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

beshocked wrote:Not sure you would need 4 people to do defence work. If you did that to fill in all the coaching roles you could field a whole team!

Knowing Fanster he'd probably also prefer to put an untested centre on the wing.

LordDowlais wrote:

Fanster wrote:LD, don't waste your time or energy...

Yep your right enough Fanster.

Come on LD, just stop being pigheaded and admit you were being ignorant, and were wrong as usual. Never come across two more clueless posters tbh .

Fanster wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Fanster wrote:

beshocked wrote:mikey dragon funny you say that. I think I could get along with Fanster and Lorddowlais. Don't agree with everything but I think they are good posters.


FES I like to think you and I get along..... though if you would select Gatland then maybe not....

Still I think you're a decent poster.

FES - Head coach, PR man. Would have to hold everything together.

Fanster - attack coach

LD - forwards coach

Beshocked - defence coach, would hope to get some tips off the guru Gustard.

Just for the record, I am a defence specialist. I coordinate defence strategies and consult in attack patterns with a reactional analysis. I am very visually driven, and would require 3 part time assistant defence specialists to sift through data, video, and supply a lot of logistical support.

You're fired. I have a set of Top Trumps, and was planning to use those.

You leave me no option but to have a sit down with Sir Ian Mcgheechan, he will automatically withdraw Dr Robson from the touring party and Health and Safety will cancel the tour alltogether. I thought you were leading from the front due to your people skills?

Just showing some "leadership". I've already fired Dr Robson in any case. According to some experts on 606v2 he didn't know what he was doing on the last tour, and was complicit in the Gatland conspiracy to ruin Tommy Bowe's life. I can't have that sort of divisive incompetence on tour, so I've appointed my local GP to come along and run things. She's lovely and always has warm hands.

IF there were to be a Lions team picked today, it would be choc-a-block full of English and Welsh players with England getting the Lions share of the players picked.

LordDowlais wrote:IF there were to be a Lions team picked today, it would be choc-a-block full of English and Welsh players with England getting the Lions share of the players picked.

The way you said that, with unerring certainty, makes me think that you must be correct.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:IF there were to be a Lions team picked today, it would be choc-a-block full of English and Welsh players with England getting the Lions share of the players picked.

The way you said that, with unerring certainty, makes me think that you must be correct.

Coaching position no longer up for grabs then?

FES

Dr Robson is unsackable, he is Mr Lions, and the touring prty would refuse to leave without him. Not to mention the medical insurers...

Myself Sir Ian, and Dr R are currently waiting for call backs from prominant Lions players/legends, thus far only Ross Ford has returned our call, and he stands by us in our cause, he's made himself unavailable for selection...

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:To be honest, I don't think it really matters who will coach next year.

The Lions have absolutely no hope of winning the series.

That's the spirit!

It's a slim chance but a chance nonetheless.

Reminds me of the 1,000,000/1 chance quote on Dumb and Dumber.

Seriously - the Lions would do astronomically well just to win one test match. I have to say though, that while being in NZ in 2005, I noticed that they do embrace the Lions ethos quite well. They even had big banners up on lamp posts in Christchurch.

If anyone is going over, I'd highly recommend being in Kaikoura for watching a match - locals are a brilliant craic.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:IF there were to be a Lions team picked today, it would be choc-a-block full of English and Welsh players with England getting the Lions share of the players picked.

The way you said that, with unerring certainty, makes me think that you must be correct.

Well why wouldn't you pick the players from the top two 6N's sides ?

We've just received word... Duncan Weir is onboard too...

Yes, we are going through Shade Munro's phone, he is a little lacking in the IT department though.

LordDowlais wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:IF there were to be a Lions team picked today, it would be choc-a-block full of English and Welsh players with England getting the Lions share of the players picked.

The way you said that, with unerring certainty, makes me think that you must be correct.

Well why wouldn't you pick the players from the top two 6N's sides ?

You've got me. Can't think of a single reason. What are you doing next summer?

funnyExiledScot wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:IF there were to be a Lions team picked today, it would be choc-a-block full of English and Welsh players with England getting the Lions share of the players picked.

The way you said that, with unerring certainty, makes me think that you must be correct.

Well why wouldn't you pick the players from the top two 6N's sides ?

You've got me. Can't think of a single reason. What are you doing next summer?

I am going to New Zealand to coach the Lions, so sorry, what ever you need me for will have to wait.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:To be honest, I don't think it really matters who will coach next year.

