Warren Gatland announced as Lions coach

First topic message reminder :

Apparently, according to Ian McGeechan anyway Gatland has been given the job again.

What do Paul O'Connell or Shane Williams have to do with this Lions tour?

Sin é wrote:

wayne wrote:Finally Sin, in your earlier piece you reckoned Paulie was "TASKED" to room with him, in a piece in Wales online at the time of his retirement (Paulie), Shane said that he had the pleasure of rooming with him on the 2009 Tour, and that he was a top top man, and the significant part was that they roomed on a number of occasions. Does that sound of a man with a grudge, NO, unlike you it was done and dusted and to finally put the nail in your coffin they also toured with the Lions in 2005. 2 years after the Horan incident, if something had happened we would have heard about it by now.

I'm afraid you're just a bitter little man.  

Make your mind up. You called Paul O'Connell a THUG.

You have seemed to have missed the reason why O'Connell ended up rooming with Shane Williams  

I just couldn't be bothered explaining it to you.

His (Paulie) reaction to being tugged by the jersey, was the action of a THUG, and the disciplinary board meted out what they considered appropriate for the misdemeanor, whether that would be the same for other players is open to question, has he held a grudge against Shane for supposedly lying in the Horan incident, patently NOT, as he was on a Tour with Shane 2 years later, and roomed with him on a number of occasions, in the following tour 4 years later if there was bad blood between them he would have declined the offer, whether YOU would, if you was put in the same position I would seriously doubt.

As I said you're just a bitter little man.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:What do Paul O'Connell or Shane Williams have to do with this Lions tour?

Ask him, he brought the subject into this arena, he needed to deflect away from what was being discussed, as he was being schooled by miaow.

irnbrew wrote:Right i heard a discussion over the week-end it went like this It will all depend on what Gat game plan is will determine who goes .For instance we could all pick lets say 4 and 5 who are the most skilful  but if his game plan is to just beat the ABs up he will pick the most brutal 4 and 5 and if that was the case a lot of players already mentioned on here would not go and a lot who have not been mentioned will  Horses for courses .What do you lot think about that argument no doubt some are brutal and skilful .

I think the problem the Lions have in picking a style of play/touring squad, is that there's no tried and tested template for beating the ABs. No-one beats them. Ever. It's not like Ireland, Wales, England or Scotland have had any meaningful or recent success against them, certainly not on their patch, so it's not like Gatland can point to a style of play or template to follow.

Look at the ABs team to thrash Argentina at the weekend:

1.Moody 2.Coles 3.Franks 4.Whitelock 5.Retallick 6.Kaino 7.Cane 8.Read 9.Smith 10.Barrett 11.Savea 12.Crotty 13.Fekitoa 14.Dagg 15.Smith

How many Lions do we think we get into that team? We talk about having depth at lock, and to an extent we do, but I wouldn't trade any of our combinations for Whitelock and Retallick. I don't think Cane is a particularly good player by AB standards (i.e. Jones, Kronfeld and McCaw - it's a high bar!), but do we have a better player at 7? The front row is probably a step down from Brown, Fitzpatrick and Dowd (and probably Hayman, Meulamu and Woodcock), but do we think Cole, Hartley and McGrath are better? Best we don't go there with the backs. The AB centre combination is comparatively raw, but again I find myself wondering whether we have better. The ABs half backs and back three are simply awesome.

So, I'm not entirely sure what the plan is going to be. We'll need the set piece to be as robust as possible, but I don't think we can pin our hopes on scrummaging or lineout superiority (certainly not the latter), and I think we'll need to carry hard and be strong over the ball at the breakdown (but again, I don't see us landing any killer blows here). Discipline is going to be massive, because the ABs don't tend to punish in multiples of 3 but rather by 7, and we'll need to offer a genuine attacking threat of our own. I don't see the Lions winning without taking some risks ball in hand.

So, in short, I don't see Gatland picking 40 Welsh players and demanding Gatlandball on steroids. He'll want to win this one badly, he really will. He'll know that the squad will need to be bold, and need to include players who can genuinely trouble the ABs. 15 steady eddies won't cut it.

Hard to start pulling people out of the NZ team and replacing them as they sometimes look unbeatable but I reckon a pack of say

Marler, George, Cole, Launchbury, J Gray, Itoje, Warburton, Vunipola would be pretty fun to watch. You're then looking at McGrath, Hartley, Nel, Kruis, Faletau.

wayne wrote:

Sin é wrote:

wayne wrote:Finally Sin, in your earlier piece you reckoned Paulie was "TASKED" to room with him, in a piece in Wales online at the time of his retirement (Paulie), Shane said that he had the pleasure of rooming with him on the 2009 Tour, and that he was a top top man, and the significant part was that they roomed on a number of occasions. Does that sound of a man with a grudge, NO, unlike you it was done and dusted and to finally put the nail in your coffin they also toured with the Lions in 2005. 2 years after the Horan incident, if something had happened we would have heard about it by now.

I'm afraid you're just a bitter little man.  

Make your mind up. You called Paul O'Connell a THUG.

You have seemed to have missed the reason why O'Connell ended up rooming with Shane Williams  

I just couldn't be bothered explaining it to you.

His (Paulie) reaction to being tugged by the jersey, was the action of a THUG, and the disciplinary board meted out what they considered appropriate for the misdemeanor, whether that would be the same for other players is open to question, has he held a grudge against Shane for supposedly lying in the Horan incident, patently NOT, as he was on a Tour with Shane 2 years later, and roomed with him on a number of occasions, in the following tour 4 years later if there was bad blood between them he would have declined the offer, whether YOU would, if you was put in the same position I would seriously doubt.

As I said you're just a bitter little man.  

1) You called Paul O'Connell a THUG - (not that he committed a thuggish act)
2) Paul O'Connell didn't end up sharing a room with Shane Williams because he had a grudge. He ended up sharing a room with O'Connell because POC is a gent who wouldn't hold a grudge (unlike most others). Bear in mind that a harmonious squad would be essential. You may have heard that the 2005 tour was less than harmonious (with effectively two squads who never came in contact with each other). I'd imagine you wouldn't need to be an Irish player to be distrustful of Williams.

The Irish Players Association was critical of the ERC for allowing this to happen (and the ERC did change its procedures to only an independent citing commissioner could cite anyone).

Meanwhile, Irish Rugby Union Players' Association chief executive and former international Niall Woods called for ERC to change their disciplinary procedures. "The (disciplinary) committee come out and say that the comment wasn't made, but that's a bit late for Marcus Horan. I'm appalled that someone can make these allegations and the name of a player can be sullied.

