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

Riskysports wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

TJ wrote:I think one thing this discussion has shown is that lions selection is difficult and some positions - lock especially are going to be very hard with a whole bunch of very good players who have slightly different attributes.  
As an example with J Gray in the side you can play two 7s - his defensive abilities free up room for another person to concentrate on turnovers.  But if you play Billy V at 8 then you can't really play two 7s 'cos you need that extra tackler- so if you play Billy V maybe you can't play Gray and vice versa.

No you can't. Not unless you have a no.8 who is a good lineout guy. Grey the younger does have a great chance to go but just to repeat yet again what has been said,
1) his tackling stats are hugely impressive but that isn't a lock's primary role.
2) England-Scotland Kruis made a difference. Grey (either of them) did not.

I think there is a little bit too much - my dad is taller that your dad here

Gray was very impressive in almost everything

Kruis was very impressive in almost everything

They both have different skill sets - but both are very good 2nd rows

They both could / should tour - but entirely depends on the tactics and who else is picked

Both did themselves great favours in the 6 nations as both were on form


Can we just leave it at that

LordDowlais wrote:I have nothing against Scotland or the Scottish people, I just do not think that the current Scottish players are as good as their Irish, Welsh or English counterparts, if they were, they would have beaten Wales in the last 9yrs or England and Ireland within the past few years.

The thing is they haven't, if they had all theses better front rowers, second rowers, and flankers you would have thought they would have had a few wins under their belts and finished higher than 4th in the 6N in the last few years, but the fact is, they haven't.

They haven't had as good a team but again that should have jack all in deciding which players tour.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I have nothing against Scotland or the Scottish people, I just do not think that the current Scottish players are as good as their Irish, Welsh or English counterparts, if they were, they would have beaten Wales in the last 9yrs or England and Ireland within the past few years.

The thing is they haven't, if they had all theses better front rowers, second rowers, and flankers you would have thought they would have had a few wins under their belts and finished higher than 4th in the 6N in the last few years, but the fact is, they haven't.

They haven't had as good a team but again that should have jack all in deciding which players tour.

WTF is that supposed to mean ?

If they have not had a good team, then their players should not be picked. Let's be honest, they are only two wins this year in the 6N is because France are self imploding, and I would bet my mortgage that if Scotland were playing France in France they would have been one win this year.

That just because the team isn't great it doesn't mean individuals within the team don't merit selection. Simple really.

LordDowlais wrote:I have nothing against Scotland or the Scottish people, I just do not think that the current Scottish players are as good as their Irish, Welsh or English counterparts, if they were, they would have beaten Wales in the last 9yrs or England and Ireland within the past few years.

The thing is they haven't, if they had all theses better front rowers, second rowers, and flankers you would have thought they would have had a few wins under their belts and finished higher than 4th in the 6N in the last few years, but the fact is, they haven't.

So Hogg - the player of the 6N is not good enough for the lions?  Nel - the tighthead who has been a key part of the scrum that most pundits see as having at worst parity but mainly dominated their opposition is not worth a place in the lions?  ridiculous.

The others can be debated but no one who knows anything about rugby would deny these two a place in the lions

Oh - and you falsely accuse others of being "anti welsh" whilst being obviously anti scottish.  You have just chucked what little credibility you have out - its clear you really know very little about rugby Put your team up then - I put mine up in a light-hearted mood to be shot down - lets see you do the same.

No 7&1/2 wrote:That just because the team isn't great it doesn't mean individuals within the team don't merit selection. Simple really.

Well, the thing is, it's the players that make the team.

Or are you saying that the tactics of the coaches are letting them down ?

Either way, some thing must be wrong, if Scotland have all these magnificent individuals yet they still lose to every side that is ranked above them, France aside.

Look at the tactics Warren Gatland employs, they are very limited, rubbish tactics, but at least the players are good enough to use those tactics the best they can and best teams.

TJ wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I have nothing against Scotland or the Scottish people, I just do not think that the current Scottish players are as good as their Irish, Welsh or English counterparts, if they were, they would have beaten Wales in the last 9yrs or England and Ireland within the past few years.

