British & Irish Lions Squad 2017

First topic message reminder :

Fairly simple, champions cup aside, we have nearly all the information Garland will have to pick the Lions squad, so go ahead name your squad, your captain etc.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Griff wrote:
2.  Can I remind you that Scotland finished 4th!  That's bottom half of the table.  Admittedly you did beat Wales at home after having a better 2nd half.  And beat us comfortably, and fair and square.  But you'd think you won the tournament the way you're going on!  That extra home game did it for you I reckon

Yeah, it's starting to get annoying now. Obviously beating Wales, who aren't that good anyway, is the biggest achievement ever for some fans.

Did our win against Ireland simply not happen? Over the course of the tournament we arguably played better than both Wales and Ireland, we certainly beat both of them in our head to heads!

It just seems that we are playing better but our reputation has been terribly damaged by bad results of the past and an anomolous game against England where our backline was in the hospital after 20 minutes...

Its so sad that despite having another good 6N, posters on here and (judging by sound bites and media reporting) the Lions coaches simply do not rate us.

Seemingly past performances mean more than current form.

I also have to agree, Jamie Roberts and JD wouldn't even make the bench for Scotland. I certainly wouldn't pick them ahead of Dunbar, Bennett, Taylor or Jones.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the Ireland reference. Arguably yes, as you can argue for it. Some might argue against it. You finished lower than Ireland and they beat England, who demolished Scotland. Scotland probably played better than Wales in two games max. so the final table is a fair reflection as both sit in 4th and 5th.

You're right it was damaged. No team in the 6N concedes over 60 bar Italy. You can't just sweep it under the rug as it was a pretty bad result for you. Scotland need to dust themselves off and do better next season - Wales have done so in the past after getting thrashed. I'm yet to see that from Scotland.

It depends how far back you're going with past performance. 4 years is a bit much, but perhaps 2 years is okay. Over that period the form of some teams doesn't look so good does it, but as I said I think Scotland and Wales should supply around the same amount of bodies for NZ.

alive555 wrote:

cascough wrote:

123456789 wrote:What I cannot get my head round is that any single Lions tour topic results in Welsh posters crying foul. The Six Nations are over now, the next time an international game takes place we will all be on the same side. I can say with some conviction I'd rather have a scenario like the last test in Australia with 13 Welsh players if it meant winning the series, than 13 Scottish players start and it meant losing.

I'm all over this. It's about the Lions now. The Lions shouldn't simply be a vehicle for, or an extension of your own team IMO.

123456789 wrote: The fact is neither of the two are the in the top two sides that comprise the Lions, that means that both will inevitably have fewer than 10 players on tour. If Gatland picks more than 10 it means he will have ignored the fact that the majority of Welsh players are out of form and it will be showing incredible bias

This I'm not quite in agreement with. I could see a situation where there are considerably more Welsh on tour than Scottish and I wouldn't consider it bias. The Welsh players may be out of form but the first test is still months away. Players in form now could drop of a cliff. The thing that the Welsh boys have that the Scottish do not is experience at the highest level. A fair chunk of that team have played in a WC Semi, won 6N, Grand slams and played a big part on Lions tours. Contrast that with a Scotland side whose biggest achievement is to have won three 6N games for the first time in a long time.

Fair play to the Scottish lads, they were decent this tournament, but if it's my head on the block, I'd want them to show they consistently excel at test level before I send them out to play in a scratch team against probably the greatest test side in history. It's the ultimate test and ultimately, when the chips are down, I'd back Roberts or Davies to do the business over Dunbar or Jones. Simply because they have time and time again. (I've picked those guys purely as an example, I'm aware Jones is out of contention anyway).

"I could see a situation where there are considerably more Welsh on tour than Scottish and I wouldn't consider it bias"

err how on earth couldnt it be bias ??


World Rankings

Rank  Team Points
1 New Z 94.78
2 England 89.53
3 Australia 86.35
4 Ireland 84.66
5 Scotland 82.18
6 France 82.00
7 South A      81.79
8 Wales 81.21
9 Argentina 79.91
10 Fiji        76.46

There is no rationale to pick more from lower ranked teams other than pure bias or because you want to pick not on form but on reputation, which is a sure fire way of losing before you have started.