"ERC can't allow this to happen again. They have to review the way they approach the whole aspect of disciplinary procedures. Marcus Horan is the player who suffered most in the case, or rather his good name. I find it very, very unacceptable."

Now, will you please stop digging. You have tried to pull Paul O'Connell through the mud here which is pretty distasteful.

I'm not saying we don't have a chance, the players you've noted above are very handy indeed. It's just that there isn't an "obvious" way of playing the ABs, or a style of play that particularly lends itself to beating them.

I remember in 2005 that an awful lot of pre-tour hope was based around Julian White and Andrew Sheridan destroying the ABs front row, with either Wilkinson or Jones nailing the kicks. That was until we figured out that Carl Hayman was comfortably the best scrummager on the pitch.

For what it's worth I'm expecting Gatland and his coaches to build a very physical pack, and wouldn't be surprised to see Itoje or Henderson at 6 with Billy V at 8. I don't see the ABs being bullied at all, but Gatland will want his forwards ready to front up in every respect and make the tight aspects of the game as uncomfortable for Read and co as humanly possible.

Its the familiarity thing that will hinder the Lions. The AB's are a well balanced team, have played together far more and have set tactics in place.

There are certainly some quality players available to the Lions so anything is possible if Gatland gets the balance and tactics right.

eirebilly wrote:Its the familiarity thing that will hinder the Lions. The AB's are a well balanced team, have played together far more and have set tactics in place.

There are certainly some quality players available to the Lions so anything is possible if Gatland gets the balance and tactics right.

I think that's what makes the ABs such an awesome team. They'll dismantle the Aussies on a hard dry track one week, and slug it out to victory against the Boks at altitude the next. With the Boks if you front up and play at tempo then you're in business, and with the Aussies you can physically dominate them at the set piece, but there's no obvious tactic against the ABs.

This tour is the ultimate test, no question.

irnbrew wrote:Right i heard a discussion over the week-end it went like this It will all depend on what Gat game plan is will determine who goes .For instance we could all pick lets say 4 and 5 who are the most skilful  but if his game plan is to just beat the ABs up he will pick the most brutal 4 and 5 and if that was the case a lot of players already mentioned on here would not go and a lot who have not been mentioned will  Horses for courses .What do you lot think about that argument no doubt some are brutal and skilful .

I think you're slipping into a rather lazy and false dichotomy. It's not just a binary of skillful vs. brutal. That's what people get so wrong about "Gatlandball". It has room for the mecurial; just look at how reliant Gatland's tactics were on Shane Williams between 2009 and 2011.

Interesting discussion about the way to beat NZ. Is there a way to beat them? What's the main goal of the Tour? Is it to be sort of competitive on the field and scoreboard, but not be too distraught if the series if lost 3-0? Probably, deep down, a lot of people feel that would be reasonable.

The thing with "Gatlandball" is that it is genuinely too simplistic an understanding of the way he sets him teams up. Just as "Woodwardball" wasn't solely up the jumper, 10 man rugby, get Jonny to kick the 3 points, it's the sort of symplistic rendering of a style of rugby to make it understandable for mass appeal, for casual rugby fans: effectively so that a whole mythology can spring up around it, and the coach can be pigeon holed. It's why you have posters falling into the trap of thinking Gatland just wants a rugby league style team of brutes playing from 1 to 15.

Gatland does not look to win the 80 minutes. Even from the early days, from the first game against England in 2008, it has been the intention of Gatland's teams to finish games strongly and ultimately win the scoreboard, rather than dominate from first to last. That changed over time to being a big start to the game, a high intensity first quarter whereby you hope to get a few penalties or tries on the board, before then trying to control the game/drag the other team into a territorial and ruck based battle as fatigue begins to take its toll. If you then haven't beaten the team with penalty kicks at goal gleaned from your team's good work at the breakdown (having kicked the ball into the opposition's half i.e. kickable penalty territory, making sure you are contesting rucks in kickable penalty positions), you require the big finish again. And from time to time, that is still necessary, and successful. Look at all of Gatland's major successes, his most notorious games, and most were won in the final quarter, rather than pulling away in the first half and holding onto a lead; England 2008, England 2013, England RWC 2015, Australia with the Lions Third Test 2013...I'm sure there are more, but were it not for frankly a really very particular Welsh mental fragility that regularly sees them clutch defeat from winnable positions time and again, you could add numerous wins against Australia, a few against South Africa, and a World Cup semi final in there as well. But that's the risk you take with this sort of rugby, I suppose.

fa0019 wrote:Its difficult to say which is the best approach to NZ as they haven't lost in yonks but if we look at the teams who do best against them... its those who play controlled territorial games and try to win the hand to ball kicking battle.

Look at SA in the world cup. To be fair to them they almost stole the whole thing... against apparently the best side in history. They were in the match for 80 mins and never let them out of sight and led for 50 mins in fact.
You won't beat them or even stand a chance saying ah we got to beat them our way, beat them at the breakdown lark... because its like trying to roll six 6s with 5 dice.

Look at how SA have played NZ when SA have put out competitive sides, look at the 09 tour when they beat NZ 3-0 over the winter. I firmly believe this is the way to play them. It can go wrong... very wrong in fact but I also think its the one shot at ruffling the feathers, strangling the game out of NZ and perhaps even.. dare we say wi.. (nah, I can't even bring myself to suggest such fantasy!!!).

I've highlighted the lines I think are most interesting here.

I agree with two of them, I'm not sure I agree with the middle one, about not trying to beat them at the breakdown, or "at our own game". What is our own game? Or, in this case, what is the game the Lions will play? They will play Gatland's way, and I'll try to elaborate on what I think that will be- at its most successful- and how that could feasibly, possibly beat the All Blacks.

I posted a more indepth assessment than the one I have given above of Gatlandball I think on the England Wales thread around the Six Nations, explaining why Gatland and Wales seemed to make a habit of sneaking wins in the last quarter, using the failed comemback in the '16 6N, and the successful one in the World Cup a few months earlier, as the springboard for this. Now that Adam Jones is shot, Gatlandball is not a set piece game. In fact, it never really was. For the most part, it was much more to do with territorial control, and breakdown control, even dominance.

