Lions 2017 - Name your team, captain and whatever else you want to harp on about

by GunsGermsV2 Fri 13 Jan - 12:19

First topic message reminder :

My wishlist:

I hope AWJ is named captain to keep the Irish and English lads in check.
I hope Robshaw gets picked, he deserves to tour at least once at this point.
I hope the refereeing is strictly on a level playing field.
I hope NZ are made accountable for any incidents where they break anyone's collarbone and put them out of the game for 13 months.
The Lions to be at the very least competitive and win one of the first two tests.
I'd like to see Tadhg Furlong get a run out.
Would like to see an uncapped player in the squad.
No charity caps, Tom court, Shane Williams etc.
I hope Gatland comes up with a much more interesting and variable game plan than on the last Lions tour.
Dylan Hartley calls a ref the C word on the last day of the six nations and misses the tour.

by tigertattie Mon 6 Feb - 16:43

How can you say that Hogg only scored two tries?

What we're saying is that Hogg again showed his attacking powers. He's continued his form that he's shown for club and for country in the autumn and last 6ns. The game against Ireland just shows that he again is the best attacking fullback in the NH! Not just for one game, but consistently for a year now!

Russell is still flakey. He's up, he's down. The majority of Scottish posters on here have him as around 4th choice for the lions!

by LordDowlais Mon 6 Feb - 16:43

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I must admit, I've seen little to suggest that Hogg is this supposed weakness in defence that gets constantly spouted on here. He's clearly the best FB in the NH by a distance an would grace every other Int side. Halfpenny is solid but offers very little in attack, it's not really a comparison currently.

Well the fact is, we will not be doing much attacking against the All Blacks.

by LordDowlais Mon 6 Feb - 16:46

tigertattie wrote:The game against Ireland just shows that he again is the best attacking fullback in the NH! Not just for one game, but consistently for a year now!

Cannot argue with that.

But the thing is, we will more than likely be doing a hell of a lot more defending than attacking against the All Blacks.

by Guest Mon 6 Feb - 16:46

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
miaow wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:Why not? I think The Lions if they are any good will have forward dominance. the Ireland pack dominated NZ in both tests in Nov.

Both tests? They got beaten up in the second one after the ABs had a rethink.

Make no mistake, that was an incredible result. But play it ten more times, and I don't see another Irish win. Cherish it for what it was: a wonderful victory against the odds.

NZ are always going to have off days. However, they've seemingly ironed them out when it matters most, i.e. they've stopped bottling it during the World Cup. The Lions Tour is probably no exception, and I think they'll be a bit more tuned in than during what was the end of the first season of their 'rebuilding' cycle.

The scrum is the easiest place for the Lions to gain parity, for me. Perhaps even an edge. The lineout is simply too much of an art/science these days for there to be any hope of creating something that can both consistently keep our own ball, as well as looking to disrupt theirs. Of course, any lineout can collapse, and be 'got at', but the likelihood that that will be the Lions is far higher than the other way round.

Where I think perhaps we can find middle ground is the breakdown. Now, in theory, this could be called 'forward dominance'. But I'll try to quickly sum up what I think the Lions can/will try to do to win the series, and I'd call it tactical dominance, rather than forward dominance. NZ will always win the game if we play it loose and at pace. Their skills, fitness, composure, and collective instinct (which is almost unparalleled in the world of sport in my opinion) regardless of who is playing would benefit from an open game. If, however, we physically try to grind them down- few mistakes, accurate and law abiding rucking, marginal but consecutive gains, i.e. Warrenball- for most of the game, whilst hanging in there, and at times matching them, when it opens up, then we can beat them, definitely. But that requires a consistency and composure and team ethic that is hard to manufacture considering the nature of the Lions, particularly when- for the most part- any AB player will be as good as or (significantly, in some cases) better than their Lions counterpart.

It's what makes the Lions incredible. Just like the Irish game: the chance of victory against the odds.

by Luckless Pedestrian Mon 6 Feb - 16:46

LordDowlais wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:I must admit, I've seen little to suggest that Hogg is this supposed weakness in defence that gets constantly spouted on here. He's clearly the best FB in the NH by a distance an would grace every other Int side. Halfpenny is solid but offers very little in attack, it's not really a comparison currently.

Well the fact is, we will not be doing much attacking against the All Blacks.

That'll be down to the coaches as much as anything else.

by GunsGermsV2 Mon 6 Feb - 16:49

miaow wrote:
GunsGermsV2 wrote:
miaow wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:Why not? I think The Lions if they are any good will have forward dominance. the Ireland pack dominated NZ in both tests in Nov.