The Lions have absolutely no hope of winning the series.

That's the spirit!

It's a slim chance but a chance nonetheless.

I think slim is out of town. Sure they can talk about being competitive but its not just facing the ABs. Its facing the double current world champions, a team which last lost at home in 2009 and has only lost 6 home games this century, out of 93. A team that only lost 3 matches in the last world cup cycle (all away). They are simply an outstanding team.
They may have lost Carter and McCaw but to be truthful Carter is easily replaced and the gap McCaw leaves will only be his leadership qualities.

Ireland are going to SA, Wales to NZ and England to AUS all this summer.

Can't really see Ireland or Wales winning a game. England could get a game in AUS but still a 8-1 record will not reap confidence for the NH teams.

It will be 3-0 to NZ and thats not being pessimistic.

Its going to be a very difficult tour.

Ok noone else has the guts to, but I will...

Given what I saw from the 6N this year there is unprecedented competition for positions in this lions tour, with genuine and differing options from 1-15.

Lions are going to be very competitive and it will be 2-1 one way or the other.

Fanster wrote:Ok noone else has the guts to, but I will...

Given what I saw from the 6N this year there is unprecedented competition for positions in this lions tour, with genuine and differing options from 1-15.

Lions are going to be very competitive and it will be 2-1 one way or the other.

I think a single test win is possible but for that to happen everything has to be right. Little or no injuries, a coach that picks both on form but also without home preference, little infighting between various players for places.

At that time of year too its the toughest place in the world to tour and the teams have enough domestic quality to hurt even the midweek sides.

When Ireland get done 3-0 to the boks (who truth be told are a little off colour even still), when Wales get sent backing 3-0 by NZ and when England at best get a test victory in AUS I think the truth will show the gap between the home nations and SANZAR are quite stark.

Its not just the skills gap... its getting enough time to build the players into an effective unit but also one with a natural order well set in place.

93  - the lions had a superior team than NZ. Still lost
01 - the lions had a superior team than AUS. Still lost

both those loses can be attributed to lack of game time, tours being impacted by low morale, player infighting and mass injuries from long seasons and I can't see any of those challenges being eased next year either.

You never know, there a couple of unknowns as yet. Despite NZ never having any problem replacing anyone they have just lost 2 all time greats. There's also a whole host of really promising youngster coming through for us so there is some hope if they can really push on and the big players perform. It's a stretch to imagine a series win though.

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:Ok noone else has the guts to, but I will...

Given what I saw from the 6N this year there is unprecedented competition for positions in this lions tour, with genuine and differing options from 1-15.

Lions are going to be very competitive and it will be 2-1 one way or the other.

I think a single test win is possible but for that to happen everything has to be right. Little or no injuries, a coach that picks both on form but also without home preference, little infighting between various players for places.

At that time of year too its the toughest place in the world to tour and the teams have enough domestic quality to hurt even the midweek sides.

When Ireland get done 3-0 to the boks (who truth be told are a little off colour even still), when Wales get sent backing 3-0 by NZ and when England at best get a test victory in AUS I think the truth will show the gap between the home nations and SANZAR are quite stark.

Its not just the skills gap... its getting enough time to build the players into an effective unit but also one with a natural order well set in place.

93  - the lions had a superior team than NZ. Still lost
01 - the lions had a superior team than AUS. Still lost

both those loses can be attributed to lack of game time, tours being impacted by low morale, player infighting and mass injuries from long seasons and I can't see any of those challenges being eased next year either.

I see the lions as always underdogs due to the situation they face, 2013 showed that if the set up is correct they can be succesfull regularly...

With regards to midweek games, it will all depend on lions selection, they handily cruised past some of the high flying Aus sides last time round, and were at best at half strength. I don't see the lions being allowed 50point plus wins but they should handily do most kiwi super rugby teams, and IMO 3-0 to the lions would be sensational, yet acheivable, if they go down with Gatland it'll also be expected!

It's going to be a tough tour, but one the lions are ultimately capable of winiing

handily do most kiwi super rugby teams.... only if they play shell sides and I'll say this now, 1 SR side will beat the lions. NZ have great strength in depth, much more so than AUS who frankly don't have the players available to stay competitive outside of a core 40 test players.

Hands down if the lions or anyone beats NZ in NZ in a series over the next five years or so  it will go down as the greatest rugby achievement in the professional era.

What about Vern Cotter?

In terms of win % he's the most successful Scotland coach since Ian McGeechan's first tenure.