"The Welsh players may be out of form"

in which case why are you advocating picking them over more form players ? if its reputation then take Gethin Jenkins. Oh hang on.....


"but the first test is still months away"

Hello. The date of the team selection is what matters and thats not months away, its in 3 weeks .  So Gatland needs to pick on form now not in a few months when the tests are already over .

"I'd back Roberts or Davies to do the business over Dunbar or Jones."

Oh dear, Davies has been very very average all tournament and Roberts has been p""s poor for yonks. Neither would get on the Scottish bench now.

And to make that point clearer

Wales scored 8 tries in 6n
Scotland 14.

Thats not an insignificant difference. Its 75pc more !!

So you are advocating picking players who struggle to score in the 6n  . Its nonsense

I am English, as Griff points out. The only vested interest in seeing Wales players get picked over Scottish players I have is because they have a track record that is far superior to the Scottish players. When the chips are down I back those players to come to the fore.

As for picking a squad based on form now because the squad announcement is now (relatively speaking), I think that's folly. He will be picking a squad to tour New Zealand which culminates with a 3 test series. Any squad he picks will need to have the right balance of tourists, strengths etc to ensure the tour goes smoothly and peaks with the test series in June. He will NOT be picking a squad as if the first test is played in April.

So if insist on reducing it to something so simplistic and absolute as form or reputation, then yes, I feel that reputation is more important.

I realise I made the mistake earlier of using real players which is obviously quite emmotive, so imagine this...

Player A has a track record of success but played poorly in his last outing.

Player B has a track record of failure but played well in his last outing.

You need to pick a player to play in what is arguably the biggest and toughest match of their lives. The match is months away, with no more international rugby in between, and you have to make your decision now. "Wait and see" is not an option.

Do you really go with player B? Really?

Even if you do, can you really not see the merits of picking player A? Do you have to cry bias and have a pop at the coach just because you would have chosen a different option?

Not that it matters, but in my opinion the lions will (and rightly so) be made up of English and Irish players given they are the two form nations currently.

Wales and Scotland will be fighting out over the remaining slots with the advantage to Wales.  Not because they are a better side currently, but because they have good players and Gatland knows them and what to expect from them.

Harsh as that might be on Scotland, but we've had years of being average (being generous here) and only in the last 12-24 months have we shown anything resembling form.

With that said I'd quite like a few of our players to be recognised and get into the lions squad, but if they don't and the squad is made up of the majority of other nations, then so be it.  Just means the players have to keep working hard to make sure they are pushing their case next time round, and given how young our team is, the majority should be hitting their prime for the next tour.

Just read an article on the Sun website (accidentally) - which has worked out the Lions starting team from the "stats". All that I can think of is Disraeli's (or Mark Twain's) quote on lies -

Disraeli or Twain wrote:There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics

I can spot at least 3 or 4 positions where I would disagree with the Sun's statistician lets just hope Gatland has a better way of working his team out
Article on Sun website

cascough a track record of failure or success can be subjective though.

I thought Joseph had a poor 6 nations bar one good game, should he be picked based on 2016?

Difficult.... he's still probably one of the frontrunners.

The hooker situation is one of the toughest - do you go for form or experience? Think Best is nailed on now but the other 2 positions... difficult.

10 is another - Sexton and Farrell seemed nailed on as things stand but the others?

Go for a maverick like Russell to balance things out? Difficult again.

Then there's 2nd row......

Also there's impact players to consider - those who might give something extra from the bench.

poissonrouge wrote:Just read an article on the Sun website (accidentally) - which has worked out the Lions starting team from the "stats". All that I can think of is Disraeli's (or Mark Twain's) quote on lies -

Disraeli or Twain wrote:There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics

I can spot at least 3 or 4 positions where I would disagree with the Sun's statistician lets just hope Gatland has a better way of working his team out
Article on Sun website

As soon as I read Mike Brown at full back I cried a little

“and clearly deserves to wear the 15 shirt.”

mikey_dragon wrote:
I'm thinking back to Rugger Radge's selection here - it was quite well balanced and had a fair amount of Scottish and Welsh players. I couldn't see many disagreeing either.