And then got beaten up the week after when the ABs had a rethink.

Make no mistake, that was an incredible result. But play it ten more times, and I don't see another Irish win. Cherish it for what it was: a wonderful victory against the odds.

NZ are always going to have off days. However, they've seemingly ironed them out when it matters most, i.e. they've stopped bottling it during the World Cup. The Lions Tour is probably no exception, and I think they'll be a bit more tuned in than during what was the end of the first season of their 'rebuilding' cycle.

The scrum is the easiest place for the Lions to gain parity, for me. Perhaps even an edge. The lineout is simply too much of an art/science these days for there to be any hope of creating something that can both consistently keep our own ball, as well as looking to disrupt theirs. Of course, any lineout can collapse, and be 'got at', but the likelihood that that will be the Lions is far higher than the other way round.

Where I think perhaps we can find middle ground is the breakdown. Now, in theory, this could be called 'forward dominance'. But I'll try to quickly sum up what I think the Lions can/will try to do to win the series, and I'd call it tactical dominance, rather than forward dominance. NZ will always win the game if we play it loose and at pace. Their skills, fitness, composure, and collective instinct (which is almost unparalleled in the world of sport in my opinion) regardless of who is playing would benefit from an open game. If, however, we physically try to grind them down- few mistakes, accurate and law abiding rucking, marginal but consecutive gains, i.e. Warrenball- for most of the game, whilst hanging in there, and at times matching them, when it opens up, then we can beat them, definitely. But that requires a consistency and composure and team ethic that is hard to manufacture considering the nature of the Lions, particularly when- for the most part- any AB player will be as good as or (significantly, in some cases) better than their Lions counterpart.

It's what makes the Lions incredible. Just like the Irish game: the chance of victory against the odds.

No the stats show that the Ireland pack pretty much dominated the second test too. Ireland dominated possession and territory. Ireland had 66% posession and 70% territory mainly because the Ireland pack bossed the NZ pack at the breakdown.

Ireland also had better stats at the rucks and in mauls, parity in the scrum but lost two lineouts. All in Ireland's pack definitely got the better of NZ in both tests.

by LordDowlais Mon 6 Feb - 16:51

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:I must admit, I've seen little to suggest that Hogg is this supposed weakness in defence that gets constantly spouted on here. He's clearly the best FB in the NH by a distance an would grace every other Int side. Halfpenny is solid but offers very little in attack, it's not really a comparison currently.

Well the fact is, we will not be doing much attacking against the All Blacks.

That'll be down to the coaches as much as anything else.

Yep, but my point still stands.

by Cyril Mon 6 Feb - 16:53

miaow wrote:If, however, we physically try to grind them down- few mistakes, accurate and law abiding rucking, marginal but consecutive gains, i.e. Warrenball- for most of the game, whilst hanging in there, and at times matching them, when it opens up, then we can beat them, definitely.

This tactic will work until approximately the end of the Haka (quite possibly it may fail a little earlier).

I've no idea where your confidence is coming from and, more tellingly, I doubt you do either.

Still, it's a larf, innit.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 6 Feb - 16:54

Yeah we definitely just want to go and pick a negative set of players with great defence above anything as that's consistently worked against nz.

by Guest Mon 6 Feb - 16:55

Scottrf wrote:Fair play that was a good retort.

14 game flash in the pan so far...

England are a good team. It's not really that surprising the success they're having unless you buy into the hysteria that the Lancaster era was an unmitigating failure, rather than a relatively successful laying down of the groundwork for a successful set up, which Eddie Jones has arrived in and reaped all the plaudits for.

He's brought a winning mentality as much as anything. Siege mentality: to give up any pretensions of 'winning the right way'. Instead, it's just win, and in many ways, at all costs. He's a clever, naughty boy. My confusion is at why he's being labelled a Messiah.

Unless he adapts, mental tricks alone won't last until the next World Cup. I always said, judge him after he's had a period of underachievement. We've seen what he's done this week, and it's to take all the pressure off the players in public, whilst presumably beasting them in private. That only works so much. You start losing those tough games, rather than winning, and players aren't so receptive to your beastings.

He has the Jose Mourinho touch to him. And hopefully most on here know that he cannot do it without wads of money, and even then it goes stale after three years. Eddie Jones with England has the same systemic power as Mourinho has had at his clubs. He's also had instantaneous results, particularly evident in the mentality of his team. I'm not sure how long that will last: his coaching tactics worked well for Japan, but look at them now. They're all jumping ship for the money before their own RWC.