Masterminded Scotland's first win vs France in 8 years.

He's transformed Scotland from the turgid mess they were in the past into a quite entertaining team who can score tries.

11 tries. More than Scotland have scored in any other 6 nations tournament. Last time Scotland scored more tries was 1999 in the 5 nations with 16.

Imagine what he could do if he had access to the best from Ireland,Wales and England as well as of course Scotland.

Of course he's a Kiwi too.

beshocked wrote:What about Vern Cotter?

In terms of win % he's the most successful Scotland coach since Ian McGeechan's first tenure.

Masterminded Scotland's first win vs France in 8 years.

He's transformed Scotland from the turgid mess they were in the past into a quite entertaining team who can score tries.

11 tries. More than Scotland have scored in any other 6 nations tournament. Last time Scotland scored more tries was 1999 in the 5 nations with 16.

Imagine what he could do if he had access to the best from Ireland,Wales and England as well as of course Scotland.

Of course he's a Kiwi too.

That wouldn't be difficult, two wins in one 6N would probably up the percentage by 100% straight away....

fa0019 wrote:handily do most kiwi super rugby teams.... only if they play shell sides and I'll say this now, 1 SR side will beat the lions. NZ have great strength in depth, much more so than AUS who frankly don't have the players available to stay competitive outside of a core 40 test players.

Hands down if the lions or anyone beats NZ in NZ in a series over the next five years or so  it will go down as the greatest rugby achievement in the professional era.

Your right on all counts...

A NZ super team will probably beat the lions, as the lions will play a shell team (alla Brumbies) at some point.

Beating NZ in NZ will be one of the greatest rugby acheivements (Japan v SA is THE acheivement so far), but it's very early days of pro rugby.

It doesn't change the fact Lions will tour to win.

What about Vern Cotter?

In terms of win % he's the most successful Scotland coach since Ian McGeechan's first tenure.

When you play sides like USA, Canada, Tonga, Japan etc then you can inflate your figures a little.

Againgst 6N/RC teams his record is 6 wins in 20, the rest losses with 3 of those wins coming to Italy and 2 to Argentina who are notoriously hot and cold. No wins vs. Ireland, Wales or England and 1 sole victory vs. France. Let alone SANZAR.

Hell Andy Robinson got 2 wins vs. AUS and 1 vs. SA in his tenure.

Jimpy perhaps but being Scottish coach is quite a bit harder than the England,Ireland or Wales job because of a smaller player pool and limited resources.

The triumph in particular over France was like David vs Goliath - France with all their resources, far bigger player pool failed to win.

Cotter still has a lot to do but Scotland seem to be on an upward curve.

beshocked wrote:Jimpy perhaps but being Scottish coach is quite a bit harder than the England,Ireland or Wales job because of a smaller player pool and limited resources.

The triumph in particular over France was like David vs Goliath - France with all their resources, far bigger player pool failed to win.

Cotter still has a lot to do but Scotland seem to be on an upward curve.

technically the USA has more registered players than Scotland (they have the 6th largest after ENG, SA, France, AUS and NZ). There is a correlation sure but there are a lot of determinants towards resources and player pools. In fact according to world rugby, Malaysia has more registered players.

Too early for Big Vern. Indications are good but he also have the best pool of scots to work with for a generation - and also any coach would look good after a decade of muppets in charge. Time for the verdict on Big Vern is after the next 6N.

I would prefer the lions coach to not be one of the home nations coaches.  don't really mind the nationality - Lancaster?  Toonie?  Baxter?

TJ wrote:Too early for Big Vern.  Indications are good but he also have the best pool of scots to work with for a generation - and also any coach would look good after a decade of muppets in charge.  Time for the verdict on Big Vern is after the next 6N.

Agreed. Vern has done some good stuff but he's still prone to the odd selection brainfart (quite how he managed to select Al Strokosch for the World Cup squad ahead of both Barclay and Cowan will forever elude me, as will he continuing support for Ryan Wilson).

When will the coach be announced anyone any idea. Given Gatland had a year away from Wales last time if they use that scenario again then I would imagine an announcement beginning of next season at latest.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

TJ wrote:Too early for Big Vern.  Indications are good but he also have the best pool of scots to work with for a generation - and also any coach would look good after a decade of muppets in charge.  Time for the verdict on Big Vern is after the next 6N.

Agreed. Vern has done some good stuff but he's still prone to the odd selection brainfart (quite how he managed to select Al Strokosch for the World Cup squad ahead of both Barclay and Cowan will forever elude me, as will he continuing support for Ryan Wilson).