The first point, territory, is one you bring up, and it's paramount. Dan Biggar had a pretty poor series down in NZ with the boot in open play, and that's meant to be his big strength. Of course, a kick is only as good as its chase as we all know, but equally, if you're kicking down the throat of the All Blacks back three, giving them uncontestable kicks, then they're going to cut you to pieces more often than not. The kicking game is absolutely a key component of Gatland's tactics. He does not want his team playing any sort of rugby in their own half, unless it's obviously on. Any sort of slow ball, get it away, get it down the pitch, get the ball away from your own tryline, and away from an area where the other team could kick a penalty were an offence to occur. The aim here is firstly to take the play into the opposition's half, but in doing so, you must make sure that the kick- if it is not a contestable up and under where you can feasibly reclaim possession- is not going to allow the other team to run riot. Easier said then done against the All Blacks, but it requires discipline from the whole team, for the whole 80 minutes (another reason why Warburton over Hartley makes sense to me), for the forwards to not dog leg in the offensive line after a kick. It also means the kick puts the ball into a position whereby the player receiving it has to either kick it back, or run into contact: you do that by either putting it so deep they have to kick it, or so high and wide that the chasing players force them to into contact, which of course will hopefully be in their own half. Kicking battle won.

So just to quickly sum up, three kinds of kick; the best one is the contestable up and under, but the other two are sort of attack-is-the-best-form-of-defence kicks, where it either results in a marginal territorial gain due to the other team kicking it back with less distance than your own (where you receive it either in or out of play), or they are taken to ground and there is a ruck in their own half, with the other team's attacking line completely unsettled. All of this is absolutely reliant on the ball staying in play, for reasons of intensity which I will go into later. The other, obvious, last choice kick is to put it off the field of play. There are drawbacks to this as the other team has the ball, obviously, at their own lineout, but more importantly they are reset, their attacking line is no longer the disrupted mess that may take a few phases to reorganise, or be turned over, as it was when the full back ran it back and got tackled on his own 10m line. Now, their attacking line is quite the opposite: it is not a weakness to exploit, but it is a point of strength, as they are able to use their set piece training ground routines that they are familiar with, and there is a team consensus and understanding there that isn't apparent in most teams in broken field. The All Blacks, of course, are probably the best team in the world in broken field, and so herein lies a problem I'll come to again below.

The second part is the breakdown. Gatland favours the kind of steady, possession based rugby that sees your team be absolutely squeaky clean at the ruck: no sealing off, no double movement, no player getting isolated and turning the ball over. Multiple phase rugby that will wear down the team, disrupt their defensive systems, force mismatches to appear, and either there is then an opening for the backline to really attack the defensive line to make a linebreak, or he hopes that the other team will succumb to giving away a penalty. This is why it is so important to have possession in "kickable" territory, because you can effectively earn 3 points from very little effort if the opposition is ill disciplined. There's a similar attitude of being 'clean' when defending rucks: don't give the opposition an easy 30-40m territory gain through a penalty kick by being overly aggressive at a ruck. The combination of quick linespeed and dogged defence ensures, in theory, that the other team makes relatively little ground. The problem with this is that Shaun Edwards and Wales have had a pretty mixed season in this regard; they failed to deal with quick ball, the team was too slow to resettle, and once dog legs appeared, it's effectively game over, the scramble defence wasn't good enough. They also struggle with grubber and chip kicks, of which NZ are the kings. At its best, this system is what produced the incredible defensive period seen in the 2015 6N game against Ireland for Wales. At its worst, it can be passive and lazy and result in easy ground for the opposition. It's up to Gatland to pick the correct defensive coach and instill a system in which all the players can work within.

Finally, there is the issue of intensity and fitness. This is why kicks are put infield, this is why Gatland wants multiple phases strung together: he wants his teams to have a very specific 'ball in play' game, whereby they look to avoid a stop-start, set piece to set piece game. Equally, he doesn't want to play fast and loose for too long, either. It's about setting a tempo and sticking to it, in the hope that your players are trained precisely to peak towards the end of the game, to not be too tired as the game draws to a close, but also to not come off the field thinking they could have done more. It's a marginal gain, admittedly, but it's a gain nonetheless.

Also, it comes under the bracket of "control", which I think a lot of this is about. Most people think you control a rugby game by having possession of the ball; it's what you're told growing up, and for the most part it is true. But you can also control the game, and the other team, in the way that you kick the ball to them, for example. In the way that you tire them out in the aim of hitting them at a certain point of the game. In what you do with the ball when you have it. The best way to dominate a game is to just rampage over the opposition, get loads of points, and then say well done, job done. But in professional rugby, where a lot of the time your team is the underdog, this is not feasible for Gatland. It would be foolish. So, control of the game does not mean dominance in any specific area of the game, or in things like metres made or whatever statistic people prove to define who was the "better" team. It means controlling how the game goes in the aim of hopefully winning on the scoreboard. It's why it doesn't make for pretty rugby at times.

Now, specifically to NZ. I don't think they can kick like Wales did this Summer: they cannot kick it as often into their backfield, nor can they kick as poorly. I think there needs to be a slight introduction of the English of old style set piece to set piece rugby: basically, they will have to put it off the field from time to time and attack the All Blacks' lineout. Who do you have as the kicker? It's true that Ford has been targeted by Wales (2015 6N, 2016 6N) for chargedowns. Can he get away with that for the Lions? Biggar is, I believe, still the best kicking outside half in the NH, but in poor form, and with other limitations to his game: if he recaptures good open field kicking form, he may be in with a chance. More importantly, however, I think it means you have options i.e. more than one kicker. I think that gives Farrell a good chance of playing at least somewhere. It could be that Gatland opts for Ford/Biggar at 10, Farrell at 12. However, he does like his 'component part' rugby, and I'm not sure if he's willing to sacrifice his 12- be it Roberts or anyone else- to ensure there is another territorial kicker on the pitch. It's a conundrum he has to work out I suppose. So, they will need to kick well and accurately, with good chasers, when kicking in field, but I also think they need to mix it up by slowing NZ down a bit and attacking them at their own lineout once in a while, which is sort of anathema to Gatlandball. It may not happen, I don't know, but it's a thought.

