Schmitt and cotter interviewing for lions job

First topic message reminder :

Read that John spencer has confirmed that both cotter and Schmitt will be interviewed for the lions job today.this amazes me,not that I don't think they could do the job but that Schmitt is being considered whilst not committing,publicly at least for the Ireland post. Gatland remains favourite but not a one horse race I would say.just not sure what to make of this, what do other Ireland fans think this says about joes future prospects of taking Ireland to Japan for the next World Cup now?

Thanks Poorfour and Rugby Fan, good info

Do people really seriously believe that a 'Coach' can have ANY influence on a group of new players in a matter of days, when it takes years in every other competition?

The Great Aukster wrote:Do people really seriously believe that a 'Coach' can have ANY influence on a group of new players in a matter of days, when it takes years in every other competition?

It took Eddie about three weeks, to be fair. But that was with a fairly stable group of players, and NZ are a whole 'nother ballpark to the other 6N teams.

TJ wrote:Personally I would like Baxter with someone non english as assistant.  Maybe toonie?  Baxter has shown great skill as a coach.  Toonie for his mercurial genius

Gatland will allways be a limited safety first sort of coach playing limited tactics.  I don't think he adds much to a good group of Welsh players.  Baxter has added a lot to his team

Toonie is a great call as an assistant. He's done some really good stuff at Glasgow despite many fans (including myself) being very sceptical indeed when he took over. Not sure he would be ready for being in charge, but I think he would do well as a backs or attack coach (or similar).

mikey_dragon wrote:Roberts is the best 12 in the NH currently, he'll likely start if his form should continue. Don't cry for Duncan midweek Taylor...

Considering they play in different positions, I'm not really sure what you're attempting to say.

IanBru wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Roberts is the best 12 in the NH currently, he'll likely start if his form should continue. Don't cry for Duncan midweek Taylor...

Considering they play in different positions, I'm not really sure what you're attempting to say.

He's played at 12 and 13, as has Roberts. You must not be very bright then.

Poorfour wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Do people really seriously believe that a 'Coach' can have ANY influence on a group of new players in a matter of days, when it takes years in every other competition?

It took Eddie about three weeks, to be fair. But that was with a fairly stable group of players, and NZ are a whole 'nother ballpark to the other 6N teams.

Fair enough PF - but Eddie inherited a team and used the same group of players although changed a few key dynamics such as the captain, and the knowledge that under performance would not be tolerated. That's totally different to guys playing together for the first time half a world away.

Do you seriously believe that a scratch Lions team will stand any chance against a settled All Blacks, whoever the coach is?

IanBru wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Roberts is the best 12 in the NH currently, he'll likely start if his form should continue. Don't cry for Duncan midweek Taylor...

Considering they play in different positions, I'm not really sure what you're attempting to say.

Whatever he trying to say any sentence starting with "Roberts is the best 12 in the NH currently" is clearly nonsense and best ignored.

The Great Aukster wrote:Do you seriously believe that a scratch Lions team will stand any chance against a settled All Blacks, whoever the coach is?

There's always a chance.

In truth, though, everything has to go miraculously right. Gethin Jenkins in a recent Rugby Paper interview says of 2005:

“By the time we reached the Tests we were battered. A lot of the boys were just hanging on by a thread with injuries. The provincial teams were really strong and facing the Lions was their biggest game in years so they were really up for it.

It will be the same next year when everyone wants to have a go at the Lions but the balance is getting our boys ready for the Test matches. In 2009 we probably didn’t have hard enough games leading up to the first Test, especially front-row wise, then the first Test was a shock to the system.”

You need a goldilocks scenario somewhere in the middle, however, it's in the interests of the hosts to make sure the visitors are at either of the extremes: overstretched or underdone.

One of the best things about the 2009 tour was the chance to see unfamiliar combinations clicking, most notably Roberts playing alongside O'Driscoll. In reality, that kind of chemistry just doesn't happen very often. Even in the individual national sides, it takes time for players to get on the same wavelength. Perhaps some coaches are better at creating the right environment but you have to think a lot of it is just down to luck.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Do people really seriously believe that a 'Coach' can have ANY influence on a group of new players in a matter of days, when it takes years in every other competition?

It took Eddie about three weeks, to be fair. But that was with a fairly stable group of players, and NZ are a whole 'nother ballpark to the other 6N teams.

Fair enough PF - but Eddie inherited a team and used the same group of players although changed a few key dynamics such as the captain, and the knowledge that under performance would not be tolerated. That's totally different to guys playing together for the first time half a world away.

Do you seriously believe that a scratch Lions team will stand any chance against a settled All Blacks, whoever the coach is?

Did you actually read my post beyond the first 6 words? The bit where I said "that was with a fairly stable group of players" perhaps, or the other bit where I said that "NZ are a whole 'nother ballpark"?

It's hugely difficult for any side, at any level of familiarity, to beat the All Blacks in New Zealand, especially over a 3 test series.

That said, the 2014 England tour fielded a team with 8 regular starters missing and lost by 3 points having led at 76 minutes, then made 6 changes and lost by 1 point, albeit with the All Blacks defending an 8 point lead late in the game. They got smashed in the 3rd test - but it does show that it's not a foregone conclusion that a scratch side will fare badly. Likewise, for two of the recent tests Wales were very much in the fight until about the 60 minute mark, beyond which their fitness and composure under pressure fell away.

The best bet for the Lions is probably to think in terms of units on the pitch and on the bench. Say they start with an England tight 5, Welsh back row, Irish half backs, Welsh centres and a mixed back three (maybe Hogg, North and Watson). Your replacements might be an Irish front row, England lock and back rowers, English halfbacks (assuming a 6/2 split). That gives a balance of familiarity and finishing power that might give them half a chance.

Which said, the coaches also need to allow for someone to break in to a settled unit. Slade, for instance, would be unlikely to be the obvious choice at 12 going into the tour, even if he has a great season and establishes himself with England. But if he were to tour I could see him emerging as the kind of player who could knit an unfamiliar backline together and make it move.