That's because I picked a beefy squad, but justified it by citing the dangerous tour schedule. Make no mistake about it, I'd say 5 or more players will be on the plane home injured. Hence bring the bigger squad and make sure everyone knows the systems and is able to slot in effortlessly with little adjustment.

Everyone here wants to see a Lions tour, and based on the evidence of the 6N you could argue that a front 5 that is Irish and English, a backrow thats Irish and Welsh, a halfback pairing that's Irish, English centres and Scottish strike runners out wide is the team to do it (overly simplistic I know).

I feel that the fairly level 6N should lead to a fairly balanced Lions side, that's what I'm hoping for, but definitely not holding out for.

It's worrying when most forwards pass the ball with more fluency and regularity than Brown.

Want to beat the ABs with a 15 who doesn't like to pass the ball?

I've called Hogg overrated but he's clearly the best 15 available to the Lions.

ruggerradge2611 it hurts the credibility of your forward pack when they get dismantled by England. There are narrow losses and there are hammerings. The latter happened to the Scottish pack.

This is an England pack who bar the Scotland game and a bit of the Welsh game wasn't particularly good.

If England had demolished Ireland in the next game it might well have enhanced Scotland's chances but it didn't happen that way obviously.

Ireland brought England firmly back to earth.

beshocked wrote:It's worrying when most forwards pass the ball with more fluency and regularity than Brown.

Want to beat the ABs with a 15 who doesn't like to pass the ball?

I've called Hogg overrated but he's clearly the best 15 available to the Lions.

ruggerradge2611 it hurts the credibility of your forward pack when they get dismantled by England. There are narrow losses and there are hammerings. The latter happened to the Scottish pack.

This is an England pack who bar the Scotland game and a bit of the Welsh game wasn't particularly good.

If England had demolished Ireland in the next game it might well have enhanced Scotland's chances but it didn't happen that way obviously.

Ireland brought England firmly back to earth.

The same way we brought the hot favourite, All Black beating Ireland back to earth in the opening weekend. It's swings and roundabouts mate!

I'm in no way advocating Scottish forwards travel en masse. The Gray Brothers have a case in the most competitive slot in the squad and Hamish Watson also has a convincing case as being a pure openside mongrel in the land of openside mongrels.

The Scottish back 3 have been prolific though in just about any combination of Maitland, Visser, Seymour and Hogg.

Any or all 4 of those lads could make a claim.

Finally Russell, he had another great game at the weekend, if he perfoms well this weekend in arguably one of the most anticipated games of the round he will have one foot in the touring squad.

Beyond those I mentioned I can't see any other tourists.

ruggerradge2611 sorry but the Ireland victory isn't as impressive as Ireland beating England and NZ.

Ireland are the giant killers but they can't really claim they are giants! You defeated the giant killers!

J.Gray has a case, don't think R.Gray really does. As for H.Watson I think his chances went at Twickenham.

Seymour,Maitland and Hogg sure. Visser? No.

Russell needs a big game agreed but it could be tough. The Saracens pack is formidable and if Russell doesn't get good ball then Farrell will do what he did to Ford.... dismantle him...

It's hard for a 10 to give their team a foothold going backwards but Ford didn't help his team either.

On the other hand if Russell helps pull off a memorable win? Well... it's all to play for.

I just think that unfortunately for Scotland, some of their top players are in highly competitive areas.

Second row, openside, scrum half and wing all have some strong competition.

Had Scotland had standout from rows and centres, I think we would see a few more.

To be honest I could see Scotland getting at least two back three players picked - Hogg and at least one of Maitland or Seymour.

That England game probably won't help Dunbar either.

beshocked wrote:ruggerradge2611 sorry but the Ireland victory isn't as impressive as Ireland beating England and NZ.

Ireland are the giant killers but they can't really claim they are giants! You defeated the giant killers!

J.Gray has a case, don't think R.Gray really does. As for H.Watson I think his chances went at Twickenham.

Seymour,Maitland and Hogg sure. Visser? No.

Russell needs a big game agreed but it could be tough. The Saracens pack is formidable and if Russell doesn't get good ball then Farrell will do what he did to Ford.... dismantle him...

It's hard for a 10 to give their team a foothold going backwards but Ford didn't help his team either.