Slowing NZ down will be the vital thing as well. This is ostensibly the manifestation of the theory about controlling a game. It's all well and good saying "we will slow NZ down, not let them build up a head of steam on the pitch or the scoreboard, and then look to finish strongly and nick the game/hold out in the dying minutes", but how do you do it? Firstly, you have to accept they will have their moments of brilliance, that they will cut you to shreds and score a try at least once a match. You have to factor that in. Therefore, you can't grind a 9-6 win out of them. You need to score tries to, or at least attempt to. You don't need to take the cut and run approach whereby you play at their tempo for the majority of the game: you look to play a game which would be less wide, more structured, and with the ball going to ground rather than being offloaded more often than the All Blacks would like. Yet once in a while, you cut loose: you go for the jugular. For perhaps three or so minutes at periodic intervals, you absolutely look to blitz them, either in attack or defence, in the hope that the sudden and dramatic increase in intensity is effective, takes them off guard, or at the very least has some sort of impact that justifies the expenditure of all that energy. Hopefully, from that, it puts you in a position whereby you've stopped them scoring when they were in a good position, or you've got yourself far down the field and now look like you can score yourself. Hopefully, that happens enough times that it cancels out the times you fail to keep the All Blacks at bay, the times where they cross the try line.

However, you don't get carried away. You don't do what Argentina did and look to play that way for the whole 80 minutes: don't go toe to toe with them at their own game. To use another boxing analogy, you're not quite hoping to have lots of body shots, wearing them down bit by bit, and then hope to go for the big knockout in the 12th round, but it's not far off. Sometimes that's necessary, but I think Gatland's preference would be that you've made enough small blows (kicked penalties) to win on points, meaning you don't have to go for the knockout (a last gasp try to win the game). Back to rugby; you do what Argentina did, you harry them at the breakdown, you go up the middle at pace, but then you bring the tempo back down, and revert to the modus operandi which is get the ball in their half, suppress their attack, and then build up multiple phase, controlled carries in the hope of working an opening and/or 'earning' a penalty.


That's a lot of words without any real sort of prediction as to who would be the best players to achieve this, and that' partly because Wales's defence is no longer good enough, and NZ's attack is the best in the World. Of the three components- the kicking battle, the control and the breakdown, and the defence- I'd be most worried about the defence. That is the area I feel they would need to work on the most, and be most wary of NZ in, for obvious reasons. You cannot transplant Wales's defensive tactics now, because they're not working. Maybe it would require a more aggressive defence, but then that perhaps changes the whole system. England go for a sort of steam roller approach when turning over the ball, whereas Wales/Edwards/Gatland has opted for the first player in looking to get their hands on it, and then to roll away, get back in the defensive line, and let the team have the ball. Maybe it requires a bit more of that sort of brutish, bulldozer work at the breakdown, but again, I'm not sure you can do that to NZ in the middle of the pitch. In the tight areas, fine, but between the 10m lines? You're leaving yourself too exposed I feel, and that's where Gatland's tactics usually see much of the game being played.

So yeah, that is my short analysis of how the Lions can win in NZ with Gatland at the helm: succinctly put , it would be a continuation of his mantra of territorial control, being on the right side of the referee, controlling the pace of the game so that it is played at a tempo that NZ cannot break free too often from (it's quite hard to artificially put pace into the game if the other team has set a slower pace when they have the ball), and one whereby you are still in with a chance come the final ten minutes. It also has a few other nuances such as perioidic amplification of that tempo, and the need to amend their play somewhat to attack the All Blacks' set piece by putting the ball off the field, but this needs to be adaptable because it's very plausible that the lineout and/or scrum could fall apart due to the nature of preparing a disparate group of players for the Lions.

All in all, it means it would be a mammoth effort, but an exciting one. It requires discipline and absolute togetherness for the whole 240 minutes of the Test series, the ability to not waver from the gameplan when you are under extreme pressure as they will be at times, and to be able to withstand the heat both of the All Blacks, and the pressure and standards they need to impose upon themselves with regards to the referee, and the tempo they control the game at. Whilst it does require some mundane players like Roberts or Halfpenny when they're being effective, there's still room for a Stuart Hogg, or a Billy Vunipola, to send the sparks flying. As I said, Gatland relied on Shane Williams for so long: he needs flair players who can step up at key moments, and that's what it will be in NZ. Who that will be, it's hard to tell just now, although I would love to see Liam Williams given a go, as he's proven time and again against the All Blacks that he can go toe to toe with them when the pressure is ramped up.

miaow wrote:Interesting discussion about the way to beat NZ. Is there a way to beat them? What's the main goal of the Tour? Is it to be sort of competitive on the field and scoreboard, but not be too distraught if the series if lost 3-0? Probably, deep down, a lot of people feel that would be reasonable.

The thing with "Gatlandball" is that it is genuinely too simplistic an understanding of the way he sets him teams up. Just as "Woodwardball" wasn't solely up the jumper, 10 man rugby, get Jonny to kick the 3 points, it's the sort of symplistic rendering of a style of rugby to make it understandable for mass appeal, for casual rugby fans: effectively so that a whole mythology can spring up around it, and the coach can be pigeon holed. It's why you have posters falling into the trap of thinking Gatland just wants a rugby league style team of brutes playing from 1 to 15.

Gatland does not look to win the 80 minutes. Even from the early days, from the first game against England in 2008, it has been the intention of Gatland's teams to finish games strongly and ultimately win the scoreboard, rather than dominate from first to last. That changed over time to being a big start to the game, a high intensity first quarter whereby you hope to get a few penalties or tries on the board, before then trying to control the game/drag the other team into a territorial and ruck based battle as fatigue begins to take its toll. If you then haven't beaten the team with penalty kicks at goal gleaned from your team's good work at the breakdown (having kicked the ball into the opposition's half i.e. kickable penalty territory, making sure you are contesting rucks in kickable penalty positions), you require the big finish again. And from time to time, that is still necessary, and successful. Look at all of Gatland's major successes, his most notorious games, and most were won in the final quarter, rather than pulling away in the first half and holding onto a lead; England 2008, England 2013, England RWC 2015, Australia with the Lions Third Test 2013...I'm sure there are more, but were it not for frankly a really very particular Welsh mental fragility that regularly sees them clutch defeat from winnable positions time and again, you could add numerous wins against Australia, a few against South Africa, and a World Cup semi final in there as well. But that's the risk you take with this sort of rugby, I suppose.

fa0019 wrote:Its difficult to say which is the best approach to NZ as they haven't lost in yonks but if we look at the teams who do best against them... its those who play controlled territorial games and try to win the hand to ball kicking battle.

Look at SA in the world cup. To be fair to them they almost stole the whole thing... against apparently the best side in history. They were in the match for 80 mins and never let them out of sight and led for 50 mins in fact.
You won't beat them or even stand a chance saying ah we got to beat them our way, beat them at the breakdown lark... because its like trying to roll six 6s with 5 dice.