The thing is they haven't, if they had all theses better front rowers, second rowers, and flankers you would have thought they would have had a few wins under their belts and finished higher than 4th in the 6N in the last few years, but the fact is, they haven't.

So Hogg - the player of the 6N is not good enough for the lions?  Nel - the tighthead who has been a key part of the scrum that most pundits see as having at worst parity but mainly dominated their opposition is not worth a place in the lions?  ridiculous.

The others can be debated but no one who knows anything about rugby would deny these two a place in the lions

Oh - and you falsely accuse others of being "anti welsh" whilst being obviously anti scottish.  You have just chucked what little credibility you have out - its clear you really know very little about rugby  Put your team up then - I put mine up in a light-hearted mood to be shot down - lets see you do the same.

Hogg might get a bench spot, but Nel ? No way. Getting parity is one thing, but we are talking about New Zealand not Italy.

Scotland have some great players that would walk into most NH teams.

Nel, Gray, Hardie and Hogg are arguably the best the best in the NH in their respective positions, I can't believe people are arguing otherwise. My team would be:

1. McGrath
2. Hartley
3. Cole
4. Gray/Itoje
5. Kruis
6. Warburton
7. Hardie
8. Vuinipola

9. Murray
10. Bigger
11. North
12. Roberts
13. JJ
14. Watson
15. Hogg

If Nel is the best in his position, according to you, why have you not picked him in your team ?

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That just because the team isn't great it doesn't mean individuals within the team don't merit selection. Simple really.

Well, the thing is, it's the players that make the team.

Or are you saying that the tactics of the coaches are letting them down ?

Either way, some thing must be wrong, if Scotland have all these magnificent individuals yet they still lose to every side that is ranked above them, France aside.

Think you are looking at this too simplistically. The problem Scotland has is that we have some very good players (Hogg, Nel, Hardie Gray etc) but we don't have a team full of very good players. Also we have a tiny pool of players so one or two key injuries and we're a shadow of the the team we could be. As such we don't have an amazing record of wins etc because not all players in the squad are of the same quality.

To suggest that certain players shouldn't travel because they are part of a team that doesn't win all the time does seem a bit naive. Hogg for example was player of the tournament, to suggest he's not of sufficient quality to travel is a bit odd.

Now I'm not saying I really want player x or y to go on the tour, I'm just saying you can't ignore a player because the rest of the team might not be as good.

Gonna put your team up LD?

Different sport, but George Best - great footballer in a crap national team

LordDowlais wrote:I have nothing against Scotland or the Scottish people, I just do not think that the current Scottish players are as good as their Irish, Welsh or English counterparts, if they were, they would have beaten Wales in the last 9yrs or England and Ireland within the past few years.

The thing is they haven't, if they had all theses better front rowers, second rowers, and flankers you would have thought they would have had a few wins under their belts and finished higher than 4th in the 6N in the last few years, but the fact is, they haven't.

you do know rugby is a team game????

You could have 4 of the best player ever to play rugby is a team with 11 rubbish ones, - guess what they might lose most of their games

What a strange argument you make -

And according to you LD - parisse must be one of the worst 8's to ever play international rugby

Riskysports wrote:And according to you LD - parisse must be one of the worst 8's to ever play international rugby

He's note the worst, but he is probably one of the most over hyped.

Also, not in reply to this post but since I am on here, I am talking about the 1st fifteen here, not who should tour in the overall squad.

And I am not naming my team because I do not know who will be on form a year or so away. But if I was picking my first team today on form, it would be mostly English and Welsh players with one or two Irish, and perhaps one Scott on the bench, but not certainly.

as easy as it feels to attack LD, and lets be honest some of you are, his argument is valid given the last tour, Scotlands small improvements from last tour, and the possibility they might have noone in the starting 15 next year.

Of all the nations I think it's worth saying Scotland would have least rep in the first test squad if it were tomorrow, I picked 2 Gray and Hogg, but it could be 4/5 or even 0.

Can we discuss Hardie for a second, fantastic explosiion onto the scene, and great RWC, however this 6N he's been lightweight and ineffective, he's been played off the park at times, however Barclay does so much hard work that for some reason noone wants to recognise.

Go on - name your team as of today - only using players who played this six nations and on the form shown this six nations - thats the name of this game. What are yo afraid of?