On the other hand if Russell helps pull off a memorable win? Well... it's all to play for.

Thats a fairly arrogant post. At what stage do you go from being a Giant killer to a Giant?

Ranked 4th in the world having defeated all top 3 teams in the world surely makes you a big team.

The way I see it is NZ are the giants and everyone else are chasing them.

beshocked wrote:To be honest I could see Scotland getting at least two back three players picked - Hogg and at least one of Maitland or Seymour.

That England game probably won't help Dunbar either.

Maitland, really? Why Maitland?

Hogg, Russell and Seymour for me.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:ruggerradge2611 sorry but the Ireland victory isn't as impressive as Ireland beating England and NZ.

Ireland are the giant killers but they can't really claim they are giants! You defeated the giant killers!

J.Gray has a case, don't think R.Gray really does. As for H.Watson I think his chances went at Twickenham.

Seymour,Maitland and Hogg sure. Visser? No.

Russell needs a big game agreed but it could be tough. The Saracens pack is formidable and if Russell doesn't get good ball then Farrell will do what he did to Ford.... dismantle him...

It's hard for a 10 to give their team a foothold going backwards but Ford didn't help his team either.

On the other hand if Russell helps pull off a memorable win? Well... it's all to play for.

Thats a fairly arrogant post. At what stage do you go from being a Giant killer to a Giant?

Ranked 4th in the world having defeated all top 3 teams in the world surely makes you a big team.

The way I see it is NZ are the giants and everyone else are chasing them.

Win 18 in a row and you can call yourself a giant....

Joke aside, a bit more consistency needed for Ireland. You can beat the best in the world but lose to teams like Wales and Scotland.

You beat England by 4 points at home - hardly a crushing victory.

Oh no it's awful - England have only won 18 of their last 19 games....  

In the last 2 6 nations -

England 9/10 wins
Ireland  5/10 wins

Guns germs Scotland would have lost to Ireland without 2 Maitland try savers, plus I thought he was one of Scotland's better players vs France, strong club season too.

Unlucky to be supplanted vs Visser who was invisible for most of the England game.

beshocked wrote:
Joke aside, a bit more consistency needed for Ireland. You can beat the best in the world but lose to teams like Wales and Scotland.

At least we qualified for the KO stages of the RWC. Maybe you guys are more of a 6N team?

rodders wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Joke aside, a bit more consistency needed for Ireland. You can beat the best in the world but lose to teams like Wales and Scotland.

At least we qualified for the KO stages of the RWC. Maybe you guys are more of a 6N team?

rodders wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Joke aside, a bit more consistency needed for Ireland. You can beat the best in the world but lose to teams like Wales and Scotland.

At least we qualified for the KO stages of the RWC. Maybe you guys are more of a 6N team?

Remind me - what did Argentina do to you in the quarter finals?

If England had as easy a pool as Ireland I am sure we would have qualified too.

I don't think your RWC performance is something you should be proud of.

Last time Ireland beat the Aussies in an away series was 1979....

Too frightened to play the Aussies away from home.

beshocked wrote:

rodders wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Joke aside, a bit more consistency needed for Ireland. You can beat the best in the world but lose to teams like Wales and Scotland.

At least we qualified for the KO stages of the RWC. Maybe you guys are more of a 6N team?

Remind me - what did Argentina do to you in the quarter finals?

Not sure, I lost interest when the hosts got eliminated

Make them giants....

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:ruggerradge2611 sorry but the Ireland victory isn't as impressive as Ireland beating England and NZ.

Ireland are the giant killers but they can't really claim they are giants! You defeated the giant killers!

J.Gray has a case, don't think R.Gray really does. As for H.Watson I think his chances went at Twickenham.

Seymour,Maitland and Hogg sure. Visser? No.

Russell needs a big game agreed but it could be tough. The Saracens pack is formidable and if Russell doesn't get good ball then Farrell will do what he did to Ford.... dismantle him...

It's hard for a 10 to give their team a foothold going backwards but Ford didn't help his team either.

On the other hand if Russell helps pull off a memorable win? Well... it's all to play for.

Thats a fairly arrogant post. At what stage do you go from being a Giant killer to a Giant?

Ranked 4th in the world having defeated all top 3 teams in the world surely makes you a big team.