Look at how SA have played NZ when SA have put out competitive sides, look at the 09 tour when they beat NZ 3-0 over the winter. I firmly believe this is the way to play them. It can go wrong... very wrong in fact but I also think its the one shot at ruffling the feathers, strangling the game out of NZ and perhaps even.. dare we say wi.. (nah, I can't even bring myself to suggest such fantasy!!!).

I've highlighted the lines I think are most interesting here.

I agree with two of them, I'm not sure I agree with the middle one, about not trying to beat them at the breakdown, or "at our own game". What is our own game? Or, in this case, what is the game the Lions will play? They will play Gatland's way, and I'll try to elaborate on what I think that will be- at its most successful- and how that could feasibly, possibly beat the All Blacks.

I posted a more indepth assessment than the one I have given above of Gatlandball I think on the England Wales thread around the Six Nations, explaining why Gatland and Wales seemed to make a habit of sneaking wins in the last quarter, using the failed comemback in the '16 6N, and the successful one in the World Cup a few months earlier, as the springboard for this. Now that Adam Jones is shot, Gatlandball is not a set piece game. In fact, it never really was. For the most part, it was much more to do with territorial control, and breakdown control, even dominance.

The first point, territory, is one you bring up, and it's paramount. Dan Biggar had a pretty poor series down in NZ with the boot in open play, and that's meant to be his big strength. Of course, a kick is only as good as its chase as we all know, but equally, if you're kicking down the throat of the All Blacks back three, giving them uncontestable kicks, then they're going to cut you to pieces more often than not. The kicking game is absolutely a key component of Gatland's tactics. He does not want his team playing any sort of rugby in their own half, unless it's obviously on. Any sort of slow ball, get it away, get it down the pitch, get the ball away from your own tryline, and away from an area where the other team could kick a penalty were an offence to occur. The aim here is firstly to take the play into the opposition's half, but in doing so, you must make sure that the kick- if it is not a contestable up and under where you can feasibly reclaim possession- is not going to allow the other team to run riot. Easier said then done against the All Blacks, but it requires discipline from the whole team, for the whole 80 minutes (another reason why Warburton over Hartley makes sense to me), for the forwards to not dog leg in the offensive line after a kick. It also means the kick puts the ball into a position whereby the player receiving it has to either kick it back, or run into contact: you do that by either putting it so deep they have to kick it, or so high and wide that the chasing players force them to into contact, which of course will hopefully be in their own half. Kicking battle won.

So just to quickly sum up, three kinds of kick; the best one is the contestable up and under, but the other two are sort of attack-is-the-best-form-of-defence kicks, where it either results in a marginal territorial gain due to the other team kicking it back with less distance than your own (where you receive it either in or out of play), or they are taken to ground and there is a ruck in their own half, with the other team's attacking line completely unsettled. All of this is absolutely reliant on the ball staying in play, for reasons of intensity which I will go into later. The other, obvious, last choice kick is to put it off the field of play. There are drawbacks to this as the other team has the ball, obviously, at their own lineout, but more importantly they are reset, their attacking line is no longer the disrupted mess that may take a few phases to reorganise, or be turned over, as it was when the full back ran it back and got tackled on his own 10m line. Now, their attacking line is quite the opposite: it is not a weakness to exploit, but it is a point of strength, as they are able to use their set piece training ground routines that they are familiar with, and there is a team consensus and understanding there that isn't apparent in most teams in broken field. The All Blacks, of course, are probably the best team in the world in broken field, and so herein lies a problem I'll come to again below.

The second part is the breakdown. Gatland favours the kind of steady, possession based rugby that sees your team be absolutely squeaky clean at the ruck: no sealing off, no double movement, no player getting isolated and turning the ball over. Multiple phase rugby that will wear down the team, disrupt their defensive systems, force mismatches to appear, and either there is then an opening for the backline to really attack the defensive line to make a linebreak, or he hopes that the other team will succumb to giving away a penalty. This is why it is so important to have possession in "kickable" territory, because you can effectively earn 3 points from very little effort if the opposition is ill disciplined. There's a similar attitude of being 'clean' when defending rucks: don't give the opposition an easy 30-40m territory gain through a penalty kick by being overly aggressive at a ruck. The combination of quick linespeed and dogged defence ensures, in theory, that the other team makes relatively little ground. The problem with this is that Shaun Edwards and Wales have had a pretty mixed season in this regard; they failed to deal with quick ball, the team was too slow to resettle, and once dog legs appeared, it's effectively game over, the scramble defence wasn't good enough. They also struggle with grubber and chip kicks, of which NZ are the kings. At its best, this system is what produced the incredible defensive period seen in the 2015 6N game against Ireland for Wales. At its worst, it can be passive and lazy and result in easy ground for the opposition. It's up to Gatland to pick the correct defensive coach and instill a system in which all the players can work within.

Finally, there is the issue of intensity and fitness. This is why kicks are put infield, this is why Gatland wants multiple phases strung together: he wants his teams to have a very specific 'ball in play' game, whereby they look to avoid a stop-start, set piece to set piece game. Equally, he doesn't want to play fast and loose for too long, either. It's about setting a tempo and sticking to it, in the hope that your players are trained precisely to peak towards the end of the game, to not be too tired as the game draws to a close, but also to not come off the field thinking they could have done more. It's a marginal gain, admittedly, but it's a gain nonetheless.

Also, it comes under the bracket of "control", which I think a lot of this is about. Most people think you control a rugby game by having possession of the ball; it's what you're told growing up, and for the most part it is true. But you can also control the game, and the other team, in the way that you kick the ball to them, for example. In the way that you tire them out in the aim of hitting them at a certain point of the game. In what you do with the ball when you have it. The best way to dominate a game is to just rampage over the opposition, get loads of points, and then say well done, job done. But in professional rugby, where a lot of the time your team is the underdog, this is not feasible for Gatland. It would be foolish. So, control of the game does not mean dominance in any specific area of the game, or in things like metres made or whatever statistic people prove to define who was the "better" team. It means controlling how the game goes in the aim of hopefully winning on the scoreboard. It's why it doesn't make for pretty rugby at times.