Actually a fan of Strokosch. He's a different type of player to Barclay & Cowan. He has the dog in him that you just can't generate through training and match experience. I remember when Scotland came to SA in 2013 and almost did a Japan on them. The boks couldn't believe how competitive he was and it took them by surprise.
I think there is always room for a Strokosch type player in a backrow squad of 5-6 players.

fa0019 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

TJ wrote:Too early for Big Vern.  Indications are good but he also have the best pool of scots to work with for a generation - and also any coach would look good after a decade of muppets in charge.  Time for the verdict on Big Vern is after the next 6N.

Agreed. Vern has done some good stuff but he's still prone to the odd selection brainfart (quite how he managed to select Al Strokosch for the World Cup squad ahead of both Barclay and Cowan will forever elude me, as will he continuing support for Ryan Wilson).

Actually a fan of Strokosch. He's a different type of player to Barclay & Cowan. He has the dog in him that you just can't generate through training and match experience. I remember when Scotland came to SA in 2013 and almost did a Japan on them. The boks couldn't believe how competitive he was and it took them by surprise.
I think there is always room for a Strokosch type player in a backrow squad of 5-6 players.

Strokosch in 2013 was excellent - he'd have made the starting XV. In 2015 he had faded badly and was playing in the second division of French rugby. When Cowan was called up late, he leapfrogged both Wilson and Strokosch and went straight into the XV. Pretty clear sign that Cotter made an initial error, and I note that Barclay is now his preferred 6 for Scotland.

Look, I do rate Vern Cotter and on the whole he's done a fine job, but he isn't immune to selection blunders.

bedfordwelsh wrote:When will the coach be announced anyone any idea.  Given Gatland had a year away from Wales last time if they use that scenario again then I would imagine an announcement beginning of next season at latest.

After the summer tours. The tour manager says it will more than likely be one of the head coaches, but they doubt if Eddie Jones would be given leave from the RFU as he is just in the job. I'd say Gatland is a shoe-in for the job.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/11/british-lions-coach-delayed-summer-tours

Bloody hell, another year of dumb and dumber in charge for Wales!

mikey_dragon wrote:Bloody hell, another year of dumb and dumber in charge for Wales!

Won the 6 nations under him. Gatlands managed that once in his last 7 times in charge and only twice in 9 times.
They both have the same number of wins away to a SANZAR, at leats the losses under Howley were all close.

At least Howley can manage to not break his own ankles.

Sin é wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:When will the coach be announced anyone any idea.  Given Gatland had a year away from Wales last time if they use that scenario again then I would imagine an announcement beginning of next season at latest.

After the summer tours. The tour manager says it will more than likely be one of the head coaches, but they doubt if Eddie Jones would be given leave from the RFU as he is just in the job. I'd say Gatland is a shoe-in for the job.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jan/11/british-lions-coach-delayed-summer-tours

The announcement in 2012 was only as late as August because Gatland broke his ankles. The intention was to appoint him in April. This year's later announcement is probably a function of the new summer tour schedule, which had only just started in 2012. If Gatland is the frontrunner, it makes some sense to see how he goes with Wales in New Zealand. Then again, that does raise the question of whether a poor performance could possibly take him out of the running.

Gooseberry wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Bloody hell, another year of dumb and dumber in charge for Wales!

Won the 6 nations under him. Gatlands managed that once in his last 7 times in charge and only twice in 9 times.
They both have the same number of wins away to a SANZAR, at leats the losses under Howley were all close.

At least Howley can manage to not break his own ankles.

Try and look past the win/loss ratio's and you just might be able to see why most Wales fans think of them as dumb and dumber.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Bloody hell, another year of dumb and dumber in charge for Wales!

Won the 6 nations under him. Gatlands managed that once in his last 7 times in charge and only twice in 9 times.
They both have the same number of wins away to a SANZAR, at leats the losses under Howley were all close.

At least Howley can manage to not break his own ankles.

Try and look past the win/loss ratio's and you just might be able to see why most Wales fans think of them as dumb and dumber.

Gatlands win/loss ratio with Wales vs. SANZAR is pretty poor in itself. 93% loss rate.

He did the business with the lions (albeit vs. a poor AUS team, never as prestigious as NZ or the Boks) so I think he should get the shot. Can't see his methodology working though vs. NZ.

On a personal note i really do not care who gets the Lions head coach. The one thing i do mind his the head does not favour ( his own country ) more than other players.