The way I see it is NZ are the giants and everyone else are chasing them.

Agreed 100%. The Irish have every right to consider themselves more "giant" than "giant killer". As you say, NZ are way out front and then you have England, Australia and Ireland, very much the next grouping.

Then you have "emerging giants" coming next like Scotland, France and South Africa.

Then there's the rest. The minnows. Like Singapore, Cayman Islands and Wales.

The Cayman Islands are a handy side these days. Put 50 points on Belize.

I'd say losing to Wales and Scotland stops Ireland being considered a giant, they're a team capable of one off big performances but don't consistently do it. Aside from NZ they're the one team who worry me all things considered.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'd say losing to Wales and Scotland stops Ireland being considered a giant, they're a team capable of one off big performances but don't consistently do.

To be honest you're all minnows from up on NZ's pedestal

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'd say losing to Wales and Scotland stops Ireland being considered a giant, they're a team capable of one off big performances but don't consistently do.

To be honest you're all minnows from up on NZ's pedestal    

Don't get too comfy. Stuart Hogg's Lions are coming....

funnyExiledScot wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:ruggerradge2611 sorry but the Ireland victory isn't as impressive as Ireland beating England and NZ.

Ireland are the giant killers but they can't really claim they are giants! You defeated the giant killers!

J.Gray has a case, don't think R.Gray really does. As for H.Watson I think his chances went at Twickenham.

Seymour,Maitland and Hogg sure. Visser? No.

Russell needs a big game agreed but it could be tough. The Saracens pack is formidable and if Russell doesn't get good ball then Farrell will do what he did to Ford.... dismantle him...

It's hard for a 10 to give their team a foothold going backwards but Ford didn't help his team either.

On the other hand if Russell helps pull off a memorable win? Well... it's all to play for.

Thats a fairly arrogant post. At what stage do you go from being a Giant killer to a Giant?

Ranked 4th in the world having defeated all top 3 teams in the world surely makes you a big team.

The way I see it is NZ are the giants and everyone else are chasing them.

Agreed 100%. The Irish have every right to consider themselves more "giant" than "giant killer". As you say, NZ are way out front and then you have England, Australia and Ireland, very much the next grouping.

Then you have "emerging giants" coming next like Scotland, France and South Africa.

Then there's the rest. The minnows. Like Singapore, Cayman Islands and Wales.

Not sure how you can Australia are in the same grouping as England when they've lost the last 4 - 3 on their own patch.

Think the grouping is more

NZ
England
Ireland/Australia
Wales/Scotland/France
South Africa/Argentina
Italy/Fiji/Tonga/Japan/Georgia

1 win by 4 points at home, doesn't magically make Ireland on England's level because Ireland lack the consistency of England and the ability to win away on such a consistent basis.

Ireland have shown the ability to raise their game vs the bigger teams but have been let down by not being able to maintain intensity throughout the year.

beshocked wrote:

rodders wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Joke aside, a bit more consistency needed for Ireland. You can beat the best in the world but lose to teams like Wales and Scotland.

At least we qualified for the KO stages of the RWC. Maybe you guys are more of a 6N team?

Remind me - what did Argentina do to you in the quarter finals?

If England had as easy a pool as Ireland I am sure we would have qualified too.

I don't think your RWC performance is something you should be proud of.

Last time Ireland beat the Aussies in an away series was 1979....

Too frightened to play the Aussies away from home.

Ireland did beat Australia the last time they played them at the WC though and beat them in the last two games we played against them.

Ireland rarely play Australia in Australia because you can only do one summer tour per year whereas the SH sides get to come here and be within a short plane trip to all NH sides so they can play a wider variety of sides. Id fancy our chances there now.

beshocked wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:ruggerradge2611 sorry but the Ireland victory isn't as impressive as Ireland beating England and NZ.

Ireland are the giant killers but they can't really claim they are giants! You defeated the giant killers!

J.Gray has a case, don't think R.Gray really does. As for H.Watson I think his chances went at Twickenham.

Seymour,Maitland and Hogg sure. Visser? No.

Russell needs a big game agreed but it could be tough. The Saracens pack is formidable and if Russell doesn't get good ball then Farrell will do what he did to Ford.... dismantle him...