I don't think the French game was the start of the decline, that was a gentle WUM. My prediction is it'll be in and around the 3 year mark with him, and dramatically.

by R!skysports Mon 6 Feb - 16:55

LordDowlais wrote:
tigertattie wrote:The game against Ireland just shows that he again is the best attacking fullback in the NH! Not just for one game, but consistently for a year now!

Cannot argue with that.

But the thing is, we will more than likely be doing a hell of a lot more defending than attacking against the All Blacks.

Well have a fullback who still shines as one of the best fullbacks in the world at the moment, in a team that do a lot more defending than attacking would be a benefit no?

by GunsGermsV2 Mon 6 Feb - 16:57

Anything but Warrenball FFS. Id much rather we picked our most exciting players and try to absolutely hammer NZ even if we end up getting hammered ourselves.

by **rodders** Mon 6 Feb - 16:59

Based on the weekend I'd go with:-

15 Kearney
14 Hogg
13 Ringrose
12 McLoskey
11 Zebo
10 Jackson
9 Murray
8 Heaslip (C)
7 VDF
6 Haskell
5 Gray
4 Henderson
3 Furlong
2 Best
1 Jenkins

by Guest Mon 6 Feb - 17:00

GunsGermsV2 wrote:No the stats show that the Ireland pack pretty much dominated the second test too. Ireland dominated possession and territory. Ireland had 66% posession and 70% territory mainly because the Ireland pack bossed the NZ pack at the breakdown.

Ireland also had better stats at the rucks and in mauls, parity in the scrum but lost two lineouts. All in Ireland's pack definitely got the better of NZ in both tests.

I feel like that proves my point, rather than supports yours? All that ball, all that Warrenball stlye control, yet you didn't get over the tryline, and they managed some quickfire tries of their own, which was enough to win the game.

Controlling the ball will be key for the Lions, yes, but it also has to equate to points. Primarily that will be penalties, but that alone won't be the ABs. We'll need tries. Ireland never really threatened that, and NZ outmuscled them in defence so that they were unable to exert that pressure that 'earns' points.

It's about quality of ball, not just %'s. It shows how NZ are devastating counter attackers, happy without the ball, and that whilst those tactics are likely to be replicated by Gatland's Lions, you need to be tough enough to deal with their physicality, and clever enough to force them concede kickable penalties/stretch them to create mismatches, otherwise you're putting some much pressure on your defence to keep them in front of your own tryline for 80 minutes.

by Guest Mon 6 Feb - 17:01

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah we definitely just want to go and pick a negative set of players with great defence above anything as that's consistently worked against nz.

7.5, facile understanding of Rugby. What constitutes negative? Has Eddie Jones' England and their battering ram approach been 'positive'!? You're falling back on binaries again: if you're not your definition of positive, then that must make it negative. Bad assumption.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Anything but Warrenball FFS. Id much rather we picked our most exciting players and try to absolutely hammer NZ even if we end up getting hammered ourselves.

Ask beshocked to step in for Gatland then. He thinks he could do the job.

Warren Gatland's the coach. Why choose him and then demand that he coaches completely differently to what has brought his teams so much success?

by Luckless Pedestrian Mon 6 Feb - 17:03

by No 7&1/2 Mon 6 Feb - 17:04

Because he's a good enough coach to adapt tactics which bring the best out of his group of players. He's had a good number of months now to review the players available and study NZ. You're saying he's incapable of adapting.

by GunsGermsV2 Mon 6 Feb - 17:05

miaow wrote:
GunsGermsV2 wrote:No the stats show that the Ireland pack pretty much dominated the second test too. Ireland dominated possession and territory. Ireland had 66% posession and 70% territory mainly because the Ireland pack bossed the NZ pack at the breakdown.

Ireland also had better stats at the rucks and in mauls, parity in the scrum but lost two lineouts. All in Ireland's pack definitely got the better of NZ in both tests.

I feel like that proves my point, rather than supports yours? All that ball, all that Warrenball stlye control, yet you didn't get over the tryline, and they managed some quickfire tries of their own, which was enough to win the game.

Controlling the ball will be key for the Lions, yes, but it also has to equate to points. Primarily that will be penalties, but that alone won't be the ABs. We'll need tries. Ireland never really threatened that, and NZ outmuscled them in defence so that they were unable to exert that pressure that 'earns' points.