Oh - and the people are the Scots - single "T"

Fanster wrote:as easy as it feels to attack LD, and lets be honest some of you are, his argument is valid given the last tour, Scotlands small improvements from last tour, and the possibility they might have noone in the starting 15 next year.

Of all the nations I think it's worth saying Scotland would have least rep in the first test squad if it were tomorrow, I picked 2 Gray and Hogg, but it could be 4/5 or even 0.

Can we discuss Hardie for a second, fantastic explosiion onto the scene, and great RWC, however this 6N he's been lightweight and ineffective, he's been played off the park at times, however Barclay does so much hard work that for some reason noone wants to recognise.

Fanster - most folk seem to think one or two scots in the team as you do - Hogg / Nel / Gray are the most likely candidates. LD says no Scot would be anywhere near the team on current form which is obvious nonsense.

Hardie - I think the issue might have been playing in an unbalanced back row - and especially against England Vunipola mashed 'em. He might also have been trying too hard - rushing up too fast and selling himself - also perhaps heavily marked? Dunno really - I didn't really see him any different in the WC from the 6N

TJ wrote:

Fanster wrote:as easy as it feels to attack LD, and lets be honest some of you are, his argument is valid given the last tour, Scotlands small improvements from last tour, and the possibility they might have noone in the starting 15 next year.

Of all the nations I think it's worth saying Scotland would have least rep in the first test squad if it were tomorrow, I picked 2 Gray and Hogg, but it could be 4/5 or even 0.

Can we discuss Hardie for a second, fantastic explosiion onto the scene, and great RWC, however this 6N he's been lightweight and ineffective, he's been played off the park at times, however Barclay does so much hard work that for some reason noone wants to recognise.

Fanster - most folk seem to think one or two scots in the team as you do - Hogg / Nel / Gray are the most likely candidates.  LD says no Scot would be anywhere near the team on current form which is obvious nonsense.

Hardie - I think the issue might have been playing in an unbalanced back row - and especially against England Vunipola mashed 'em.  He might also have been trying too hard - rushing up too fast and selling himself - also perhaps heavily marked?  Dunno really - I didn't really see him any different in the WC from the 6N

I think the difference between the RWC form and this 6N is massive, and thats probably due to opposition quality, he was invisible at times. Unlike Warburton, who when he seems quiet is doing a lot of work in the tight, similarly Robshaw, Hardie, like you said tends to run around like a headless chicken.

It is strange that although Hogg, Hardie and Nel all got picked by a lot of the pundits for players of the tournament in their position (Not all mind), they are all terrible players on here and would not be worthy of tieing the shoelaces of the players from other countries

You may argue that there were other level with them, but to completely discount them because they are Scottish and in a team that did not win every game - is so sad

Look another pundit completely wrong, as no Scottish player is any good

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35857285

Stop being so emotional and touchy...

Riskysports wrote:Look another pundit completely wrong, as no Scottish player is any good

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/35857285

For the record though, I bet you £50 Guirado and Campagnaro don't go with the lions...

It's very easy to challenge the thought that players should be ignored due to the team they play for because that reasoning is silly.

I am not saying they should be ignored, I am saying they are not as good as their Irish, Welsh or English counterparts, they could be considered, and not ignored, but in my opinion, they are not as good.

At the moment, I consider Samson Lee and Dan Cole better than Nel, I consider AWJ, Kruis, Itoji, Charteris and Toner as better options than Grey, and I consider Liam Williams, Mike Brown and Rob Kearney better than Hogg. Yes Hogg played well, butting cutting ribbons into France and Italy is a bit different to being a high ball expert and a last line of defence against the All Blacks.

LondonTiger wrote:Different sport, but George Best - great footballer in a crap national team

Hey! Crap is a bit strong!

You only have one more World cup than us.

We are the current holders of the British Home Championship (discontinued in 1984)  

LordDowlais wrote:and I consider Liam Williams, Mike Brown and Rob Kearney better than Hogg.

I doubt you would find any Irish man that would not swap Kearney for Hogg in an instant.

As an Irish fan I believe a composite Ireland & Scotland side would be a roughly a 50/50 split between the 2.