That to my mind is what justifies the Lions - the possibility of unexpected combinations emerging and creating something exciting. My main objection to Gatland is that he seemed to go into the last tour with a fixed idea of tactics and the players who would fit those tactics and it was only after the second test forced his hand that we saw anything like that.

Exiledinborders wrote:

ebop wrote:Are the best coaches available really Warren Gatland, Joe Schmidt and Vern Cotter? Where are all your British and Irish coaches standing up? What a disappointing scenario.

Best coach working in Great Britain and Ireland by a country mile is not from Southern Hemisphere but from Ireland - Mark McCall.

Very true.

Celtic league win with Ulster in 2005/2006
AP with Sarries in 2010/11,2014/15 and 2015/16
European Champions Cup in 2015/16

Got the potential to be a future Ireland coach IMO.

As for Cotter and Schmidt working together on the Lions tour - sounds good if it happens.

The Great Aukster wrote:Do people really seriously believe that a 'Coach' can have ANY influence on a group of new players in a matter of days, when it takes years in every other competition?

Very much so, in fact a new coach/set up in general can have the 'dead cat bounce' effect. We see it all the time; Warren Gatland with Wales, Joe Schmidt with Ireland. It's where a team that has otherwise become stale or is in decline has a massive initial transition/improvement, before the inevitable plateau of said change, and then begins the gradual process of sustainable, quantifiable, beneficial change to the team. Or perhaps that change never comes. Hence the term dead cat bounce. It's most obviously prominent in football, a manager coming in and- sheerly through the novelty of a new face, new motivation techniques, the excitement etc for the the players- gets a team that may be in and around the relegation zone, out of it (but then struggles the next season when the novelty expires).

However, whilst the Lions are slightly different, it still applies. The point here is that everything is 'new' to an extent; everything from who your teammates are, all the way down to who washes the kit, and everything in between. Every little change has the posibility to impact player performance in some way, however small. There's some continuity perhaps from club or country, but the Lions are the very definition of 'big influence' on a group environment in a short space of time. It's the type of change that's possible which is where the coach earns their salt. The low risk/low error count rugby of Gatland doesn't necessarily seem to suit the Lions, because inevitably- in such an environment- you can't hone such an equilibrium between players who are used to being rivals, and have very little time together. The way the Lions played in 2009- a Northern Hemisphere version of expansive, sort of heads up rugby, I suppose- seems the most obvious way to play. It's like Barbarians-lite. But inevitably, you lose the series playing that rugby against New Zealand. And you probably lose against Australia if you really look to cut loose; regardless of the shape they were in in 2013, they could still go toe to toe in that department.

Whilst I don't like Gatland's tactics, and it almost seemed inimical to ask players to play that way, it does make sense why he did it (and resorted to picking Welsh players for whom the transition in tactics would've been far less great than for other countries' players) considering the opposition.

The way to beat New Zealand? Not entirely sure. The coach who will be best suited to finding out how? Again, it's hard to see a standout. But certainly, a coach can have a massive impact in a short space of time with the Lions, it's about finding the 'simplistic', or rather coherent, type of direction that can be absorbed and honed in that time, rather than one- Woodward most obviously- who tries to force too much change upon a group of players used to very different and perhaps disparate treatment. It can be done, and were the Lions not playing New Zealand, I'd say it could be done successfully.

mikey_dragon wrote:

IanBru wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Roberts is the best 12 in the NH currently, he'll likely start if his form should continue. Don't cry for Duncan midweek Taylor...

Considering they play in different positions, I'm not really sure what you're attempting to say.

He's played at 12 and 13, as has Roberts. You must not be very bright then.

Taylor has never played inside centre at international level, and I think it's been a very long time since Roberts has played outside centre for Wales, and certainly not on a prolonged or consistent basis to my recollection.

As for Roberts being the best 12 in the NH, I think it depends on the type of player you want at 12 and the shape of the backline you're looking to create. If you want a physical hard-running 12 with a bit more creativity and footballing nous elsewhere in the backline, then I would agree with you.

Roberts and Joseph for example might work well, but I do think Roberts/Tuilagi, Roberts/Dunbar, Roberts/Henshaw or Roberts/Taylor might lack skill, unless you plan on using someone like Hogg, Payne or Goode at fullback and ask them to integrate more as a second receiver option. The All Blacks won't be easily blown away by raw power, someone is going to need to pull strings and offer something a bit different.

As for Schmidt and Cotter being interviewed, this is good news. If we can somehow involve them or even get their input, all the better, and whilst I think Gatland will be a shoe-in for the top job, these are two excellent coaches with a lot of experience (plus obviously excellent knowledge of the Scottish and Irish players available).

Poorfour wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Do people really seriously believe that a 'Coach' can have ANY influence on a group of new players in a matter of days, when it takes years in every other competition?

It took Eddie about three weeks, to be fair. But that was with a fairly stable group of players, and NZ are a whole 'nother ballpark to the other 6N teams.

Fair enough PF - but Eddie inherited a team and used the same group of players although changed a few key dynamics such as the captain, and the knowledge that under performance would not be tolerated. That's totally different to guys playing together for the first time half a world away.

Do you seriously believe that a scratch Lions team will stand any chance against a settled All Blacks, whoever the coach is?

Did you actually read my post beyond the first 6 words? The bit where I said "that was with a fairly stable group of players" perhaps, or the other bit where I said that "NZ are a whole 'nother ballpark"?

It's hugely difficult for any side, at any level of familiarity, to beat the All Blacks in New Zealand, especially over a 3 test series.

That said, the 2014 England tour fielded a team with 8 regular starters missing and lost by 3 points having led at 76 minutes, then made 6 changes and lost by 1 point, albeit with the All Blacks defending an 8 point lead late in the game. They got smashed in the 3rd test - but it does show that it's not a foregone conclusion that a scratch side will fare badly. Likewise, for two of the recent tests Wales were very much in the fight until about the 60 minute mark, beyond which their fitness and composure under pressure fell away.