We saw it with Woodward when England became World Champions and we ( LOST) If i remeber rightly.

Wae saw it again with Gatland and we ( WON ) but, the Australia team the Lions beat was not the full team, and was very poor. Still you can only beat what is in front of you.

I would like to see the best players from each of the 4 country's that take part in the Lions being selected on merit. Rather than because they are from the same country as the coach.

On a side note how much time does the coach get with the squad before they play the first game on the lions tour. Not the first test. the first game.

majesticimperialman wrote:On a personal note i really do not care who gets the Lions head coach. The one thing i do mind his the head does not favour ( his own country ) more than other players.

We saw it with Woodward when England became World Champions and we ( LOST) If i remeber rightly.

Wae saw it again with Gatland and we ( WON ) but, the Australia team the Lions beat was not the full team, and was very poor. Still you can only beat what is in front of you.

I would like to see the best players from each of the 4 country's that take part in the Lions being selected on merit. Rather than because they are from the same country as the coach.

On a side note how much time does the coach get with the squad before they play the first game on the lions tour. Not the first test. the first game.

I think people are harsh on Woodward to be fair. Every man and his dog would have had his backside kicked by that NZ team. Yes he picked his own tried and tested faithful but remember... it had worked for him before, both home and away vs. NZ and he rang up what 12 matches vs. SANZAR on the trot prior to taking over with the lions. It was a plan, which worked with England.

The points margin with his side minus his captain BOD for 79 mins was 18 points in the first test. When he threw his strategy to the wall in test 2 it went to 30 points. Had BOD been fit I don't doubt the scoreline would have been much much closer. He was the main man on tour.
Not saying it was a great strategy but everyone would have failed miserably in that tour. Woodward had a proven methodology but it didn't quite fit to the unique circumstances of the lions.

Graham Henry losing the 01 tour was a bigger screw up. Taking 10 welshman on the tour when they came last out of the 4 nations; taking Charvis, Neil Jenkins who was barely able to walk.
McGeechan for all his merits had 4 bites at the cherry and his first tests in 89 and 09 were equally disastrous both in terms of results and selection. In 93 the team was so talented and he faced probably the weakest NZ team in recent history. The 93 Lions IMO were the most talented Lions I've seen (could have been rivaled had the 01 lions been able to field a fully fit side).

The problem Woodward had was that the players he had available were not the same type which he expected to be able to field. I remember seeing Shane Williams crash ball off a lineout and thinking... WTF is going on!

Just after England won the Grand Slam. On 5 live i think it was. Ugo Monyae said the Lions have won ( 1 )
Lions test series out of ( 17 ) which is not very good for the Lions in the first place.

Yet you would of thought that by now with the players we have in the NH. We would of been able to find a coach, to get the best out of them and win more test series.

I would like the coach to be able too do that. Is that coach Gatland? Maybe. I really do not know the right answer to that question.

As a rule of law

You don't win away series to SA and NZ.

NZ have only ever lost to SA once at home. Only ever lost to the Lions once at home.

In SA, they have only ever lost to NZ once too, lost twice to the Lions (with 97 being quite possibly the most miraculous series win ever). Winning a test (2nd) when you score zero tries and the opposition score 3. It simply doesn't happen.

majesticimperialman wrote:Just after England won the Grand Slam. On 5 live i think it was. Ugo Monyae said the Lions have won ( 1 )
Lions test series out of ( 17 ) which is not very good for the Lions in the first place.

Yet you would of thought that by now with the players we have in the NH. We would of been able to find a coach, to get the best out of them and win more test series.

I would like the coach to be able too do that. Is that coach Gatland? Maybe. I really do not know the right answer to that question.

There are a number of uphill struggles which will dog the lions in the pro era forever.

