he was dropped if he was that great?

Sin é wrote:

True Raven wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:Why would you want to move North to accommodate Zebo?

Zebo is ok, but nothing special. Surprised he toured to be honest.

1) Not trying to accommodate Zebo. More like using a better player than Cuthbert or rushing back an unfit Tommy Bowe. North has played plenty on the right wing (including 3 AI tests for Wales the previous autumn).

2) Zebo was playing well. He only toured because of injury. This was despite Ireland beating Wales in the Mellinium Stadium with Zebo & Craig Gilroy on the wings.

Wales had North, Cuthbert & 1/2p as their back three, with Roberts and Davies in the centre.

I still don't understand your reasoning for wanting to drop Cuthbert.  In the 2013 six nations tournament, he was top scorer and scored in his only test start on the tour yet you think he wasn't deserving of a place and other players like Maitland or Zebo were.....frankly its a ridiculous statement to make

Cutbert was dropped for an unfit Tommy Bowe (who played poorly) for some reason. Can you explain why he was dropped if he was that great?

Because as with all selections Gatland felt that Bowe on the right wing was the best option for beating Australia.

Poorfour wrote:It was a series victory, but for me just didn't taste right. I'd rather see Martin Johnson coach the Lions than Gatland again.

Ok, you're going to have to explain that one. I can't think of a single good reason.

Sin é wrote:

True Raven wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:Why would you want to move North to accommodate Zebo?

Zebo is ok, but nothing special. Surprised he toured to be honest.

1) Not trying to accommodate Zebo. More like using a better player than Cuthbert or rushing back an unfit Tommy Bowe. North has played plenty on the right wing (including 3 AI tests for Wales the previous autumn).

2) Zebo was playing well. He only toured because of injury. This was despite Ireland beating Wales in the Mellinium Stadium with Zebo & Craig Gilroy on the wings.

Wales had North, Cuthbert & 1/2p as their back three, with Roberts and Davies in the centre.

I still don't understand your reasoning for wanting to drop Cuthbert.  In the 2013 six nations tournament, he was top scorer and scored in his only test start on the tour yet you think he wasn't deserving of a place and other players like Maitland or Zebo were.....frankly its a ridiculous statement to make

Cutbert was dropped for an unfit Tommy Bowe (who played poorly) for some reason. Can you explain why he was dropped if he was that great?

No i dont understand why Cuthbert was dropped as I previously stated to you a week ago....

Post by True Raven on Tue 22 Mar - 11:51
If anything it was a joke dropping Cuthbert for the second test as not only did Cuthbert justify his selection for the first test by scoring a try, was in better form than bowe

You (or BigTrevsBigMac) still haven't explained though why Cuthbert wasn't deserving of a place in that team in 2013 when he was clearly on try scoring form

True Raven wrote:

Sin é wrote:

True Raven wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:Why would you want to move North to accommodate Zebo?

Zebo is ok, but nothing special. Surprised he toured to be honest.

1) Not trying to accommodate Zebo. More like using a better player than Cuthbert or rushing back an unfit Tommy Bowe. North has played plenty on the right wing (including 3 AI tests for Wales the previous autumn).

2) Zebo was playing well. He only toured because of injury. This was despite Ireland beating Wales in the Mellinium Stadium with Zebo & Craig Gilroy on the wings.

Wales had North, Cuthbert & 1/2p as their back three, with Roberts and Davies in the centre.

I still don't understand your reasoning for wanting to drop Cuthbert.  In the 2013 six nations tournament, he was top scorer and scored in his only test start on the tour yet you think he wasn't deserving of a place and other players like Maitland or Zebo were.....frankly its a ridiculous statement to make

Cutbert was dropped for an unfit Tommy Bowe (who played poorly) for some reason. Can you explain why he was dropped if he was that great?

No i dont understand why Cuthbert was dropped as I previously stated to you a week ago....

Post by True Raven on Tue 22 Mar - 11:51
If anything it was a joke dropping Cuthbert for the second test as not only did Cuthbert justify his selection for the first test by scoring a try, was in better form than bowe

You (or BigTrevsBigMac) still haven't explained though why Cuthbert wasn't deserving of a place in that team in 2013 when he was clearly on try scoring form

My theory is that he wanted to drop BOD* because he would detract too much attention from his Welsh babies. His Welsh babies would probably have felt that a win would have been down to BOD's leadership etc. etc. if he was playing in the final test.

*BOD - retiring from rugby at the end of his 4th tour etc. etc.

Cuthbert was as deserving as any of the other Welsh backs - just he was the one dropped because he was the most dispensible Welsh player and 11 Welsh starters would have been pushing it.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Poorfour wrote:It was a series victory, but for me just didn't taste right. I'd rather see Martin Johnson coach the Lions than Gatland again.

Ok, you're going to have to explain that one. I can't think of a single good reason.

Well, mainly I was saying that I really didn't like Gatland's approach and I think that - given how close the series was in Australia - it would definitely not work in NZ.

But I also think that Johnson - with suitable assistants and perhaps some guidance from Geech - would actually make a very good Lions coach. His principal flaws as England coach were that the bad defeat to Ireland in 2011 caused him to retreat tactically from where he'd been heading and rely too much on his old mates from 2003 in the RWC rather than trust the new players he'd brought through. I don't think either of those would apply on a Lions tour - there's no value in being conservative and the class of 2003 are gone.