The best bet for the Lions is probably to think in terms of units on the pitch and on the bench. Say they start with an England tight 5, Welsh back row, Irish half backs, Welsh centres and a mixed back three (maybe Hogg, North and Watson). Your replacements might be an Irish front row, England lock and back rowers, English halfbacks (assuming a 6/2 split). That gives a balance of familiarity and finishing power that might give them half a chance.

Which said, the coaches also need to allow for someone to break in to a settled unit. Slade, for instance, would be unlikely to be the obvious choice at 12 going into the tour, even if he has a great season and establishes himself with England. But if he were to tour I could see him emerging as the kind of player who could knit an unfamiliar backline together and make it move.

That to my mind is what justifies the Lions - the possibility of unexpected combinations emerging and creating something exciting. My main objection to Gatland is that he seemed to go into the last tour with a fixed idea of tactics and the players who would fit those tactics and it was only after the second test forced his hand that we saw anything like that.

Yes I had indeed read beyond the first six words, but was wondering if you had actually picked up the adjective describing the players in my original post? The point is the Lions are 'new' players to each other who have never played together as a team before, of for the coach. It is one thing a coach coming in and making a few subtle changes here and there to a largely stable team with a wide squad that know each other and train together, and a completely different one to assemble a totally scratch team and then get them to play for each other. Not only that but the players aren't playing for anyone but themselves, and the honour of forever being known as a 'Lion', so natural divisions are not forgotten on the training field however much the media spin it and every man is competing hard for the Test jersey usually against someone he doesn't give two figs about.

I agree that the backs may throw up an "unexpected combination", but that is purely a matter of luck. Far more likely is that the combinations that have made players successful for their Test sides are the ones that will be selected and chosen. The 09 Roberts / O'Driscoll partnership was ditched by Gatland in favour of Roberts / Davies in Australia so Gatland obviously didn't consider it too exciting!

funnyExiledScot wrote:Taylor has never played inside centre at international level, and I think it's been a very long time since Roberts has played outside centre for Wales, and certainly not on a prolonged or consistent basis to my recollection.

Bang on. Roberts played 13 once in the 2011 6N I believe, with Jon Davies at 12, due to clamours from media that Roberts' handling and general ability was hindering a really dire backline, which was and still is true, but the team then was dreadful. As no surprise, he played exactly as he did at 12, and in no way looked a 13. Roberts seems out of place at second receiver, let alone further along the backline.

funnyExiledScot wrote:As for Roberts being the best 12 in the NH, I think it depends on the type of player you want at 12 and the shape of the backline you're looking to create. If you want a physical hard-running 12 with a bit more creativity and footballing nous elsewhere in the backline, then I would agree with you.

Roberts and Joseph for example might work well, but I do think Roberts/Tuilagi, Roberts/Dunbar, Roberts/Henshaw or Roberts/Taylor might lack skill, unless you plan on using someone like Hogg, Payne or Goode at fullback and ask them to integrate more as a second receiver option. The All Blacks won't be easily blown away by raw power, someone is going to need to pull strings and offer something a bit different.

He'll almost certainly tour, and he's still a good player at what he does, but his effectiveness is dwindling with each season. I someone with a quick step from a standing start- i.e. Joseph- is necessary to play along side him. He can't be relied upon to feed good ball to the outside, and I imagine the backs coaches will get it so the 10 is doing this for the Lions, with Roberts presumably lying at the bottom of a ruck as it does go wide. I'm not sure his limitations- against a country like New Zealand- counter his benefits. He needs a stellar season or 6N with Wales to put his hand up to even tour if Gatland isn't coach, let alone start.

Centre, like backrow, has a glut of similarly able but not necessarily similar style players. It's all about combinations. You could make a case for at least 3 centres from each nation, I think.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

IanBru wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Roberts is the best 12 in the NH currently, he'll likely start if his form should continue. Don't cry for Duncan midweek Taylor...

Considering they play in different positions, I'm not really sure what you're attempting to say.

He's played at 12 and 13, as has Roberts. You must not be very bright then.

Taylor has never played inside centre at international level, and I think it's been a very long time since Roberts has played outside centre for Wales, and certainly not on a prolonged or consistent basis to my recollection.

As for Roberts being the best 12 in the NH, I think it depends on the type of player you want at 12 and the shape of the backline you're looking to create. If you want a physical hard-running 12 with a bit more creativity and footballing nous elsewhere in the backline, then I would agree with you.

Roberts and Joseph for example might work well, but I do think Roberts/Tuilagi, Roberts/Dunbar, Roberts/Henshaw or Roberts/Taylor might lack skill, unless you plan on using someone like Hogg, Payne or Goode at fullback and ask them to integrate more as a second receiver option. The All Blacks won't be easily blown away by raw power, someone is going to need to pull strings and offer something a bit different.

You know that better than I do, and you're also correct on your second point about it being a long time since Roberts played 13 internationally. Neither are incapable of moving across one. So whilst you're technically correct my major point being that one could easily keep the other out of the starting team or match day squad entirely, and that it should have been more obvious to Irn Bru. Interesting you also leave out Liam Williams on your next point - do you believe him to be less capable? I'd say on current form he's the best choice.

Who do you think is a better 12 than Roberts in the NH? (serious question, I'd be interesting to hear your thoughts on it). I think he looked knackered at the end of the NZ tour, like all our boyo's but across the season as a whole, and quite possibly the previous season he's been the best 12 in my view.

miaow wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Do people really seriously believe that a 'Coach' can have ANY influence on a group of new players in a matter of days, when it takes years in every other competition?