1. Pro teams take time to gel, the lions don't have time. Even in the amateur era tours were 15-20 matches, today you're lucky to get 10 inc. tests.
2. There is no natural order. Immediately you have 3-4 guys fighting for a jersey. In test sides they are established. Jamie Roberts has the Welsh 12 jersey, those behind him aren't miffed they're not getting the shirt. Completely different when the team sheet is torn up. Friction is a major issue with lions tours.
3. Things like lineouts, calls, strategies etc take time to develop.... Lions often don't have significantly complex ones.
4. Coaches often (often) are over generous to their home team. They trust players, know their strengths, don't know those of others.. and in 50/50 calls will often go with their tried and tested.
5. They play at the end of a European season, players are tired, often injured. Home players are in mid season... fresh and ready. They often have to over play on tours just to get the jersey, by the time they're secure it they're knackered.
6. Most of the players will be coached in new ways, ones they're not used to. What works for some may not work for others. It will take time for them to adapt.
7. Crucially, often these days, the Lions are denied opportunities to play good sides prior to tests. Often they will play C super rugby teams stripped of their AB's/Boks/Wallabies.. not just 15 players but 30. Coaches even leave their non test players (but first team SR ones) because its a nothing game and their SR calendar is seen as more important. Whipping provincial academy kids/a few pros 50-0 helps to build moral... i.e.  we've beaten Western Province in front of 50,000 people but in reality its like them facing Bristol rugby club. Won't separate the wheat from the chaff on tour.

That's not even getting onto the point that SANZAR players are traditionally better skilled than their home nations counterparts... even combined.  Why many people think the lions perhaps should be put to rest. I'm sort of on the fence for that one. Big lions fan but with the tours becoming shorter, with challenges becoming greater I think they will become less and less important.

There are ways to mitigate some of these issues.

Stop internal touring to say 2-3 games max. Have proper tune up games vs. Argentina, Italy, France.
Have trials rather than selections. Have players come together over weeks and slug it out amongst themselves pre tour to earn selection.

When the Lions whip club sides by 50 in all games but lose by 20 in tests I think it will show the model isn't working and something new has to be thought of.

A Lions team against say England(quite a lot of depth?) would be an interesting game prior to going on to tour. I'm not quite sure it would ever happen or work mind.

I can't see playing an England second team will be that great preparation for an All Blacks test team - neither In quality or style.  Plus a pre tour game won't have given the coaches much if any time to get a style and system imposed on the team, so will be largely pointless.  I think you need a couple of weeks intensive coaching to bring the different countries together as they each have quite different styles, followed by a couple of good hard fixtures to test the teams and to enable the coaches to see who is best able to adapt.

I can't really see why any country would allow their coach to take a year off to look after the Lions, other than Wales who will be looking for 'life after Gatland'.  I can't see Lancaster being a credible option after Eddie Jones winning a grand slam.  To me Conor O'Shea would be a good choice, has mixed Irish/English background so will have a foot in more than one camp, and will come without the baggage of favouring one international squad over another.

nlpnlp wrote: I can't see Lancaster being a credible option

He wast a credible option for the England job either

Its going to be Fatland

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Bloody hell, another year of dumb and dumber in charge for Wales!

Won the 6 nations under him. Gatlands managed that once in his last 7 times in charge and only twice in 9 times.
They both have the same number of wins away to a SANZAR, at leats the losses under Howley were all close.

At least Howley can manage to not break his own ankles.

Try and look past the win/loss ratio's and you just might be able to see why most Wales fans think of them as dumb and dumber.

Gatlands win/loss ratio with Wales vs. SANZAR is pretty poor in itself. 93% loss rate.

He did the business with the lions (albeit vs. a poor AUS team, never as prestigious as NZ or the Boks) so I think he should get the shot. Can't see his methodology working though vs. NZ.

Snore.

So it's okay for Woodward to go with his tried and tested, and get demolished, but not Gatland do it and win? Snore, any excuse to whinge at Wales and Gatland. Bore off, you were actually less boring when you were hanging on to SA's coat tails at every opportunity.

mikey_dragon wrote:...So it's okay for Woodward to go with his tried and tested, and get demolished?...

I don't think anyone, anywhere, has made that argument.

The best you can say about Woodward is that there was a logic to his choice. None of the other Home Nations teams had beaten the All Blacks but England managed it twice under Woodward, home and away. He thought he was stiffening the backbone of the squad by looking to players who had been there, and done it.

Even without the benefit of hindsight, there were good reasons to have qualms about selection, given how much England had dropped off after the Cup. Our worst fears came true.

Still, it's not as if any Home Nations side went on to beat that New Zealand side shortly afterwards. After the 1983 and 1993 series defeats, England managed wins over the All Blacks the very next time they toured in the north. It was seven years before New Zealand lost to a Home Nations side after the 2005 tour.

I really hope Wales get a win on the summer tour. It will be a big boost for them and, more generally, northern hemisphere rugby. I have reservations about Gatland coaching the next Lions, and I can't think of a better way to put those to bed than watching him get a win down there this year.

fa0019 wrote:

When the Lions whip club sides by 50 in all games but lose by 20 in tests I think it will show the model isn't working and something new has to be thought of.