I think Ireland performed better in the 6 nations because they are a better team.

rapidsnowman wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Different sport, but George Best - great footballer in a crap national team

Hey! Crap is a bit strong!

You only have one more World cup than us.

We are the current holders of the British Home Championship (discontinued in 1984)  

Northern Ireland soccer team in the late 60's - I reckon crap was polite. Mind you that Best (or Giggs) never played on the highest international stages may have been different of European Championships had 24 teams like they have this summer.

Anyway enough about football - even if Hogg is supposedly some distant relative of Best

LordDowlais wrote:I am not saying they should be ignored, I am saying they are not as good as their Irish, Welsh or English counterparts, they could be considered, and not ignored, but in my opinion, they are not as good.

At the moment, I consider Samson Lee and Dan Cole better than Nel, I consider AWJ, Kruis, Itoji, Charteris and Toner as better options than Grey, and I consider Liam Williams, Mike Brown and Rob Kearney better than Hogg. Yes Hogg played well, butting cutting ribbons into France and Italy is a bit different to being a high ball expert and a last line of defence against the All Blacks.

That's an ok argument to be fair, the judgment of the players I disagree with, but ok. Individual players can onyl do so much in a team gaem like rugby though, the fact Scotland came 4th doesn't have any impact on whether Hogg is the best choice at full back though; if I've misjudged what you were saying here fair enough.

Lorddowlais To be fair Hogg was doing well against Wales till his injury.
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby-union/scotland/stuart-hogg-s-back-injury-not-a-concern-1-4030435

While Hogg’s replacement Ruaridh Jackson did well, the Hawick man is a key threat for Scotland and was badly missed. Despite only being on the field for 28 minutes and 35 seconds, Hogg still managed to top the charts in metres carried by the visiting players. His 50 metres was comfortably ahead of second-placed John Barclay, who managed 38. And it is not just what Hogg does with ball in hand. When he is on the field the full-back attracts defenders, opening up space for others.

Personally I think Hogg is class, Hardie and Nel overrated. Nel looked tired and broken vs Wales.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuWJaHjrR0E

Neither Hardie or Nel could stop Desperate Dan.

Technically neither missed a tackle either.....


TJ Hogg was name player of the tournament but the award clearly should have gone to Billy Vunipola. Farcical that it didn't. As poor as when Harinorduquy didn't get the award in 2010.

Farcial the best English player wasn't even included in the vote beshocked (Kruis).

LordDowlais wrote:I am not saying they should be ignored, I am saying they are not as good as their Irish, Welsh or English counterparts, they could be considered, and not ignored, but in my opinion, they are not as good.

At the moment, I consider Samson Lee and Dan Cole better than Nel, I consider AWJ, Kruis, Itoji, Charteris and Toner as better options than Grey, and I consider Liam Williams, Mike Brown and Rob Kearney better than Hogg. Yes Hogg played well, butting cutting ribbons into France and Italy is a bit different to being a high ball expert and a last line of defence against the All Blacks.

Well that really does show both your bias and your ignorance. You have a completely different opinion to most on here and most pundits. Charteris and Toner better than Gray - laughable. Kearney and Williams better than Hogg ditto

Oh well - time to leave this debate

Liam Williams for me would be close to 1st choice fullback... yet he's a card liability. Gives away a lot of stupid penalties.

No 7 & 1/2 agree Kruis should have certainly been included in the vote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ6UU909ozA

Kruis even beating J.Gray to a lineout....   Kruis goes through both Gray bros.... J.Gray doesn't miss the tackle...but fails to stop Kruis scoring a try.

fa0019 personally I think Liam Williams was a bit disappointing from what I saw. Hogg,Brown and Kearney all better IMO.

TJ wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I am not saying they should be ignored, I am saying they are not as good as their Irish, Welsh or English counterparts, they could be considered, and not ignored, but in my opinion, they are not as good.

At the moment, I consider Samson Lee and Dan Cole better than Nel, I consider AWJ, Kruis, Itoji, Charteris and Toner as better options than Grey, and I consider Liam Williams, Mike Brown and Rob Kearney better than Hogg. Yes Hogg played well, butting cutting ribbons into France and Italy is a bit different to being a high ball expert and a last line of defence against the All Blacks.