Now, specifically to NZ. I don't think they can kick like Wales did this Summer: they cannot kick it as often into their backfield, nor can they kick as poorly. I think there needs to be a slight introduction of the English of old style set piece to set piece rugby: basically, they will have to put it off the field from time to time and attack the All Blacks' lineout. Who do you have as the kicker? It's true that Ford has been targeted by Wales (2015 6N, 2016 6N) for chargedowns. Can he get away with that for the Lions? Biggar is, I believe, still the best kicking outside half in the NH, but in poor form, and with other limitations to his game: if he recaptures good open field kicking form, he may be in with a chance. More importantly, however, I think it means you have options i.e. more than one kicker. I think that gives Farrell a good chance of playing at least somewhere. It could be that Gatland opts for Ford/Biggar at 10, Farrell at 12. However, he does like his 'component part' rugby, and I'm not sure if he's willing to sacrifice his 12- be it Roberts or anyone else- to ensure there is another territorial kicker on the pitch. It's a conundrum he has to work out I suppose. So, they will need to kick well and accurately, with good chasers, when kicking in field, but I also think they need to mix it up by slowing NZ down a bit and attacking them at their own lineout once in a while, which is sort of anathema to Gatlandball. It may not happen, I don't know, but it's a thought.

Slowing NZ down will be the vital thing as well. This is ostensibly the manifestation of the theory about controlling a game. It's all well and good saying "we will slow NZ down, not let them build up a head of steam on the pitch or the scoreboard, and then look to finish strongly and nick the game/hold out in the dying minutes", but how do you do it? Firstly, you have to accept they will have their moments of brilliance, that they will cut you to shreds and score a try at least once a match. You have to factor that in. Therefore, you can't grind a 9-6 win out of them. You need to score tries to, or at least attempt to. You don't need to take the cut and run approach whereby you play at their tempo for the majority of the game: you look to play a game which would be less wide, more structured, and with the ball going to ground rather than being offloaded more often than the All Blacks would like. Yet once in a while, you cut loose: you go for the jugular. For perhaps three or so minutes at periodic intervals, you absolutely look to blitz them, either in attack or defence, in the hope that the sudden and dramatic increase in intensity is effective, takes them off guard, or at the very least has some sort of impact that justifies the expenditure of all that energy. Hopefully, from that, it puts you in a position whereby you've stopped them scoring when they were in a good position, or you've got yourself far down the field and now look like you can score yourself. Hopefully, that happens enough times that it cancels out the times you fail to keep the All Blacks at bay, the times where they cross the try line.

However, you don't get carried away. You don't do what Argentina did and look to play that way for the whole 80 minutes: don't go toe to toe with them at their own game. To use another boxing analogy, you're not quite hoping to have lots of body shots, wearing them down bit by bit, and then hope to go for the big knockout in the 12th round, but it's not far off. Sometimes that's necessary, but I think Gatland's preference would be that you've made enough small blows (kicked penalties) to win on points, meaning you don't have to go for the knockout (a last gasp try to win the game). Back to rugby; you do what Argentina did, you harry them at the breakdown, you go up the middle at pace, but then you bring the tempo back down, and revert to the modus operandi which is get the ball in their half, suppress their attack, and then build up multiple phase, controlled carries in the hope of working an opening and/or 'earning' a penalty.


That's a lot of words without any real sort of prediction as to who would be the best players to achieve this, and that' partly because Wales's defence is no longer good enough, and NZ's attack is the best in the World. Of the three components- the kicking battle, the control and the breakdown, and the defence- I'd be most worried about the defence. That is the area I feel they would need to work on the most, and be most wary of NZ in, for obvious reasons. You cannot transplant Wales's defensive tactics now, because they're not working. Maybe it would require a more aggressive defence, but then that perhaps changes the whole system. England go for a sort of steam roller approach when turning over the ball, whereas Wales/Edwards/Gatland has opted for the first player in looking to get their hands on it, and then to roll away, get back in the defensive line, and let the team have the ball. Maybe it requires a bit more of that sort of brutish, bulldozer work at the breakdown, but again, I'm not sure you can do that to NZ in the middle of the pitch. In the tight areas, fine, but between the 10m lines? You're leaving yourself too exposed I feel, and that's where Gatland's tactics usually see much of the game being played.

So yeah, that is my short analysis of how the Lions can win in NZ with Gatland at the helm: succinctly put , it would be a continuation of his mantra of territorial control, being on the right side of the referee, controlling the pace of the game so that it is played at a tempo that NZ cannot break free too often from (it's quite hard to artificially put pace into the game if the other team has set a slower pace when they have the ball), and one whereby you are still in with a chance come the final ten minutes. It also has a few other nuances such as perioidic amplification of that tempo, and the need to amend their play somewhat to attack the All Blacks' set piece by putting the ball off the field, but this needs to be adaptable because it's very plausible that the lineout and/or scrum could fall apart due to the nature of preparing a disparate group of players for the Lions.

All in all, it means it would be a mammoth effort, but an exciting one. It requires discipline and absolute togetherness for the whole 240 minutes of the Test series, the ability to not waver from the gameplan when you are under extreme pressure as they will be at times, and to be able to withstand the heat both of the All Blacks, and the pressure and standards they need to impose upon themselves with regards to the referee, and the tempo they control the game at. Whilst it does require some mundane players like Roberts or Halfpenny when they're being effective, there's still room for a Stuart Hogg, or a Billy Vunipola, to send the sparks flying. As I said, Gatland relied on Shane Williams for so long: he needs flair players who can step up at key moments, and that's what it will be in NZ. Who that will be, it's hard to tell just now, although I would love to see Liam Williams given a go, as he's proven time and again against the All Blacks that he can go toe to toe with them when the pressure is ramped up.

I enjoyed your analysis above.Being in NZ this Summer and leaving aside how Gatland will manage the split between the Test and non-Test teams i'd just add the following:
-Biggar was very,very poor.Too slow,too predictable and brainless kicking time after time.Unless he has a stellar season he shouldn't be anywhere near the Lions test team or even the Lions.
-Webb needs to study a video of the speed and distribution of Aaron Smith and limit his use of box-kicking.
-the only Welsh players near a Lions Test place on NZ performances would be Toby,North,Liam to which i'd add Leigh H,and Gethin for the non-Test games squad.

The contrast between the English performances in Oz and Wales in NZ was painful to watch.Several Welsh stars need outstanding seasons to merit Lions selection and that includes AWJ,Charteris,Warburton,Roberts,Scott W.,Jon D and Webb.Here's hoping they do.

Really?? For me Webb is nailed on for the 9 shirt. Head and shoulders above any other scrum half in Britain and Ireland

Gatland wasn't in charge vs England in 2013.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Gatland wasn't in charge vs England in 2013.