It's hard for a 10 to give their team a foothold going backwards but Ford didn't help his team either.

On the other hand if Russell helps pull off a memorable win? Well... it's all to play for.

Thats a fairly arrogant post. At what stage do you go from being a Giant killer to a Giant?

Ranked 4th in the world having defeated all top 3 teams in the world surely makes you a big team.

The way I see it is NZ are the giants and everyone else are chasing them.

Agreed 100%. The Irish have every right to consider themselves more "giant" than "giant killer". As you say, NZ are way out front and then you have England, Australia and Ireland, very much the next grouping.

Then you have "emerging giants" coming next like Scotland, France and South Africa.

Then there's the rest. The minnows. Like Singapore, Cayman Islands and Wales.

Not sure how you can Australia are in the same grouping as England when they've lost the last 4 - 3 on their own patch.

Because I can remember the World Cup, and also the intense battles England had last summer to win that series. I genuinely don't think there's much between the sides.

Anyway, you've missed the main point of my post, which was to have a dig at Wales.

beshocked wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:ruggerradge2611 sorry but the Ireland victory isn't as impressive as Ireland beating England and NZ.

Ireland are the giant killers but they can't really claim they are giants! You defeated the giant killers!

J.Gray has a case, don't think R.Gray really does. As for H.Watson I think his chances went at Twickenham.

Seymour,Maitland and Hogg sure. Visser? No.

Russell needs a big game agreed but it could be tough. The Saracens pack is formidable and if Russell doesn't get good ball then Farrell will do what he did to Ford.... dismantle him...

It's hard for a 10 to give their team a foothold going backwards but Ford didn't help his team either.

On the other hand if Russell helps pull off a memorable win? Well... it's all to play for.

Thats a fairly arrogant post. At what stage do you go from being a Giant killer to a Giant?

Ranked 4th in the world having defeated all top 3 teams in the world surely makes you a big team.

The way I see it is NZ are the giants and everyone else are chasing them.

Agreed 100%. The Irish have every right to consider themselves more "giant" than "giant killer". As you say, NZ are way out front and then you have England, Australia and Ireland, very much the next grouping.

Then you have "emerging giants" coming next like Scotland, France and South Africa.

Then there's the rest. The minnows. Like Singapore, Cayman Islands and Wales.

Not sure how you can Australia are in the same grouping as England when they've lost the last 4 - 3 on their own patch.

Think the grouping is more

NZ
England
Ireland/Australia
Wales/Scotland/France
South Africa/Argentina
Italy/Fiji/Tonga/Japan/Georgia

1 win by 4 points at home, doesn't magically make Ireland on England's level because Ireland lack the consistency of England and the ability to win away on such a consistent basis.

Ireland have shown the ability to raise their game vs the bigger teams but have been let down by not being able to maintain intensity throughout the year.

England havent scored a try in Dublin in 3 matches and have won one game there in 10 years.

I think you are getting a little bit ahead of yourself Beshocked.

Not sure Australia are as good as you think either. Ireland beat them with half a side in November and 4 guys playing out of position.

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Then there's the rest. The minnows. Like Singapore, Cayman Islands and Wales.

Wales, are they not the fellas knocked England out of the RWC? Would they not be in the giant killer category?

rodders wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Then there's the rest. The minnows. Like Singapore, Cayman Islands and Wales.

Wales, are they not the fellas knocked England out of the RWC? Would they not be in the giant killer category?

Giant slayer is the term I prefer, but yeah . Is there anyone left in the dark horse category these days?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:ruggerradge2611 sorry but the Ireland victory isn't as impressive as Ireland beating England and NZ.

Ireland are the giant killers but they can't really claim they are giants! You defeated the giant killers!

J.Gray has a case, don't think R.Gray really does. As for H.Watson I think his chances went at Twickenham.

Seymour,Maitland and Hogg sure. Visser? No.

Russell needs a big game agreed but it could be tough. The Saracens pack is formidable and if Russell doesn't get good ball then Farrell will do what he did to Ford.... dismantle him...

It's hard for a 10 to give their team a foothold going backwards but Ford didn't help his team either.

On the other hand if Russell helps pull off a memorable win? Well... it's all to play for.