Very much so, in fact a new coach/set up in general can have the 'dead cat bounce' effect. We see it all the time; Warren Gatland with Wales, Joe Schmidt with Ireland. It's where a team that has otherwise become stale or is in decline has a massive initial transition/improvement, before the inevitable plateau of said change, and then begins the gradual process of sustainable, quantifiable, beneficial change to the team. Or perhaps that change never comes. Hence the term dead cat bounce. It's most obviously prominent in football, a manager coming in and- sheerly through the novelty of a new face, new motivation techniques, the excitement etc for the the players- gets a team that may be in and around the relegation zone, out of it (but then struggles the next season when the novelty expires).

However, whilst the Lions are slightly different, it still applies. The point here is that everything is 'new' to an extent; everything from who your teammates are, all the way down to who washes the kit, and everything in between. Every little change has the posibility to impact player performance in some way, however small. There's some continuity perhaps from club or country, but the Lions are the very definition of 'big influence' on a group environment in a short space of time. It's the type of change that's possible which is where the coach earns their salt. The low risk/low error count rugby of Gatland doesn't necessarily seem to suit the Lions, because inevitably- in such an environment- you can't hone such an equilibrium between players who are used to being rivals, and have very little time together. The way the Lions played in 2009- a Northern Hemisphere version of expansive, sort of heads up rugby, I suppose- seems the most obvious way to play. It's like Barbarians-lite. But inevitably, you lose the series playing that rugby against New Zealand. And you probably lose against Australia if you really look to cut loose; regardless of the shape they were in in 2013, they could still go toe to toe in that department.

Whilst I don't like Gatland's tactics, and it almost seemed inimical to ask players to play that way, it does make sense why he did it (and resorted to picking Welsh players for whom the transition in tactics would've been far less great than for other countries' players) considering the opposition.

The way to beat New Zealand? Not entirely sure. The coach who will be best suited to finding out how? Again, it's hard to see a standout. But certainly, a coach can have a massive impact in a short space of time with the Lions, it's about finding the 'simplistic', or rather coherent, type of direction that can be absorbed and honed in that time, rather than one- Woodward most obviously- who tries to force too much change upon a group of players used to very different and perhaps disparate treatment. It can be done, and were the Lions not playing New Zealand, I'd say it could be done successfully.

I realise you are probably more conversant with all things feline, but "dead cat bounce" does not represent a desirable position for a team or coach. It is the small blip in share price before the stock hits rock bottom (usually never to recover). Generally when a coach's stock has fallen so far to get him the sack there are very few redeeming results on the way to the door. I understand you are referring to the beneficial results a new coach may be able to extract, but the Lions are not a stale team where the current coach has lost the dressing room. There is no dressing room or cliques formed, there are no hangovers from past injustice or scores to settle, this is new stock launched for the very first time by a rookie fundmanager.

You mention Joe Schmidt but he had to take over an ageing team that had little depth and had to cast the net over nearly half the professional players in Ireland to put together his team. He brought in his own methods and over several seasons has seen some progress and success. His predecessor OTOH inherited a team lacking in confidence and depth from Eddie O'Sullivan but so stable they were know as the untouchables. In his first year Declan Kidney cleverly identified the missing pieces and they won their first Slam for 60 years, but that team subsequently declined before Schmidt slow and steady rejuvenation regime.

Arguably the only example where a coach has had short term success with players new to each other is Gatland with the Lions in Australia, and he managed that by picking mostly players he already knew, who knew him and each other. The totally new combinations used for the mid-week games were either dismissed as being not very good or not proven because of poor opposition. So the Lions 'Coach' actually isn't a coach at all because he has no time to coach anything, he is simply a selector who has to pick established combinations and be hard-nosed in front of the camera to justify them.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Who do you think is a better 12 than Roberts in the NH? (serious question, I'd be interesting to hear your thoughts on it). I think he looked knackered at the end of the NZ tour, like all our boyo's but across the season as a whole, and quite possibly the previous season he's been the best 12 in my view.

"In your view"

Indeed this might be your view but many of us would disagree.  Better 12s? In my view there are many.  those players with guile and passing ability because thats the sort of players I like - those who run around players using pace and guile and also who have the ability to find the pass to cut out defenders rather than Roberts who tries to run thru defenders.

Joeseph would be my choice.  Matt Scott seems to have lost form, Barrett is a poor mans Roberts.  I am a big fan of Peter Horne - a very elusive runner and great distributor but he still has a lot to prove to neutrals I think and is maybe a bit lightweight.  So in my view Joseph would be the man, Horne his backup. I think these are the sorts of backs you need to beat the allblacks.

mikey_dragon wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

IanBru wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Roberts is the best 12 in the NH currently, he'll likely start if his form should continue. Don't cry for Duncan midweek Taylor...

Considering they play in different positions, I'm not really sure what you're attempting to say.

He's played at 12 and 13, as has Roberts. You must not be very bright then.

Taylor has never played inside centre at international level, and I think it's been a very long time since Roberts has played outside centre for Wales, and certainly not on a prolonged or consistent basis to my recollection.

As for Roberts being the best 12 in the NH, I think it depends on the type of player you want at 12 and the shape of the backline you're looking to create. If you want a physical hard-running 12 with a bit more creativity and footballing nous elsewhere in the backline, then I would agree with you.

Roberts and Joseph for example might work well, but I do think Roberts/Tuilagi, Roberts/Dunbar, Roberts/Henshaw or Roberts/Taylor might lack skill, unless you plan on using someone like Hogg, Payne or Goode at fullback and ask them to integrate more as a second receiver option. The All Blacks won't be easily blown away by raw power, someone is going to need to pull strings and offer something a bit different.

You know that better than I do, and you're also correct on your second point about it being a long time since Roberts played 13 internationally. Neither are incapable of moving across one. So whilst you're technically correct my major point being that one could easily keep the other out of the starting team or match day squad entirely, and that it should have been more obvious to Irn Bru. Interesting you also leave out Liam Williams on your next point - do you believe him to be less capable? I'd say on current form he's the best choice.