It's about quality of ball, not just %'s. It shows how NZ are devastating counter attackers, happy without the ball, and that whilst those tactics are likely to be replicated by Gatland's Lions, you need to be tough enough to deal with their physicality, and clever enough to force them concede kickable penalties/stretch them to create mismatches, otherwise you're putting some much pressure on your defence to keep them in front of your own tryline for 80 minutes.

No it doesnt. This was your point:

1. The Lions will not have forward dominance in NZ. At best, parity at certain set pieces. At the breakdown, the likelihood is for periodic panic stations, particularly when the game opens up. Don't be fooled by fairweather players: they can be a luxury in such situations

My point is that Ireland gained forward dominance in both tests so the Lions should definitely be aiming for forward dominance. How do the stats support your point over mine?

Please dont respond with an essay.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 6 Feb - 17:07

I'm going by lds need to go for the best defensive players. It's a negative mindset and he's insinuating that defense will be the key and should the overall strength of the players selected. I can't agree. So much choice for the lions we can and should attack them. At least you're keeping your posts down now and not rambling so much.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 6 Feb - 17:09

Oh and miaow I'm still waiting for your in depth analysis of Joseph poor defence. I'm willing to be educated.

by Guest Mon 6 Feb - 17:09

cascough wrote:Still baffled by the Hogg hyperbole but I'll try be objective [...] Hogg was pretty good, but actually in a game Scotland hardly had any ball he didn't actually have that many chances to shine, yet people are nailing on a lions 15 jersey after just 80 mins!

With limited attacking ball, against an opposition that was in the most part in the ascendancy, he scored two tries and looked dangerous, and that's a negative for him? Haha, how?!

His one on one defence isn't as good as Halfpenny's whose positioning and technique (and dedication) is never short of astounding, or perhaps a couple of other 15s, but his defensive boot is excellent. It's undervalued.

He's not nailed on for me, as I think those small margins for exploitation as a defender could be the difference between a win and a loss for the Lions, but he's on the plane, and one of the best attacking threats the Lions have in any position.

by GunsGermsV2 Mon 6 Feb - 17:09

miaow wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah we definitely just want to go and pick a negative set of players with great defence above anything as that's consistently worked against nz.

7.5, facile understanding of Rugby. What constitutes negative? Has Eddie Jones' England and their battering ram approach been 'positive'!? You're falling back on binaries again: if you're not your definition of positive, then that must make it negative. Bad assumption.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Anything but Warrenball FFS. Id much rather we picked our most exciting players and try to absolutely hammer NZ even if we end up getting hammered ourselves.

Ask beshocked to step in for Gatland then. He thinks he could do the job.

Warren Gatland's the coach. Why choose him and then demand that he coaches completely differently to what has brought his teams so much success?

He is a good coach but surely he is good enough to adapt his tactics to a bigger and better pool of talent than he has with Wales.

Warrenball will make for a dire predictable series.

by Guest Mon 6 Feb - 17:13

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because he's a good enough coach to adapt tactics which bring the best out of his group of players. He's had a good number of months now to review the players available and study NZ. You're saying he's incapable of adapting.

You're being (perhaps intentionally) fundamental and binary. I told you last Summer where I expected his tactics to change in this Lions Tour from his Welsh tactics (which have adapted from 08-16) and the '13 Tours tactics. That's just obvious: the task is different, the laws are different, the players at his disposal are different.

If you don't understand that adaptation doesn't have to mean "completely throw away what's been successful in your career and start coaching the Lions as you would an u10s, by telling them to go out there and just run the ball" then, well, that's the first point you should address.

Why would you select a coach and then demand he changes drastically? Where, by all logic, is the sense in that, unless you yourself think you know better than Warren Gatland about how to coach the Lions to a Tour victory against the ABs!?

The madness on this board sometimes...

by No 7&1/2 Mon 6 Feb - 17:17

You would select a coach to get the best out of the players at his disposal. That would mean not limiting yourself to tactics that you employ for Wales. Why do you think he's had so much time off?and tbf I've beaten NZ as many times as Gatland.

by Guest Mon 6 Feb - 17:24

GunsGermsV2 wrote:My point is that Ireland gained forward dominance in both tests so the Lions should definitely be aiming for forward dominance. How do the stats support your point over mine?