He's also a guy who understands the Lions, understands how to lead people and knows what it takes to win in NZ.

So what point are you trying to make now? Cuthbert deserved to be in the test team?

Here's a hypothetical. Had the Lions toured NZ in 2003, with England as the confirmed number one side in the world, what would the Test XV have looked like?

I'd have gone with this:

1.Jenkins 2.Thompson 3.Vickery 4.Johnson(c) 5.POC 6.Hill 7.Wallace 8.Dallaglio 9.Peel 10.Wilkinson 11.Robinson 12.Greenwood 13.BOD 14.Cohen 15.Lewsey

2/3 English
1/3 non-English

Is that against the "ethos" of the Lions?

I'm just trying to understand if this "ethos" requires quotas of players in the XV, rather than picking the team which, in the opinion of the coaches, is the most likely to win the match.

True Raven wrote:So what point are you trying to make now?  Cuthbert deserved to be in the test team?

As it was basically a Welsh team, yea, he should have started.

Welsh players who I think would have made the Lions on merit were:

Adam Jones, AW Jones, Tipuric, Warburton (but not captain and not a certain starter), North, Halfpenny. (6)

None of them were streets ahead of anyone. Halfpenny provided terrific kicking from the tee and he is a brave defender, but I'm not sure that Halfpenny would have been missed as much by another coach would would not have been so reliant on him to score points.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Here's a hypothetical. Had the Lions toured NZ in 2003, with England as the confirmed number one side in the world, what would the Test XV have looked like?

I'd have gone with this:

1.Jenkins 2.Thompson 3.Vickery 4.Johnson(c) 5.POC 6.Hill 7.Wallace 8.Dallaglio 9.Peel 10.Wilkinson 11.Robinson 12.Greenwood 13.BOD 14.Cohen 15.Lewsey

2/3 English
1/3 non-English

Is that against the "ethos" of the Lions?

I'm just trying to understand if this "ethos" requires quotas of players in the XV, rather than picking the team which, in the opinion of the coaches, is the most likely to win the match.

Woodward tried something like that for the 2005 tour to NZ and it was deemed to be one of the worst tours ever. The 2009 Tour was regarded as being one of the better tours (despite losing the Series).

funnyExiledScot wrote:Here's a hypothetical. Had the Lions toured NZ in 2003, with England as the confirmed number one side in the world, what would the Test XV have looked like?

I'd have gone with this:

1.Jenkins 2.Thompson 3.Vickery 4.Johnson(c) 5.POC 6.Hill 7.Wallace 8.Dallaglio 9.Peel 10.Wilkinson 11.Robinson 12.Greenwood 13.BOD 14.Cohen 15.Lewsey

2/3 English
1/3 non-English

Is that against the "ethos" of the Lions?

Why pose a hypothetical? Look at the 1993 Lions. 1st Test saw 9 English starters, while the last two Tests saw 11 English starters each.

I don't care about the others but if you're moaning that Gatland picked his favourites for the Lions test team and then mentioned that Cuthbert didn't deserve his place then back it up or stop moaning about the first winning tour since 97

I think the point that people are discussing is

Did Gatland ignore form players to pick ones he know? - Yes

Did we win the series - Yes

Does anyone think we could have whitewashed that particular Australian team with a more balanced team - Yes (if not Welsh), No (if Welsh)

Did Gatland bring and play injured / retired players due to them being Welsh - Maybe

Did we use the right tactic to beat the Australians - Yes, as we did win, but also maybe not as we did not whitewash them


However we won so that is now history - so lets move on to 2017

for the 2017 - if it is Gatland, then I really do worry, as regardless of who he picks - Bish Bash Ball will not work and does he have a plan B?

Riskysports wrote:I think the point that people are discussing is

Did Gatland ignore form players to pick ones he know? - Yes

Did we win the series - Yes

Does anyone think we could have whitewashed that particular Australian team with a more balanced team - Yes (if not Welsh), No (if Welsh)

Did Gatland bring and play injured / retired players due to them being Welsh - Maybe

Did we use the right tactic to beat the Australians - Yes, as we did win, but also maybe not as we did not whitewash them


However we won so that is now history - so lets move on to 2017

for the 2017 - if it is Gatland, then I really do worry, as regardless of who he picks - Bish Bash Ball will not work and does he have a plan B?

This is the point that people bring up to smeer the 2013 tour. After Wales won back to back six nations titles, who were the form players that he ignored?

Could it not be possible that maybe in 2013 Wales had the better players and Gatland picked the best players to start that first test??

I don't think Gatland got the tactics right at all. The Lions made an absolute Horlicks of the second test and nearly threw away the first one against one of the weakest Aussie sides in a long, long time.

The only selection issue I had was bringing Maitland and dropping BOD when he was the obvious choice for captain and was showing slightly better form than Davies. However, AWJ didn't put a foot wrong so no issues in the end with his captaincy.

I'd throw in that the 6Ns isn't a definitive judgment on what team is better given it's format of alternating home and away fixtures. Judgment of players is of course subjective but Gatland went with what he knew rather than developing a team and plan using the best combo of available players.