Australia 76 -England 0
New Zealand 60 - Ireland 0
South Africa 96 - Wales 13
Soiuth Africa 55 - Scotland 6

Its more the summer tours that need a new model. This kind of humpings happen on a fairly regular basis for the toruing NH sides.
The Lions have only been on the end of one real big defeat (partly down to multiple in game injuries) in the recent tours (last cycle of 3), and have a better win/loss percentage than the individual touring sides do against SANZARS. And that includes the "horror" tour of 2005.

If and when the Lions get on the end of a tour where they are comprehensively destroyed in all tests then yes it may well be the final nail in it ... although there is still a big drive form the host nations to retain them as its a huge money spinner for them.
And if that is happening to the Lions chances are its also happening to the summer tour sides. The issue of where it fits in season cycles and player fitness is a much of a problem if not even bigger ( due to less options being available) for the individual nations tour sides. Despite the other limiting facors you point out that the Lions face they get similar or better results than the regular summer tour sides tend to.

Has something suddenly changed , other than that they will be facing a New Zealand side thats been pretty invicncible...assuming there isnt a rush of retirees/career breakers heading off to France and the Jeff.

As I see it its the unions acting individually and being comepletely incapable of mounting serious challenges to win world cups (well if we ignore France nearly winning it by accident a few years ago) that should be opening questions up about that model ... wouldnt a permanent British Lions and single Union be more succesful?
Yeah not going to happen is it!

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Bloody hell, another year of dumb and dumber in charge for Wales!

Won the 6 nations under him. Gatlands managed that once in his last 7 times in charge and only twice in 9 times.
They both have the same number of wins away to a SANZAR, at leats the losses under Howley were all close.

At least Howley can manage to not break his own ankles.

Try and look past the win/loss ratio's and you just might be able to see why most Wales fans think of them as dumb and dumber.

Gatlands win/loss ratio with Wales vs. SANZAR is pretty poor in itself. 93% loss rate.

He did the business with the lions (albeit vs. a poor AUS team, never as prestigious as NZ or the Boks) so I think he should get the shot. Can't see his methodology working though vs. NZ.

Snore.

So it's okay for Woodward to go with his tried and tested, and get demolished, but not Gatland do it and win? Snore, any excuse to whinge at Wales and Gatland. Bore off, you were actually less boring when you were hanging on to SA's coat tails at every opportunity.

All due respect, facing the ABs is a lot different to facing AUS. As I said, I think Gatland should get the nod because he proved himself with the Lions but its 3-4 notches up this tour around.
The Lions have actually won most tests vs. AUS 17 out of 23. In fact they have won 7 test series vs. AUS and lost only 1 (2001). Vs. NZ they have won a single series in 10 attempts. AUS may be no2 in the world but the gulf is huge.

Doesn't take away the fact Gatlands record vs. SANZAR is dreadful. Andy Robinson has more wins with Scotland than Warren Gatland has with Wales That's a fact.  His entire game plan revolves around forward domination and the front foot. Outside of that generally he has no other ideas. Its why SANZAR generally do enough to win (well 93% of the time). In the 13 Lions lets be honest, given that Vunipola and Tom Youngs were packing down and still were dominant upfront.... that AUS pack were pretty weak. To compete with NZ, let alone beat them whoever coaches them will have to come up with something a little different. Has Gatland ever shown a hint of such?

The last coach to actually have a decent record vs. NZ was Peter De Villiers with the boks; 5 wins, 6 losses. People slam him for that but his predecessor Meyer got a measly 1 win in 8. How did PDV win nearly as often as he lost? Was it simply that he had superior players? When he was successful the one thing which was clear was that he controlled territory with ball to hand kicking dominance. Du Preez, M & F Steyn controlling the game from 9, 10 and 15.

Gooseberry wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

When the Lions whip club sides by 50 in all games but lose by 20 in tests I think it will show the model isn't working and something new has to be thought of.

Australia 76 -England 0
New Zealand 60 - Ireland 0
South Africa 96 - Wales 13
Soiuth Africa 55 - Scotland 6

Its more the summer tours that need a new model. This kind of humpings happen on a fairly regular basis for the toruing NH sides.
The Lions have only been on the end of one real big defeat (partly down to multiple in game injuries) in the recent tours (last cycle of 3), and have a better win/loss percentage than the individual touring sides do against SANZARS. And that includes the "horror" tour of 2005.