Well that really does show both your bias and your ignorance.  You have a completely different opinion to most on here and most pundits.  Charteris and Toner better than Gray - laughable.  Kearney and Williams better than Hogg ditto

Oh well - time to leave this debate

Ah, so I am biased now am I ? If I was biased then I would be saying that all the Welsh players are the best.

Ok I did not want to go down this road but I feel my hand has been forced. But if Nel was any good he would not be Scottish he would still be South African and we would not be having this debate. The same with Hardie. If these players were not deemed good enough for the country of their birth then how the feck could they be considered for the Lions ?

TJ wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I am not saying they should be ignored, I am saying they are not as good as their Irish, Welsh or English counterparts, they could be considered, and not ignored, but in my opinion, they are not as good.

At the moment, I consider Samson Lee and Dan Cole better than Nel, I consider AWJ, Kruis, Itoji, Charteris and Toner as better options than Grey, and I consider Liam Williams, Mike Brown and Rob Kearney better than Hogg. Yes Hogg played well, butting cutting ribbons into France and Italy is a bit different to being a high ball expert and a last line of defence against the All Blacks.

Well that really does show both your bias and your ignorance.  You have a completely different opinion to most on here and most pundits.  Charteris and Toner better than Gray - laughable.  Kearney and Williams better than Hogg ditto

Oh well - time to leave this debate

To be fair ,the fact that you put Seymour over north in your team (despite being top try scorer, most metre made,.most defenders beaten) shows your ignorance and bias so I wouldn't accuse others of that

Nel would walk into the SA team now and everyone in SA was quite peeved when he left.

He played for an unfancied Cheetahs side and had he played for the Bulls, sharks or Stormers he would have had 20 caps by the time he left.
Hardie was very close to NZ colours too. Hell, Sam Warburton wouldn't have gained a cap had he been a kiwi, doesn't make him close to being one of the world's best players in his position.

LordDowlais wrote:

TJ wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I am not saying they should be ignored, I am saying they are not as good as their Irish, Welsh or English counterparts, they could be considered, and not ignored, but in my opinion, they are not as good.

At the moment, I consider Samson Lee and Dan Cole better than Nel, I consider AWJ, Kruis, Itoji, Charteris and Toner as better options than Grey, and I consider Liam Williams, Mike Brown and Rob Kearney better than Hogg. Yes Hogg played well, butting cutting ribbons into France and Italy is a bit different to being a high ball expert and a last line of defence against the All Blacks.

Well that really does show both your bias and your ignorance.  You have a completely different opinion to most on here and most pundits.  Charteris and Toner better than Gray - laughable.  Kearney and Williams better than Hogg ditto

Oh well - time to leave this debate

Ah, so I am biased now am I ? If I was biased then I would be saying that all the Welsh players are the best.

Ok I did not want to go down this road but I feel my hand has been forced. But if Nel was any good he would not be Scottish he would still be South African and we would not be having this debate. The same with Hardie. If these players were not deemed good enough for the country of their birth then how the feck could they be considered for the Lions ?

Are you suggesting that a player not being good enough for the All Blacks logically excludes them from being good enough for the Lions?

That makes no sense at all.

fa0019 wrote:Nel would walk into the SA team now and everyone in SA was quite peeved when he left.

He played for an unfancied Cheetahs side and had he played for the Bulls, sharks or Stormers he would have had 20 caps by the time he left.
Hardie was very close to NZ colours too. Hell, Sam Warburton wouldn't have gained a cap had he been a kiwi, doesn't make him close to being one of the world's best players in his position.

Except Warburton has arguably been a better player than cane over the last few years yet cane has 30 caps so I imagine Warburton would have picked up a few playing second fiddle to mccaw.

It goes to show the standard of the game in the NH when we are considering cast offs from the SH for the Lions. Perhaps our players are not as good as we like yo think they are, yet I am being attacked on here for being a realist.

True Raven wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Nel would walk into the SA team now and everyone in SA was quite peeved when he left.

He played for an unfancied Cheetahs side and had he played for the Bulls, sharks or Stormers he would have had 20 caps by the time he left.
Hardie was very close to NZ colours too. Hell, Sam Warburton wouldn't have gained a cap had he been a kiwi, doesn't make him close to being one of the world's best players in his position.