Who do you think is a better 12 than Roberts in the NH? (serious question, I'd be interesting to hear your thoughts on it). I think he looked knackered at the end of the NZ tour, like all our boyo's but across the season as a whole, and quite possibly the previous season he's been the best 12 in my view.

I'm not leaving Liam Williams out of my equation for Lions fullback, rather the three options I listed were suggestions of full backs with the footballing skills to come into the line as a playmaker (to cope with Roberts at 12), rather than simply a strike runner (which is the type of fullback I consider Liam Williams). Hogg has played centre and fly half (briefly) before. Goode has played 10 before and Payne has played centre at international level (not that well admittedly). Williams is an out and out back three player, at his best being brought onto the ball at pace, or countering from deep. I think Williams is very much in contention for the Lions, but is just a different type of player to the others.

On the second question, if you want a hard running and defensively excellent inside centre then I think Roberts is the best option. Much like Gibbs in South Africa in 1997, he'll get you over the advantage line and stop anything coming down his channel in its tracks. He is a true test match warrior and has oodles of experience. He'll certainly tour. The point I was making though is that the Lions may wish to explore a slightly different shape to its backline, with the idea of a second playmaker at 12. To some degree numbers on backs can be irrelevant (the point I was making above regarding the use of the full back to come into the line on second or third phase to act as first receiver), but we've seen with England how having that second playmaker can be a useful ploy to control the game - Farrell has defied all my predictions at 12 - and I do think the Lions will need to have a few tricks and imaginative ploys up their sleeves to tackle the All Blacks, who will not be cowed by two large physical lumps running at them through the centres. The only problem, which you allude to, is that we don't really have a stellar alternative at 12 offering that option. Matt Scott hasn't developed as we all hoped north of the border, and whilst Alex Dunbar is excellent, he's more in the mould of Roberts, but without the experience and a bit less powerful (although probably quicker). Henshaw looks better at 13 for my money, and Slade is yet to make his make in international rugby. Olding? Marshall? Perhaps too soon for both. It really leaves you looking at Farrell, and despite his performances this season, I still wonder whether he really is a Lions 12 in the making.

Only seen joseph at 12 twice I think and didn't really excel. You're also taking away a very strong option at 13.

Yep, I see Joseph very much at 13. He's such an exciting player and in broken play completely lethal. I had him down as a dark horse for the last tour but it's taken him a bit longer to shine through.

Roberts will tour as the best of the hard running inside centres, its just whether the coach wants that to be the gameplan

JJ anywhere other than 13 is madness, he's rock solid defensively and on his day can tear through any defence, he'd be my starting outside centre without any doubt

Roberts and Joseph could work very well and be very solid defensively. As others have said, it would probably require a more creative full back.

The way Farrell is playing I wouldn't rule him out of the 12 shirt if Jones keeps the 10/12 axis as it is for England. There aren't many that have played better than Farrell at inside centre in the last year.

This would be my current thinking.

Backline with Roberts:

9.Webb 10.Biggar 11.North 12.Roberts 13.Joseph 14.Watson 15.Hogg

21.Murray 22.Farrell 23.Tuilagi

Backline without Roberts:

9.Webb 10.Ford 11.North 12.Farrell 13.Joseph 14.Watson 15.Williams

21.Murray 22.Tuilagi 23.Hogg

All very interesting. England backs haven't really put a foot wrong but I still believe Joseph to be just a little flaky in defence - great attacker though. I also thought the main reason for Farrell playing 12 was because of England's lack of 12 and an unfit Tuilagi. Farrell is there to look after Ford for now, Ford may soon develop to the extent where he doesn't need that, or Ford might even be dropped to bench or beyond next season with Farrell back at 10. Either way that 10/12 axis certainly worked for England, and their forwards haven't been outdone yet either.

I'm not sure why Roberts at 12 requires a more creative 15. With the Eng/Wal midfield combo someone such as Brown or Williams could slot in at full-back and do really well. I'm not getting this "we need a 10/15 player to play full-back" - just go for a full-back. Again Williams would be my choice, he has all that we need and is in great form. Furthermore if the Lions go out and lose the first test I sincerely doubt it will be due to a lack of creativity from full-back.

There's a few positions where come next year there may be a couple more serious options; I think inside centre is one of those. I would be disappointed if Roberts were 1st choice by then.

mikey_dragon wrote:All very interesting. England backs haven't really put a foot wrong but I still believe Joseph to be just a little flaky in defence - great attacker though.

Oddly enough the general comments on here seem to to be that Joseph's defence has been excellent and we're wanting him to get more ball in attacking situations.

mikey_dragon wrote:All very interesting. England backs haven't really put a foot wrong but I still believe Joseph to be just a little flaky in defence - great attacker though. I also thought the main reason for Farrell playing 12 was because of England's lack of 12 and an unfit Tuilagi. Farrell is there to look after Ford for now, Ford may soon develop to the extent where he doesn't need that, or Ford might even be dropped to bench or beyond next season with Farrell back at 10. Either way that 10/12 axis certainly worked for England, and their forwards haven't been outdone yet either.

I'm not sure why Roberts at 12 requires a more creative 15. With the Eng/Wal midfield combo someone such as Brown or Williams could slot in at full-back and do really well. I'm not getting this "we need a 10/15 player to play full-back" - just go for a full-back. Again Williams would be my choice, he has all that we need and is in great form. Furthermore if the Lions go out and lose the first test I sincerely doubt it will be due to a lack of creativity from full-back.

Not necessarily a more creative footballer at 15, but I believe you'll need that to come from somewhere in the backline to compensate for Roberts' more direct approach at 12. I don't think we can beat the All Blacks solely relying on 10 to be comfortable distributing the ball and putting others into space. If 10 is at the bottom of the ruck, we'll need someone else to step up and run the show. Doesn't really have to be 12, 15 or any other position in particular, but you need a balance between your ball carriers, footballers and strike runners, unless you have players who can do pretty much everything (which the ABs always seems to have).

Out of interest what exactly are you proposing as your Lions backline?