The stats show that Ireland kept a lot of ball and didn't do very much with it. They also showed they kept a lot of the ball but couldn't stop NZ scoring tries that decided the game. They also showed that stats don't tell you the whole picture: NZ outmuscled Ireland in an intense and brutal Test match. They had forward dominance, with or without the ball: Ireland failed to engineer overlaps or penalties with all that possession. They didn't make it uncomfortable enough for NZ to falter under pressure. They didn't- here it comes- dominate, despite controlling the ball.

Statistics don't exist in a vacuum, they need context, and that context was NZ beat Ireland, both up front, and on the scoreboard. It's far better to use the Chicago game as a launchpad for 'how can the Lions beat NZ', rather than a gutsy loss where the home team was outgunned.

The Lions don't have the luxury of a national team. They have a bigger and better player pool, yes, but they don't have club-to-country familiarity, reasonable preparation time, consensus in style and attitude within the camp, national pride even. They don't have succession from international window to international window that allows games like the Chicago performance to happen: where all those marginal improvements come together to create a victory like that. All those things make it easier to create a successful environment, and they are all things that the Lions are fighting against by their very nature.

The Lions are playing NZ in NZ. In a proper competition, not a friendly. They won't have forward dominance. They need to have tactical dominance, like Ireland did, by controlling the ball, but with it must come the ability to turn that control into points, as well as defending with their lives and not undoing all that good work by conceding tries.

You can write "but Ireland did have forward dominance" as many times as you want. I'd rather have an "essay".

by Guest Mon 6 Feb - 17:26

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm going by lds need to go for the best defensive players. It's a negative mindset and he's insinuating that defense will be the key and should the overall strength of the players selected. I can't agree. So much choice for the lions we can and should attack them. At least you're keeping your posts down now and not rambling so much.

What happened to being nice to one another 7.5? You can keep waiting for that 'in depth analysis'. Pay me competitively and I'll gladly comply, until then, just open your other eye Hug

by tigertattie Mon 6 Feb - 17:27

rodders wrote:Based on the weekend I'd go with:-

15 Kearney
14 Hogg
13 Ringrose
12 McLoskey
11 Zebo
10 Jackson
9 Murray
8 Heaslip (C)
7 VDF
6 Haskell
5 Gray
4 Henderson
3 Furlong
2 Best
1 Jenkins

IS this a WUM or are you on drugs?

by **rodders** Mon 6 Feb - 17:28

tigertattie wrote:
rodders wrote:Based on the weekend I'd go with:-

15 Kearney
14 Hogg
13 Ringrose
12 McLoskey
11 Zebo
10 Jackson
9 Murray
8 Heaslip (C)
7 VDF
6 Haskell
5 Gray
4 Henderson
3 Furlong
2 Best
1 Jenkins

IS this a WUM or are you on drugs?

You think Hogg can't play on the wing?

by Guest Mon 6 Feb - 17:29

tigertattie wrote:

IS this a WUM or are you on drugs?

Why 'or'?

by No 7&1/2 Mon 6 Feb - 17:29

Picky comments from you about joseph for a start and it's disappointing you can't add meat to the bones. Guess I'm still enjoying the free flowing rugby just like A us of 02 abs Japan last year. Great to see similar tactics ain't it. I

by Guest Mon 6 Feb - 17:39

No 7&1/2 wrote:You would select a coach to get the best out of the players at his disposal. That would mean not limiting yourself to tactics that you employ for Wales. Why do you think he's had so much time off?and tbf I've beaten NZ as many times as Gatland.

Empty platitudes. What do you mean limit? Why is it a limitation rather than a pragmatic tactic to beat a team that is better than you, has better training and selection circumstances than you, and is playing at home?

What do you mean get the best out of the players? Try to make them all reach their individual potential...like you would a school child? Or, do you mean try to get them to collectively win a Lions series?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Picky comments from you about joseph for a start and it's disappointing you can't add meat to the bones.

I admitted I didn't watch him in particular, and won't be next week. The big test for him will be Ireland. That said, he did nothing to support that he was the best defensive 13 as lauded by several English fans last week. I've added more meat by pointing out where he could be a defensive weakness in the Lions' system than any poster has in countering me.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Guess I'm still enjoying the free flowing rugby just like A us of 02 abs Japan last year. Great to see similar tactics ain't it. I

What?

by No 7&1/2 Mon 6 Feb - 17:42

So you really don't rate gatland then?

I'm disappointed that you can't explain where Joseph was going wrong on Saturday. Or the 2nd point I'm loving watch a similar style of play to Australia.

by Guest Mon 6 Feb - 17:51

No 7&1/2 wrote:Or the 2nd point I'm loving watch a similar style of play to Australia.