Except Warburton has arguably been a better player than cane over the last few years yet cane has 30 caps so I imagine Warburton would have picked up a few playing second fiddle to mccaw.

You say that because he plays more... which given that McCaw is ahead of Cane (well was) for the last 4 years its sort of understandable.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TJ wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I am not saying they should be ignored, I am saying they are not as good as their Irish, Welsh or English counterparts, they could be considered, and not ignored, but in my opinion, they are not as good.

At the moment, I consider Samson Lee and Dan Cole better than Nel, I consider AWJ, Kruis, Itoji, Charteris and Toner as better options than Grey, and I consider Liam Williams, Mike Brown and Rob Kearney better than Hogg. Yes Hogg played well, butting cutting ribbons into France and Italy is a bit different to being a high ball expert and a last line of defence against the All Blacks.

Well that really does show both your bias and your ignorance.  You have a completely different opinion to most on here and most pundits.  Charteris and Toner better than Gray - laughable.  Kearney and Williams better than Hogg ditto

Oh well - time to leave this debate

Ah, so I am biased now am I ? If I was biased then I would be saying that all the Welsh players are the best.

Ok I did not want to go down this road but I feel my hand has been forced. But if Nel was any good he would not be Scottish he would still be South African and we would not be having this debate. The same with Hardie. If these players were not deemed good enough for the country of their birth then how the feck could they be considered for the Lions ?

Are you suggesting that a player not being good enough for the All Blacks logically excludes them from being good enough for the Lions?

That makes no sense at all.

If only that was the case FES then we could have left Flutey at home in 09

even BOD would have probably been limited to no more than 50 caps had he been a kiwi.

There are very few players who would walk into AB colours as they did in their own respected national colours.

Flutey was brilliant in the 3rd test.

True Raven wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

TJ wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I am not saying they should be ignored, I am saying they are not as good as their Irish, Welsh or English counterparts, they could be considered, and not ignored, but in my opinion, they are not as good.

At the moment, I consider Samson Lee and Dan Cole better than Nel, I consider AWJ, Kruis, Itoji, Charteris and Toner as better options than Grey, and I consider Liam Williams, Mike Brown and Rob Kearney better than Hogg. Yes Hogg played well, butting cutting ribbons into France and Italy is a bit different to being a high ball expert and a last line of defence against the All Blacks.

Well that really does show both your bias and your ignorance.  You have a completely different opinion to most on here and most pundits.  Charteris and Toner better than Gray - laughable.  Kearney and Williams better than Hogg ditto

Oh well - time to leave this debate

Ah, so I am biased now am I ? If I was biased then I would be saying that all the Welsh players are the best.

Ok I did not want to go down this road but I feel my hand has been forced. But if Nel was any good he would not be Scottish he would still be South African and we would not be having this debate. The same with Hardie. If these players were not deemed good enough for the country of their birth then how the feck could they be considered for the Lions ?

Are you suggesting that a player not being good enough for the All Blacks logically excludes them from being good enough for the Lions?

That makes no sense at all.

If only that was the case FES then we could have left Flutey at home in 09

Wasn't it Flutey who did a beautiful chip and collect before blind passing it to Shane Williams for one of his tries in the 3rd test?

Except he's not British or irish

True Raven wrote:Except he's not British or irish

Yet it's less of a problem when they represent England, Wales, Ireland or Scotland?

I've never understood why you have to be 'more' British or Irish to represent the Lions than your adopted nation.

True Raven wrote:Except he's not British or irish

He qualified to be picked on the grounds of being available to one of the 4 home nations and had been capped by 1 on them. End of story.

LordDowlais wrote:It goes to show the standard of the game in the NH when we are considering cast offs from the SH for the Lions. Perhaps our players are not as good as we like yo think they are, yet I am being attacked on here for being a realist.

I am not attacking you for being a realist, I'm attacking you for saying something that doesn't make any sense. Whether you think Hogg is good or not is beside the point. You suggested that the Lions should only select players who are better than their AB counterparts, which is clearly rubbish.

You do see that don't you?