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's a few positions where come next year there may be a couple more serious options; I think inside centre is one of those. I would be disappointed if Roberts were 1st choice by then.

Depends on what you mean by "serious options".

From a rugby perspective if fans seriously want the Lions to win then why would there be any selections outside the England Test team? Gatland's Lions scraped past Australia 2-1 yet England beat (a better) Australia 3-0 this summer - fairly conclusive proof that a form Test side stands a better chance of rugby success than a scratch Lions side. If England go unbeaten through the AIs and next 6N then there would be absolutely no reason to select from outside England (other than dirt trackers).

Of course if "serious options" include tokenism and profit maximisation then the net should be cast very wide indeed to include representation from the biggest fan demographic possible. Dr Roberts is very recognisable, speaks well and would be a far more attractive tourist than the alternatives.

So are the serious options for a competitive match or a beauty contest?

Yes, like I said you don't like the Lions. I get it. Don't watch it then, just ignore it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's a few positions where come next year there may be a couple more serious options; I think inside centre is one of those. I would be disappointed if Roberts were 1st choice by then.

I have a feeling that Stuart McCloskey will force his way into the Ireland team and put his hand up for Lions selection. A very good hard runner, has very quick feet, good offloader and is more than solid in defence. That's my call anyways

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's a few positions where come next year there may be a couple more serious options; I think inside centre is one of those. I would be disappointed if Roberts were 1st choice by then.

Depends on what you mean by "serious options".

From a rugby perspective if fans seriously want the Lions to win then why would there be any selections outside the England Test team?

Because despite England being the best side in the NH at the moment, they don't have the best players in each and every position. It's a bit like asking why the England test XV doesn't just take Sarries players, supplementing with players from the next most successful side where Sarries don't have an EQ option.

Worth reading Brian Moore's autobiography. Back in the 1980s and 1990s several England coaches ignored claims from players who didn't play for Bath, on the flawed logic that trying to take as many combinations from Bath as possible would replicate its club success on the international stage.

International rugby, be it England or the Lions, is and will always be best served by trying to blend together the best combinations from the players available. Clearly the top sides will likely have more representatives than the less successful sides, and I'd fully expect the representation of Scotland players to be less than England on that very basis.

There endeth the lesson.

what would people want instead of the Lions?

Maybe a super club league between the top 4 of the Ap, Pro 12, Top 14 and Super 15
So say 4 Pools (Guessing about the Super rugby scores etc)
Pool 1
Saracens
Lions
Clermont
Ulster

Pool 2
Connacht
Toulon
Wasps
Chiefs

Pool 3
Racing
Leinster
Highlanders
Leicester

Pool 4
Hurricanes
Exeter
Glasgow
Montpelier

With Winners of each pool in the Semi's, and the country it is hosted in is rotated each competition.

eirebilly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's a few positions where come next year there may be a couple more serious options; I think inside centre is one of those. I would be disappointed if Roberts were 1st choice by then.

I have a feeling that Stuart McCloskey will force his way into the Ireland team and put his hand up for Lions selection. A very good hard runner, has very quick feet, good offloader and is more than solid in defence. That's my call anyways

He'd be a bolter for me as well, although quite a similar player to Roberts. Still, you rarely see McCloskey stopped before or on the advantage line.

funnyExiledScot wrote:This would be my current thinking.

Backline with Roberts:

9.Webb 10.Biggar 11.North 12.Roberts 13.Joseph 14.Watson 15.Hogg

21.Murray 22.Farrell 23.Tuilagi

Backline without Roberts:

9.Webb 10.Ford 11.North 12.Farrell 13.Joseph 14.Watson 15.Williams

21.Murray 22.Tuilagi 23.Hogg

I think you're perhaps more likely to see Roberts outside George Ford, and I'm sure Ford would appreciate the reliability Roberts provides to truck up slow ball if the outside half is pressuried, or sees nothing on. Of course, you lose the option of another playmaker receiving the ball and doing something other than forming another ruck, which Farrell provides when outside Ford. I cannot help but feel that by pairing- though I'm oversimplifying here- negative/negative, and positive/less negative (i.e. Biggar/Roberts, Ford/Farrell), you become perhaps a bit...obvious? One dimensional? Particularly in the negative/negative selection (as we've seen with Wales). I think a melding of the two would be interesting. I wonder what Farrell would do outside Biggar, for instance, and I certainly think Roberts playing outside a 10 who will do a bit more with the ball than Biggar does may benefit in getting him playing more diverse, and more attacking, rugby, on top of the security he provides to a less robust outsie half like Ford. However, I don't necessarily disagree. I think- if those players tour- then we'd likely see a mixing of those selections as and when the bench is used, and depending on the situation (will the Lions ever be in a position to select Biggar and Roberts, which you think they'd use to close out the game? Is Roberts versatile enough for the bench? etc.).

Roberts either starts or is not in the match day squad, he really isn't a bench option for me

Farrell is at worst, going to be in the 22 shirt - covers fly half and centre to a good standard and is an ideal closer in both positions

I think that's probably right Bam.

The Great Aukster wrote:From a rugby perspective if fans seriously want the Lions to win then why would there be any selections outside the England Test team? Gatland's Lions scraped past Australia 2-1 yet England beat (a better) Australia 3-0 this summer - fairly conclusive proof that a form Test side stands a better chance of rugby success than a scratch Lions side.

Yet less than 12 months ago- roughly the same time until the Lions actually Tour- England went out of their own World Cup without qualifying from the group stage. That really is one of the most useless applications of cherry picked statistics devoid of context I've seen on this site, and that's saying something.

The Great Aukster wrote: If England go unbeaten through the AIs and next 6N then there would be absolutely no reason to select from outside England (other than dirt trackers).

And just to reinforce how ridiculous an assertion it was, you're counting your chickens well before the eggs have even been laid.