Nope, still struggling. Have you been drinking? Who's playing a similar style to Australia? England? No chance. Even Australia aren't playing Australian style rugby consistently anymore.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
I'm disappointed that you can't explain where Joseph was going wrong on Saturday.

Well that's a shame, but if you want me to be your personal analyst, I've said, you're going to have to pay me!

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you really don't rate gatland then?

What? In what sense? I'd say I'm one of the few people here who rates him with anything more than lazy disdain: "Warrenball", "limited", "negative" etc.

You're the one who doesn't rate Gatland. Despite his success, you're wanting the Lions to go out there and play u10's tag rugby! Let's make Maro Itoje captain, looks good on the C.V. of the F.E.C. What's that? Not a captain of his club or country? Only just started his international career: boys, boys, boys! Slow down! We're talking about players reaching their potential here! You're looking at the F.E.C., just like Martin Johnson in 1997. You know, the Martin Johnson who won the Rugby World Cup in 2003? Ah, yes. The good old days. The orcale has already seen the path for Maro. It's all about players reaching their potential this Tour. Winning? Pah. Overrated. I don't care if the Lions win! I want English players to start, and to flourish, reach their potential in time for the next RWC, when we'll exorcise the demons of 2015 and lift that golden trophy once more...

by No 7&1/2 Mon 6 Feb - 17:57

We must be playing the same style as Australia surely?

If you don't want to back up your comments fair enough but stop talking down to people and writing rambling replies.

And finally just lazy comments. Seems you have a fair bit of bias against England which is starting to overspill now.

by Guest Mon 6 Feb - 18:17

No 7&1/2 wrote:We must be playing the same style as Australia surely?

Haha! You're actually serious!? Who's 'we' in the context of this thread anyway: the Lions, or England & Colonies' player progression pathway team?

I'm done with your platitudes. You say nothing of substance. Everything's a binary black or white. You don't seem to understand fundamental points I'm making to explain my position. I'm also very doubtful you actually want the Lions to win. Talking to posters like you also makes it harder for me to support the Lions when it eventually comes round this Summer. It's all a bit too factional, your loyalties and biases not hidden.

by R!skysports Mon 6 Feb - 18:21

Guys. Any chance you could get a room

by No 7&1/2 Mon 6 Feb - 18:46

I'd rather not. Just exploring that Jones seems content on quite a different set of tactics and style for England currently than he had for Australia and Japan. I love the Lions.

by Cyril Mon 6 Feb - 18:53

miaow wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:We must be playing the same style as Australia surely?

Haha! You're actually serious!? Who's 'we' in the context of this thread anyway: the Lions, or England & Colonies' player progression pathway team?

I'm done with your platitudes. You say nothing of substance. Everything's a binary black or white. You don't seem to understand fundamental points I'm making to explain my position. I'm also very doubtful you actually want the Lions to win. Talking to posters like you also makes it harder for me to support the Lions when it eventually comes round this Summer. It's all a bit too factional, your loyalties and biases not hidden.

Unfortunately the bolded bit sums of where miaow is coming from once you strip out the swathes of guff he types. It's just the usual xenophobic bile.

Shame really as England/Wales relations have been pretty good of late.

by Sgt_Pooly Tue 7 Feb - 5:06

Miaow.....I'm not sure JJ was lauded as the best defensive 13 in the NH, not that I seen anyway. What I recall is posters suggesting his defence is not a weakness as you suggested in an earlier post.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 7 Feb - 7:22

I certainly said he was in my view but he only plays for England and colonies player progression side. Over spilling now.

by Hammersmith harrier Tue 7 Feb - 8:00

Miaow, you seem to come to random conclusions based on assumption then right line after line of garbage trying to weave in and out of your own lack of knowledge on anything.

McGrath and Furlong should be the starting props for the Lions with Marler and Cole on the bench, we should be aiming for scrum dominance and at least parity at the line out, you really do need to start watching the players before commenting.

You seem to think one game backs up your opinion that Joseph is defensively poor despite the past 10 games you haven't seen suggesting otherwise, not that he was poor anyway just did very little in attack.

by cascough Tue 7 Feb - 8:25

Riskysports wrote:
cascough wrote:Still baffled by the Hogg/Russell hyperbole but I'll try be objective as I know it's not a popular view on here!

Hogg - pretty good game, can't remember him making an error. Hit the line pretty well and his second try was very nice in particular.