Thats a fairly arrogant post. At what stage do you go from being a Giant killer to a Giant?

Ranked 4th in the world having defeated all top 3 teams in the world surely makes you a big team.

The way I see it is NZ are the giants and everyone else are chasing them.

Agreed 100%. The Irish have every right to consider themselves more "giant" than "giant killer". As you say, NZ are way out front and then you have England, Australia and Ireland, very much the next grouping.

Then you have "emerging giants" coming next like Scotland, France and South Africa.

Then there's the rest. The minnows. Like Singapore, Cayman Islands and Wales.

Not sure how you can Australia are in the same grouping as England when they've lost the last 4 - 3 on their own patch.

Think the grouping is more

NZ
England
Ireland/Australia
Wales/Scotland/France
South Africa/Argentina
Italy/Fiji/Tonga/Japan/Georgia

1 win by 4 points at home, doesn't magically make Ireland on England's level because Ireland lack the consistency of England and the ability to win away on such a consistent basis.

Ireland have shown the ability to raise their game vs the bigger teams but have been let down by not being able to maintain intensity throughout the year.

England havent scored a try in Dublin in 3 matches and have won one game there in 10 years.

I think you are getting a little bit ahead of yourself Beshocked.

Two games in the last 10 years and when you factor in they play every 2 years.... 2/7 could be worse.

Ireland haven't won at Twickenham since 2010 but it's not the point.

Ireland have been less consistent than England in the last year.

If we played you in a neutral venue I would expect England to win as Ireland have struggled without home advantage generally.

Ireland have upped their game generally when the underdogs though. Hence why you are giant killers.

rodders wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Then there's the rest. The minnows. Like Singapore, Cayman Islands and Wales.

Wales, are they not the fellas knocked England out of the RWC? Would they not be in the giant killer category?

England weren't giants under Lancaster, so it doesn't count.

beshocked wrote:

Two games in the last 10 years and when you factor in they play every 2 years.... 2/7 could be worse.

Ireland haven't won at Twickenham since 2010 but it's not the point.

Ireland have been less consistent than England in the last year.

If we played you in a neutral venue I would expect England to win as Ireland have struggled without home advantage generally.

Ireland have upped their game generally when the underdogs though. Hence why you are giant killers.

Just once in the six nations not twice. Our records against each other in the last 10 years is quite similar. I think England fear Ireland.

Ireland beat Australia and New Zealand the last time we played them in neutral venues. Ireland has never played England at a neutral venue so you can only speculate.

Anyway its not a question if Ireland are better than England. As a first seed for the RWC Ireland can rightly claim to be in the top tier of world rugby at them moment.

You should edit your post then gunsgerms because you were wrong.

It's not just about England-Ireland, it's about how teams do against others. As I keep saying England have been much more consistent than Ireland. Sure you can hark back to the RWC but that was over a year ago and I thought the NH sides were poor overall.

Ireland haven't beaten Australia in Australia since 1979. You have 1 victory vs NZ which you can't stop going on about even though it's only once. Also you've never beaten NZ in NZ. 1 victory doesn't make you all conquering - that's the point.

Didn't take NZ long at all to avenge their defeat either. They went to your patch and won.

18 wins in a row on the other hand is pretty impressive. It's not one notable win.

beshocked wrote:
If we played you in a neutral venue I would expect England to win as Ireland have struggled without home advantage generally.

We'll see you guys at Soldier field any time you want!

rodders wrote:

beshocked wrote:
If we played you in a neutral venue I would expect England to win as Ireland have struggled without home advantage generally.

We'll see you guys at Soldier field any time you want!

We are only playing if you guys let us actually get the ball. Its no fun if you hog it all game.

18 wins in a row on the other hand is pretty impressive. It's not one notable win

The figure looks impressive but the reality is that there was one good win in the 6N, one scraped win (against France), one win because the other side blew it (Wales) and one rather embarrassing episode against a team ranked 15th. Yes the wins against Australia last summer were good, but things haven't been quite so impressive in the recent past.
Maybe it suits the English psyche to be self-assertive, (wasn't the word I thought of first so I chose a synonym to avoid unnecessary conflict), but the price they pay for that is that they are fair game if they fail to live up to their own expectations. And I'm not sure that they lived up to them in the 6N

You have to get beaten sometimes. I wouldn't mind if we had another flukey 18 wins in a row tbh.