Just as player combinations perform differently in a club environment compared to international, English players- even playing en masse- would be under different conditions, and therefore perform differently, in a Lions environment. On top of this- and this is fairly crucial- they're not playing an Australian team that looked at times somewhat more inclined to repeat and get used to a certain stlye of play, rather than looking solely to win the Test matches, which was the case this Summer. After all, this is the start of a new four year cycle, which SANZAR teams tend to look to build up to when they will not be facing the Lions (i.e. SA and Aus this time around). When they were playing solely for the scoreline- in the World Cup- they dismantled an England side of almost identical personnel. Several months pass, and each team is in a very different position, with different priorities and importance placed on the results alone. Lions Tours* and World Cups are good levellers, in that there really only is the bottom line, the score, that matters, which is not the case in every single Test match, less so at the beginning of a new 4 year cycle for the team that came 2nd in the RWC a few months previously.

Perhaps more crucially, however, is the fact that the Lions will be playing New Zealand, who are acres ahead of anyone else in the sport, perhaps even one of the greatest sporting teams of all time. Replicating England alone would not suffice, even if it were possible. So, you have to ask yourself, would an English backline improve with George North, or Rhys Webb, in the team? You'd think that would probably be the case in this scenario, where the English players are playing at a level and environment unfamiliar to them, and there are cases all across the XV where this is up for very reasonable debate.

As I mentioned earlier, the phenomenon of a new coach freshening things up without ostensibly changing very much can have a drastic change upon a team's performance. It is the colloquial usage and application into the sporting world of the financial term, 'dead cat bounce', but if that phrase doesn't fit- as it's not entirely applicable here, moreso to the football analogy I used above- call it an artificial and temporary swell in performance. This is what is happening, and has happened, with Eddie Jones' England. Will he be able to sustain the trajectory? Almost certainly not. Will he, however, be able to keep the improvement and standards high enough that make them the best team in Europe, and challengers to the All Blacks over the next few years? It's possible, certainly, even if the latter seems a tough ask.

This is why English fans are called arrogant, though, comments like yours. They lose any sort of hindsight and perspective. It comes partly from the instilled belief in certain portions of society, and pervades into Englishness generally, that they should be at the top table in most things, not just sport; when you finally produce a team that looks genuinely very good for the first time in 13 years, you all tend to go a bit mad, losing all sense of perspective (which is fine for fans to get carried away, but not when you see the media and even pundit appraisals that whip them up into believing the hype. Just look at the England football team- and 2015 rugby WC team- to see how damaging the fall can be, and how distorted expectations can become when not grounded in measured assessment.) Let's not forget that England could very easily have lost both 6N against Wales and France. If France had a reliable goal kicker, and- despite their gradual improvements- looked like they had a gameplan and understood each other, they may well have won the match. Likewise, Wales were pretty dire- significantly through England's good work- but had they played the way they did in the game's final minutes a bit earlier, or for longer, it could easily have finished with a different result. Ireland did not receive such acclaim during 2013-2015, nor did Wales between 2011-2013. England are on a good winning streak if taken in isolation, but broadening the lens to the recent past, and the possible future, should quell the clamours of greatness a bit. Instead, the 6N is rewritten as England trampling over the 5 other nations with ease, when the reality is- as has been the case for at least the last 5-6 years- the differences between (in particular) Ireland, England, and Wales hasn't been very much at all, and their respective performances have differed depending of the several factors that have impact upon each nation differently each season.

Ultimately, therefore, we have to base our opinions on as much information as possible. We predict what may well happen in the next 12 months according to form and recent history, potential and promise of players, and the likely position and performances of players and national teams over the next season. We listen to fans of other teams who know their club and countries' players better than we do, and we give our honest opinions on our own. Partisanship can get in the way- it's part of the fun at times- but with regards to the Lions, this should be put aside as much as possible. You cannot transfer a team in totality, and expect identical results, even ignoring the fact that sport is an unpredictable thing based on some unforseeable variables that come into play on the field.

Therefore- as fES has alluded to- are the English players the best in their position, 1-15, or even 1-23? No, no they are not, and nor does the gain that may be made in familiarility bridge the gap that would be there in selecting every settled combination over every 'better' player (i.e. you do not ignore form and talent for historical form and continuity alone; would you dismiss George North to have Jack Nowell/any other of the myriad wingers England get through every season to play against NZ, purely because Watson may well start? No, you don't, and that goes across the board.) It's a shame I've spent so long on what may well be a troll, and at best is an inane comment thrown out onto a forum with the kind of fundamental thought that doesn't allow all the other mitigating factors that come into play, holding only a distorted perspective of recent team performance, and continuity, ahead of all others. But there we go. Better to answer you comprehensively, I think.

The Great Aukster wrote:From a rugby perspective if fans seriously want the Lions to win then why would there be any selections outside the England Test team.

I think I've answered that sufficiently, but for some reason I doubt I'll change your mind.

*I would also suggest that, although for the SANZAR team the scoreline is all that matters, for Britain and Ireland, there's perhaps more to it than that, hence why it is an anachronism that lasts. But that is another point entirely, and we'll open up another can of worms regarding the ethical implications of dropping BoD if it digresses further from the topic of who should coach the Lions...

Cyril wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:All very interesting. England backs haven't really put a foot wrong but I still believe Joseph to be just a little flaky in defence - great attacker though.

Oddly enough the general comments on here seem to to be that Joseph's defence has been excellent and we're wanting him to get more ball in attacking situations.

"Oddly enough" and "general comments on here" certainly go in tandem. This site is odd. I just thought he was a little flaky in Australia, but by no means the worst defender out there; And there's nobody from the other nations really challenging for the 13 shirt right now IMO.

Mikey, I can't believe we're talking about the same player!