Russell - has got a really nice pass and was impressed with his tenacity in defence. Overall thought he was pretty average as he put his team in trouble a few times by shipping on crappy ball. I still have the same reservations about him and his ability to manage a game. He's a good runner and good passer, but neither of those things mean he is doing them at the right time. Contrast to Duncan Weir who came on for a short time and immediately pinned Ireland right back. Given how much Scotland were struggling for territory and possession I felt that Russell should have done much more of this.

Overall, I've nothing against either player but I do wish people would stop getting their match analysis from the scoresheet. Hogg was pretty good, but actually in a game Scotland hardly had any ball he didn't actually have that many chances to shine, yet people are nailing on a lions 15 jersey after just 80 mins! It's easy to look and think 2 tries, he must have been great, but anyone runs the first in. Compared to Sean Maitland (who I thought was the best back on the field - saved 2/3 tries and was everywhere in defence and support) he's probably affected the scoreboard less. Maitland is forgotten about because you can't record or celebrate what he did as easily as tries.

*please note, I am not saying Weir is a better player than Russell. And I'm certainly not, dear god, advocating Duncan Weir for the lions.

If you are baffled by the hyperbole of Hogg, then there really is no chance - the best attacking fullback probably in the world at this time (and for the last 12 months. )

Defensive errors of old not really happening now (As you even comment).

You also say Scotland hardly got any ball - yet still manages to get 2 tries, tearing holes in the defence when he does - just look at how teams back away from him - they know he is dangerous - it sets defences and creates space for others too. He is currently in a rich vein of form

I would take every single pundit who now has him favourite for the 15 (Although not nailed on) as a fair indication - usually there is some debate

I would agree on Russell, and I think most Scots have been quite clear, they think he is pushing for a chance to tour (just to tour), but has weaknesses that he needs to show he can address during the 6 nations.

I do not think anyone has said he is nailed on for even touring yet -

I say I don't get the hype after a steady performance, and you go on to hype him.

Forget the first try, anyone runs that in. His second try was nice but given the way the game unfolded (not his fault) that's pretty much the only thing of note he did. He was pretty good, that's all. You use language like tearing holes. Many posts on here had him "nailed on" or starting "by some distance" after 1 game in the 6N before anyone else (Kearney aside) had even played this weekend. That is hyperbole.

Maitland far better on Saturday but hardly a column inch written because he's not as eye catching. All I'm calling for is objective analysis. Lions is dying. With each tour I see more and more national bias and or disdain, and less camaraderie.

by Guest Tue 7 Feb - 8:40

rodders wrote:Based on the weekend I'd go with:-

15 Kearney
14 Hogg
13 Ringrose
12 McLoskey
11 Zebo
10 Jackson
9 Murray
8 Heaslip (C)
7 VDF
6 Haskell
5 Gray
4 Henderson
3 Furlong
2 Best
1 Jenkins

Who is this 'Jenkins' at number 1?

Also, I'm all for picking the best players and nationality not counting but.... but..... 11 Irish players?! And you say it was based on the first weekend of the 6 nations? Love your national pride and all that, but come one! It's a bit disingenuous to Scotland for one thing!

by Sgt_Pooly Tue 7 Feb - 9:10

cascough wrote:

Forget the first try, anyone runs that in. His second try was nice but given the way the game unfolded (not his fault) that's pretty much the only thing of note he did. He was pretty good, that's all. You use language like tearing holes. Many posts on here had him "nailed on" or starting "by some distance" after 1 game in the 6N before anyone else (Kearney aside) had even played this weekend. That is hyperbole.

I doubt many are suggesting this after one game. It's his continued excellent form since the last 6N when he was player of the tournament. You make it sound like he's played one game of Int rugby and suddenly people are declaring him the messiah.

by Guest Tue 7 Feb - 11:58

Cyril wrote:Unfortunately the bolded bit sums of where miaow is coming from once you strip out the swathes of guff he types. It's just the usual xenophobic bile.

You're much better when you're WUMming Cyril. This pretence of being serious doesn't suit you. If you can't see how this thread has become "My Nation's Lions XV" then you're blind, and the English commenters have become particularly emboldened in that area by the fact that they had a good 2016. My pointing out that suggestions like Itoje for Lions captain- something regularly suggested only a few weeks ago by several posters- is myopia from English fans isn't xenophobic at all, quite the opposite.