This one quote pretty much sums up the whole 606v2 for me right now. Someone goes to great length to construct a decent debate, with some good analysis and opinion. Must have taken him ages. And the best some muppet can do is pick out a small error rather than discuss or debate or add thought to the lengthy piece. You, sir, are a plank.

Much better when someone comes on and throws 2 insults in. There used to be some guidelines on the old BBC check your facts or someone will come and tell you your mistakes. Took me to the 3rd paragraph.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Much better when someone comes on and throws 2 insults in. There used to be some guidelines on the old BBC check your facts or someone will come and tell you your mistakes. Took me to the 3rd paragraph.

Quality analysis and debate. Thanks again.

And still better than the person who thinks it's ok to just insult someone. Take a look at yourself.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And still better than the person who thinks it's ok to just insult someone. Take a look at yourself.

Sometimes people just need to be told. We need to stand up to the playground bullies. Otherwise they'll carry on blindly doing what they do.

Griff wrote:Must have taken him ages.  And the best some muppet can do is pick out a small error rather than discuss or debate or add thought to the lengthy piece.  You, sir, are a plank.

Your punctuation and sentence structure needs work.

Yes, ok stop throwing insults then Griff. It's not bullying to point out mistakes if he's basing his analysis of Gtaland on them. Seeing as you're so keen to contribute in a positive way you're doing a hell of a job to discuss, debate or add to his piece.

My own contribution to it is it's exactly where Gatland went wrong last time, unable or unwilling to switch his set ideas on tactics and players. We can hope he gets coaches who are able to challenge him further when things are going wrong, or like my initial point he reaslises where he went wrong last time and we get off to a flier and build pressure on a team who has lost quality leaders.

If Gatland's aim is to win the last 20 minutes, then there is a lot of work to be done for it to work against NZ. It's a tactic that has worked quite well in the NH over the last few years - particularly against Lancaster's over-conservative English benches - but the only time I can remember it working against SH opposition was in the 3rd Lions test in 2013.

Instead, the litany of games that Wales have lost at the death against SH teams is a long one. On this summer's tour, Wales were closest to the ABs in the first 60 minutes but couldn't live this the finish.

I guess the issue is that he's not the only coach trying to do that, and several of them do it better. NZ in particular have a knack of producing a crucial score when they really need one to seal the game (as England found in the 2014 tour), and England under Eddie Jones have shown a knack for effective final quarters.

My feeling is that Gatland's benches tend to have players who can exploit any opening up of the defence as the opposition bench comes on, but the better teams have the skills and fitness to maintain discipline up the final whistle. I like what Eddie is doing with the English bench - he is starting to pick players who are still disciplined but very different in style to the starters, so that he can ask different questions of tiring defences rather than rely on the game breaking up.

Griff wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Gatland wasn't in charge vs England in 2013.

This one quote pretty much sums up the whole 606v2 for me right now.  Someone goes to great length to construct a decent debate, with some good analysis and opinion.  Must have taken him ages.  And the best some muppet can do is pick out a small error rather than discuss or debate or add thought to the lengthy piece.  You, sir, are a plank.

+1

I thought the analysis was excellent and a good read. What for me will be interesting is who Gatland chooses as his assistants. Will he be able to secure the likes of Cotter, Schmidt and Gustard, and accept that they'll demand a strong voice as to how the Lions are coached, or will he stick with coaches he knows (and know him) and has worked with before?

You've plussed one a hypocritical post with insults. Well done you.

The other problem with relying on fitness against NZ is that they are supremely fit. They thrive on the last 20 minutes when games tend to open up. That's when NZ are at their most devastating. Countless times NH sides have held them close for 40-50 minutes only to ship a bunch of points in the final quarter.

Complaining like an infant too - funny that I was called a thread-wrecker just last week because he disagreed with one of my posts and it was absolutely fine to do so. Some people eh

funnyExiledScot wrote:The other problem with relying on fitness against NZ is that they are supremely fit. They thrive on the last 20 minutes when games tend to open up. That's when NZ are at their most devastating. Countless times NH sides have held them close for 40-50 minutes only to ship a bunch of points in the final quarter.

And the Lions are in a position to have a strong bench this time around - I think it's probably the first test where the Lions have their best chance of a win. If NZ win that then I can't see them losing the following two.

Me? I don't recall calling you a thread wrecker? But I will complain if people throw insults about.

Griff did. I see my comment isn't there now after someone (we all know who) cried about it? Yet last week's thread-wrecker comment is still on full display. Great moderation consistency as per.

I'm assuming it isn't mods as they would surely have removed the insults that remain.

Nah I think it depends if they like the poster or not. I mean referring to someone as a thread-wrecker as they did to I last week is surely less severe than calling someone a muppet, plank, etc. Thread-wrecker is more of a description of ones actions rather than a direct insult, so I don't understand why mine was removed and not the previous? And why not the insults as well?

After much thought and pondering over the past week I still think the decision to appoint Gatland as Lions Coach is a poor one.

I don't think the Lions are going with the best coach but that discussion has been done to death.

I want the Lions to pick the best team regardless of nationality. A lot can change in a year.

A year ago you wouldn't predict that most of the England pack would be frontrunners. In 2017 it might be different again.

To be fair to Wales in 2013 they were a better team than now so warranted more players.

My selection issues in 2013 weren't exclusively to do with Welsh players.

Everyone has players they rate and ones they don't.

Personally as things stand I would lean towards a predominantly English pack with a mix of backs from all 4 nations.

Feel that Scotland need a starter this time and the most obvious is Hogg.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You've plussed one a hypocritical post with insults. Well done you.

I did not mean to endorse the insult at the end, but I fully endorse the sentiment. The original poster put forward a good and lengthy analysis which deserved more than your response.

beshocked wrote:Feel that Scotland need a starter this time and the most obvious is Hogg

Hogg is probably the best chance, but he still needs to fight it out with a lot of quality around the British Isles.

Why do Scotland 'need' a starter?

Seymour has a good chance too on current form, whilst others like Hardie, Gray could play their way into the matchday squad - both of whom should be certainties to tour.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You've plussed one a hypocritical post with insults. Well done you.

I did not mean to endorse the insult at the end, but I fully endorse the sentiment. The original poster put forward a good and lengthy analysis which deserved more than your response.