Kuridrani is usually a big line breaker for Oz, he barely got through Joseph once in all 3 tests. I haven't got the stats, but I can't remember a missed tackle, and that includes Folau coming down his channel

funnyExiledScot wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:All very interesting. England backs haven't really put a foot wrong but I still believe Joseph to be just a little flaky in defence - great attacker though. I also thought the main reason for Farrell playing 12 was because of England's lack of 12 and an unfit Tuilagi. Farrell is there to look after Ford for now, Ford may soon develop to the extent where he doesn't need that, or Ford might even be dropped to bench or beyond next season with Farrell back at 10. Either way that 10/12 axis certainly worked for England, and their forwards haven't been outdone yet either.

I'm not sure why Roberts at 12 requires a more creative 15. With the Eng/Wal midfield combo someone such as Brown or Williams could slot in at full-back and do really well. I'm not getting this "we need a 10/15 player to play full-back" - just go for a full-back. Again Williams would be my choice, he has all that we need and is in great form. Furthermore if the Lions go out and lose the first test I sincerely doubt it will be due to a lack of creativity from full-back.

Not necessarily a more creative footballer at 15, but I believe you'll need that to come from somewhere in the backline to compensate for Roberts' more direct approach at 12. I don't think we can beat the All Blacks solely relying on 10 to be comfortable distributing the ball and putting others into space. If 10 is at the bottom of the ruck, we'll need someone else to step up and run the show. Doesn't really have to be 12, 15 or any other position in particular, but you need a balance between your ball carriers, footballers and strike runners, unless you have players who can do pretty much everything (which the ABs always seems to have).

Out of interest what exactly are you proposing as your Lions backline?

Fair enough. I just think that if the players are good enough you can throw them in and they'll play well together. I wouldn't overthink the combinations.

I might be a little biased but I'd go with - Murray, Biggar, Seymour, Roberts, Joseph, North, Williams. On the bench Youngs, Farrell, and going for the bolter McCloskey. Another good bolter might be Jared Payne. Last year I would have pencilled in Webb and Davies for the No.9 shirt but I haven't been as impressed with them in more recent times, but both are still likely to tour.

BamBam wrote:Mikey, I can't believe we're talking about the same player!

Kuridrani is usually a big line breaker for Oz, he barely got through Joseph once in all 3 tests. I haven't got the stats, but I can't remember a missed tackle, and that includes Folau coming down his channel

Well it doesn't seem like you're certain about that? Maybe it's me just remembering his errors more than other people. I seem to remember Folau causing England a lot of problems in defence too, especially in that first test.

Miaow, I believe The Great Aukster is Irish. Not sure how his comments make the English arrogant. Obviously we are though. It's what we do

mikey_dragon wrote:

Cyril wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:All very interesting. England backs haven't really put a foot wrong but I still believe Joseph to be just a little flaky in defence - great attacker though.

Oddly enough the general comments on here seem to to be that Joseph's defence has been excellent and we're wanting him to get more ball in attacking situations.

"Oddly enough" and "general comments on here" certainly go in tandem. This site is odd I just thought he was a little flaky in Australia, but by no means the worst defender out there; And there's nobody from the other nations really challenging for the 13 shirt right now IMO.

Well we might disagree about Joseph's defensive game but I can't argue with that mikey!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes, like I said you don't like the Lions. I get it. Don't watch it then, just ignore it.

I know you "get it" seven and a half. However I need to qualify my position, I love rugby and used to love the Lions before they put money first and became detrimental to home nation success.

I will still watch the tour and hope the Lions win every game because it is rugby theatre. However it will be more like how a RSPCA inspector might watch a bullfight - knowing all the odds are with one side but still caring for the other and hoping the whole thing will eventually be banned.

Its not all about winning just fun.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's a few positions where come next year there may be a couple more serious options; I think inside centre is one of those. I would be disappointed if Roberts were 1st choice by then.

Depends on what you mean by "serious options".

From a rugby perspective if fans seriously want the Lions to win then why would there be any selections outside the England Test team?

Because despite England being the best side in the NH at the moment, they don't have the best players in each and every position. It's a bit like asking why the England test XV doesn't just take Sarries players, supplementing with players from the next most successful side where Sarries don't have an EQ option.

Worth reading Brian Moore's autobiography. Back in the 1980s and 1990s several England coaches ignored claims from players who didn't play for Bath, on the flawed logic that trying to take as many combinations from Bath as possible would replicate its club success on the international stage.

International rugby, be it England or the Lions, is and will always be best served by trying to blend together the best combinations from the players available. Clearly the top sides will likely have more representatives than the less successful sides, and I'd fully expect the representation of Scotland players to be less than England on that very basis.

There endeth the lesson.

Back in the day it should have been obvious that the Bath experiment wouldn't work because they were trying to pit a club side against Test opposition! (That contest did work for a few clubs against some scratch touring sides though.)
Choosing a Test side such as England to go against a Test side such as the All Blacks is actually playing against the same level. If anything it could be argued that the Lions are not a Test side - they don't have home games or development programmes or underage teams or training sessions and games spread throughout the year and with the same personnel playing together for years or the in depth knowledge of each player. Neither are they playing for their country so the Lions are much more akin to the B&I Barbarians than true Test sides.

So choosing an England team to be Lions is nothing like drawing exclusively on Sarries to represent England - England have an ongoing identity in their own right and can afford to gradually introduce other options over many games and training sessions and compare players from different clubs as much as they want. The modern Lions don't have several months to "blend together", unless they start playing as the Lions in the 6N 7N, in what would be effectively a series of possibles v probables games and that is something I'd hate to see.

Was that the gist of the lesson?

Miaow,

I indeed am an Ireland fan and want to beat England with a passion every time they take the pitch, so am just commenting logically rather than emotionally.

Thanks for your reply, I will respond in due course - but it will take me two days to read it first!

The Great Aukster wrote:Miaow,

I indeed am an Ireland fan and want to beat England with a passion every time they take the pitch, so am just commenting logically rather than emotionally.

Thanks for your reply, I will respond in due course - but it will take me two days to read it first!

If that's how long it takes you to read, I can see how you've come to have such insufficient ideas about what is logical and what is not.