Start looking outside your own country, everyone on here. Welsh, Irish, English, and to a lesser sense Scottish fans as well. I've tried to engage people about the All Blacks, and why I think a player like Joseph- despite being the best attacking 13 available- might not be suited to Gatland's Lions. What do I get? Accusations of not having watched him, that he's the best defensive 13, and- eventually- that I'm a xenophobic, guffing, bilious puss-cat. Come on...stick to your levity, Cyril. Sometimes I quite enjoy it.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Miaow.....I'm not sure JJ was lauded as the best defensive 13 in the NH, not that I seen anyway. What I recall is posters suggesting his defence is not a weakness as you suggested in an earlier post.

Ok:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I fail to see any 13 better defensively. If he's ruled out due to Gatland, Gatland was the wrong choice.

Go back to page page 13 of this thread and you'll see plenty of English posters getting prissy at a suggestion that one of their players might not make the team as he's not good enough for a specific defensive system. The accusations ranged from him being the best defensive 13, to me not knowing anything about Rugby. All rational responses... Rolling Eyes

by Guest Tue 7 Feb - 11:59

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Miaow, you seem to come to random conclusions based on assumption then right line after line of garbage trying to weave in and out of your own lack of knowledge on anything.

YOU NO NUFFIN ABOUT NUFFIN! YOU'VE NEVER WATCHED JOSEPH!

For a less contempuous response (which I think was fairly measured considering you've conflated me saying I'm willing to change my mind on a player with 'not watching the last 10 games he's played in'), see my response to Cyril.

Why are so many people so precious about an individual point? I understand it, because it has connotations for England's continued success: I remember saying that Eddie Jones's tactics would come under more pressure this season and all subsequent seasons, and that- rather than there being unfettered room for improvement- you may well find that other teams claw you back as his tenure goes on. This, then, relates to performances within your system; in such a dominant system and environment, certain players like Youngs, Ford, Haskell etc. have flourished.

This has been the case in the first game. England didn't find that structural dominance that let them dominate games in the first round of the 6Ns. What was the impact? Oh, that's right, France made lots of linebreaks or metres in the midfield, wide channels, and broken field, all of which are part of the 13's key defensive responsibilities, and will be an area where the All Blacks will look to demonstrate their footballing dominance over the Lions. If you want me to go back and watch the full 80 minutes again, pointing out where Joseph was culpable, and how and in what ways this wil translate to Farrell and Gatland's defensive system, then as I said to 7.5, pay me. Alternatively- for the first time, no less- actually back up your opinion with evidence on the pitch to counter me.

The Lions will not enjoy the dominance England had last season. It's foolish to dismiss a potentially small weakness as invisible just because you don't want to believe it. The ABs will expose any fraility, and I think most should start to accept now before it hurts too much how Gatland is going to set up to address that.

It's now my turn to question you. In what World do you think the Lions can rock up to NZ and try to implement England- or anyone else's- NH or 6Ns tactics and potentially win the series? Because if you think it's this one, then you clearly haven't watched NZ since that tummy-bug game at Twickenham in 2012.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 7 Feb - 12:03

So it just comes down to you saying Joseph was defensively at fault without any examples coupled with your comments on a colonial player progression side

by **LondonTiger** Tue 7 Feb - 12:13

All this bickering is rather pointless - but then I guess if we ruled out bickering we would end up with no internet and certainly no internet forums.

Gatland is unlikely to change the style he asks his teams to play, nor the type of players he likes to pick. He has barely changed in the last decade so why start now.

This could easily mean we will see 1/2p playing FB rather than Hogg. JD2 at 13, partnered by Doc if he has any form otherwise maybe Henshaw. North on one wing with teh other slot open for grabs.

Sexton, Farrell and Biggar on tour as HBs with Farrell possibly the unlucky one as the starting SH will be Murray or Webb and Gats likes his partnerships.

Back row will be Faletau at 8, Warburton at 7 and a tackle monster at 6 - Stander perhaps.

Second row will be AWJ (skipper) plus either Gray jr or Itoje.

Front row is perhaps all to play for, but you can be pretty sure that he will want a mobile, ball carrying LH (maybe Mako tours again?).

by Guest Tue 7 Feb - 12:19

No 7&1/2 wrote:So it just comes down to blah blah blah blah

World's worst lawyer. Stop trying to reductively mutate my opinion into something that fits your mind because clearly you seem incapable of understanding what I say on a range of topics.

by Cyril Tue 7 Feb - 12:21

miaow wrote:Come on...stick to your levity, Cyril. Sometimes I quite enjoy it.

I'll stick to the levity if you stick to the brevity.

Deal?

by Sponsored content