Your opinion - I'm assuming 7.5 finds that it's just tedious and repetitive waffle like I and some other posters do. But that's not to say there aren't occasionally some interesting and constructive comments here and there.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You've plussed one a hypocritical post with insults. Well done you.

I did not mean to endorse the insult at the end, but I fully endorse the sentiment. The original poster put forward a good and lengthy analysis which deserved more than your response.

Maybe I could have fluffed it out a bit true, but while talking about the good points of Gatland I do think it's important we talk about matches where he was actually coach.

beshocked wrote:I don't think the Lions are going with the best coach but that discussion has been done to death.

I want the Lions to pick the best team regardless of nationality. A lot can change in a year.

A year ago you wouldn't predict that most of the England pack would be frontrunners. In 2017 it might be different again.

To be fair to Wales in 2013 they were a better team than now so warranted more players.

My selection issues in 2013 weren't exclusively to do with Welsh players.

Everyone has players they rate and ones they don't.

Personally as things stand I would lean towards a predominantly English pack with a mix of backs from all 4 nations.

Feel that Scotland need a starter this time and the most obvious is Hogg.

I think this is the issue. There's always a tension between what people believe to be the ethos of the Lions and picking the best XV. I fully agree with the first statement highlighted in bold, and if it means 15 Englishmen so be it. Scotland gets a starter when Scotland has a player who fully deserves to be selected on merit. I'm not suggesting that you meant anything different, but I just hate the idea of Gatland feeling that he needs to take Scots to make the group representative. Personally I think we currently have 5 or 6 good candidates for the squad (Nel, J Gray, Hardie, Dunbar, Seymour and Hogg) which would be more than the previous bunch of tours. Who can make the Test XV is impossible to predict at this stage, but when I listed my shoe-ins for the Test 23, I didn't currently have any Scots included.

Cyril wrote:Why do Scotland 'need' a starter?

I think it's important that the Lions remains a reflection of all the teams taking part. There's always someone who is close in quality and if there is no other representation I do think the coin toss should come down on the side of the lesser represented team. I think personally that J gray and Hogg should be in the team purely on their ability anyway this time.

Lorddowlais still think Hogg is their best chance by some distance. Maybe it's because I don't rate too many of the Scottish prospects.

I think Nel and Hardie especially are overrated. Gray has an awful lot of competition.

Mikey dragon are Hardie and Gray certainties to tour?

How many 2nd row and backrowers go?

I'd have AWJ,Charteris,Launchbury,Kruis and Itoje ahead of Gray. Maybe even Lawes and Henderson might be in contention too.

Numerous backrowers ahead of Hardie.

Cyril okay they don't "need" one but it would be nice if Scotland have a deserving start like Hogg because he's been one of Scotland's truly top players.

Tighthead totally agree - Gatland poor selection.

beshocked wrote:Lorddowlais still think Hogg is their best chance by some distance. Maybe it's because I don't rate too many of the Scottish prospects.

Yes I think the same, but even though that is the case, it's a sad indictment of Scottish rugby, when even their best chance is not a certainty to be a starter. It's a shame as I believe the 6N's is a lot poorer with a poor Scotland involved.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You've plussed one a hypocritical post with insults. Well done you.

I did not mean to endorse the insult at the end, but I fully endorse the sentiment. The original poster put forward a good and lengthy analysis which deserved more than your response.

Maybe I could have fluffed it out a bit true, but while talking about the good points of Gatland I do think it's important we talk about matches where he was actually coach.

True, but in this instance I think Howley was on the phone begging to Gatland after Wales had lost their opening Autumn matches to Arg and Samoa - and we believe he never put the phone down since that moment. I expect that to be the case this time around as well so whenever you see that the Howler is coaching us it might be worth considering this possibility.

beshocked wrote:Lorddowlais still think Hogg is their best chance by some distance. Maybe it's because I don't rate too many of the Scottish prospects.

I think Nel and Hardie especially are overrated. Gray has an awful lot of competition.

Mikey dragon are Hardie and Gray certainties to tour?

How many 2nd row and backrowers go?

I'd have AWJ,Charteris,Launchbury,Kruis and Itoje ahead of Gray. Maybe even Lawes and Henderson might be in contention too.

Numerous backrowers ahead of Hardie.

Cyril okay they don't "need" one but it would be nice if Scotland have a deserving start like Hogg because he's been one of Scotland's truly top players.

Tighthead totally agree - Gatland poor selection.

On your list there I probably wouldn't take Launchbury, and one of the Gray's in his place - I'm not sure which of them is best?

We're strong in the back-row and yes that includes open-side. I agree that the Scots did overhype Hardie a bit and they certainly didn't like me saying that I thought Waburton was better at the world cup, but I think Hardie is an out-and-out 7 who is in good form and given his S15 experience he would be a great asset to the Lions.

I'd have J Gray over AWJ and Charteris .. but its an opinions game

Edit - ignoring leadership and all that other stuff, just purely as a lock

BamBam wrote:I'd have J Gray over AWJ and Charteris .. but its an opinions game

blind or what. One of those Welsh locks is set to be the captain , the other probably one of the Lions best weapons when it comes to the maul, lineout, etc.

I'd say Hogg has a very good chance of making the tour anyway as a previous tourist. The problem with a lot of the England players is that very few of them have toured in the past and it will take very careful management. Some players who some might think there are better players than them around will more than likely still travel - players like AWJ, Heaslip, Sexton, Bowe (compared to previous tourists like Farrell, Murray, North, Warburton, O'Brien who are expected to go on merit). There are an awful lot of likely new tourists when you think about it.

The midweek games are the ones I'm really looking forward to. The Kiwis will put up a good show for these and I'd imagine will be much more competitive than the last two tours.

Isn't J Gray already captain at Glasgow Bam? Think he leads the lineout as well.

Lorddowlais it's a year out, a bolter might appear. Hogg might get injured etc. I believe that if Hogg maintains his form he should start.

I think it's too early to say that any player's place is set in stone.

Scotland are improving but still need to continue to develop.

mikey dragon perhaps it's just based on what I saw in the 6 nations, notably vs England when I thought the Gray bros and Hardie were disappointing.

Hardie IMO just doesn't compare favourably to the likes of O Brien,Warburton and Haskell if we need people to play 7.

I wouldn't have rated Haskell's chances a year ago but since he's worked with Eddie Jones he's been playing very well.

Sin e wouldn't necessarily it's that important as for example a lot of the English guys have a successful tour of Australia under their belts. They've also won a GS. There's not a lack of big match experience for most now.