Even whilst the clear No 1 team in the world, what you admire most about NZ is that they quietly go about their business without any sense of hubris and arrogance. Constantly reinforcing their supremacy on the pitch and creating a sense of deserved respect and admiration from true fans of the great game.

Meanwhile in a place far far away…..

Just finished watching the Sarries Bath match

Ouch

And that could not have done Ford's chances any good...

Glasgow fans should not watch that game. My word. Sarries might beat the HQ thrashing of Scotland on Glasgow

Cyril wrote:Glasgow fans should not watch that game. My word. Sarries might beat the HQ thrashing of Scotland on Glasgow

We won't be going in arrogant lol

R!skysports wrote:Just finished watching the Sarries Bath match

Ouch

And that could not have done Ford's chances any good...

Thank god for that, the concept of George Ford facing down NZ in a Lions shirt leaves me cold. In fact he might as well just bend over. We'll spend the entire game getting hammered back. I'm inclined to think Farrell should be given a shot at 10.

Gwlad wrote:Even whilst the clear No 1 team in the world, what you admire most about NZ is that they quietly go about their business without any sense of hubris and arrogance. Constantly reinforcing their supremacy on the pitch and creating a sense of deserved respect and admiration from true fans of the great game.

Meanwhile in a place far far away…..

 Down here we are busy doing our homework, one of our sports channels is doing replays of the 2005 games 24 hours round the clock. after a few more weeks I should know every move off by heart.

... don't pay too much heed - you can't get away with the spear tackle anymore.

Gwlad wrote:

R!skysports wrote:Just finished watching the Sarries Bath match

Ouch

And that could not have done Ford's chances any good...

Thank god for that, the concept of George Ford facing down NZ in a Lions shirt leaves me cold. In fact he might as well just bend over. We'll spend the entire game getting hammered back. I'm inclined to think Farrell should be given a shot at 10.

I thought George Ford was the difference between Lancaster's boring England and Eddie's new creative one? Isn't Ford the Arc Reactor than makes the English Iron Man powerful?

beshocked wrote:You should edit your post then gunsgerms because you were wrong.

It's not just about England-Ireland, it's about how teams do against others. As I keep saying England have been much more consistent than Ireland. Sure you can hark back to the RWC but that was over a year ago and I thought the NH sides were poor overall.

Ireland haven't beaten Australia in Australia since 1979. You have 1 victory vs NZ which you can't stop going on about even though it's only once. Also you've never beaten NZ in NZ. 1 victory doesn't make you all conquering - that's the point.

Didn't take NZ long at all to avenge their defeat either. They went to your patch and won.

18 wins in a row on the other hand is pretty impressive. It's not one notable win.

Spot on Beshocked. Ireland players are far too flakey to take on a serious tour of NZ - leave the lot of them alone (and at home) and concentrate on the hearts of oak from England and the 'been there done that' daffy taffs. Throw a good smattering of highlanders into the mix too so they can hook up with relatives round Dunedin.

If Roberts and Jonathan Davies get picked for the squad because of their "big match temperament" then I for one will lose all interest in this Lions tour. All you have to do is watch Clermont this season and see what a difference Lamerat has made to their back play. He has power, runs straight, can off load the ball out of the tackle and, crucially, can pass the ball effectively to his wingers! These  facets of play seem to be missing from Davies game just now.

I am quite happy to accept that a maximum of 4 or 5 Scots deserve to go on this tour but only about 6 Welsh players should go as well: Owens, Wyn Jones, Tipuric, Webb, Williams and North (if he stays concussion free).

However I suspect Gatland will pick closer to 10 of his players because of their "deep well of experience".

Hopefully it won't be on the same scale of nepotism shown by Sir Clive to the England squad back in 2005, but would still be unjustified.

Gwlad wrote:Even whilst the clear No 1 team in the world, what you admire most about NZ is that they quietly go about their business without any sense of hubris and arrogance.

Warren Gatland described himslef as embaressed to be a Kiwi after the behaviour and arrogance of All Blacks fans an the media only a few months ago.

Although he is largely full of poo. (And pretty arrogant)