If and when the Lions get on the end of a tour where they are comprehensively destroyed in all tests then yes it may well be the final nail in it ... although there is still a big drive form the host nations to retain them as its a huge money spinner for them.
And if that is happening to the Lions chances are its also happening to the summer tour sides. The issue of where it fits in season cycles and player fitness is a much of a problem if not even bigger ( due to less options being available) for the individual nations tour sides. Despite the other limiting facors you point out that the Lions face they get similar or better results than the regular summer tour sides tend to.

Has something suddenly changed , other than that they will be facing a New Zealand side thats been pretty invicncible...assuming there isnt a rush of retirees/career breakers heading off to France and the Jeff.

As I see it its the unions acting individually and being comepletely incapable of mounting serious challenges to win world cups (well if we ignore France nearly winning it by accident a few years ago) that should be opening questions up about that model ... wouldnt a permanent British Lions and single Union be more succesful?
Yeah not going to happen is it!

SANZAR loves the lions. They won't want it to end.

Firstly its a big cash cow both the the unions and the local economy. Then generally they get to more often than not send the old colonial masters home in defeat and finally they're good tune up games to the RC. IN 01, 05 and 09 the winners went on the win the subsequent 3N/RC. They get to hit the ball running come the championship.

For the home unions its a lot different. When successful players come back better but many come back injured, severely fatigued which kills their next season. Many find it difficult to adjust and lose confidence after being passed over for an apparent lesser player. Does it help Ireland, England, Wales, Scotland's cause?

Debatable.

fa0019 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

When the Lions whip club sides by 50 in all games but lose by 20 in tests I think it will show the model isn't working and something new has to be thought of.

Australia 76 -England 0
New Zealand 60 - Ireland 0
South Africa 96 - Wales 13
Soiuth Africa 55 - Scotland 6

Its more the summer tours that need a new model. This kind of humpings happen on a fairly regular basis for the toruing NH sides.
The Lions have only been on the end of one real big defeat (partly down to multiple in game injuries) in the recent tours (last cycle of 3), and have a better win/loss percentage than the individual touring sides do against SANZARS. And that includes the "horror" tour of 2005.

If and when the Lions get on the end of a tour where they are comprehensively destroyed in all tests then yes it may well be the final nail in it ... although there is still a big drive form the host nations to retain them as its a huge money spinner for them.
And if that is happening to the Lions chances are its also happening to the summer tour sides. The issue of where it fits in season cycles and player fitness is a much of a problem if not even bigger ( due to less options being available) for the individual nations tour sides. Despite the other limiting facors you point out that the Lions face they get similar or better results than the regular summer tour sides tend to.

Has something suddenly changed , other than that they will be facing a New Zealand side thats been pretty invicncible...assuming there isnt a rush of retirees/career breakers heading off to France and the Jeff.

As I see it its the unions acting individually and being comepletely incapable of mounting serious challenges to win world cups (well if we ignore France nearly winning it by accident a few years ago) that should be opening questions up about that model ... wouldnt a permanent British Lions and single Union be more succesful?
Yeah not going to happen is it!

SANZAR loves the lions. They won't want it to end.

Firstly its a big cash cow both the the unions and the local economy. Then generally they get to more often than not send the old colonial masters home in defeat and finally they're good tune up games to the RC. IN 01, 05 and 09 the winners went on the win the subsequent 3N/RC. They get to hit the ball running come the championship.

For the home unions its a lot different. When successful players come back better but many come back injured, severely fatigued which kills their next season. Many find it difficult to adjust and lose confidence after being passed over for an apparent lesser player. Does it help Ireland, England, Wales, Scotland's cause?

Debatable.

If you asked the individual coaches then yeah they most likely hate the lions ( except Gatland who gets his ego and pay packet swelled even further by it)

The Unions and players though? Mostly in favour. Or it woudlnt exist.

Fans, I think we prefer having something pretty special rather than watching ( or in most cases not watching) the same tired tours over and over.

A lot of people travel and make it their holiday of a lifetime. Its still special.

Yes if it did become a regular shellacking and a bit of a joke ( like the Barbarians) then it would start to lose its appeal to everyone. But thats already true of the summer tours where that actually happens pretty often and where series wins arent a thing.

I dont get the rush to put the boot into something that actually works and gives something different, and allows the best players to play against the best players. Sure like a lot of things time and money may catch up with it, but its far from dead yet. Fortunately the Unions arent entirely driven by success of the senior national 15.