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.

123456789 wrote:

cascough wrote:Gatland not picking Joseph, or people suggesting that the Lions won't score 1 or 2 tries if he picks Roberts. You tell me who is being more ridiculous here. "beyond parody" I think I read earlier. Calm down.

I think you're being deliberately disingenuous, the simple fact is that Roberts is not even the best Welsh inside centre let alone the best in Britain and Ireland, I am not suggesting that they won't score any tries with Roberts but rather at this stage of their careers Joseph is a far more creative player than Roberts, furthermore if he picks Roberts it shows he has discounted all the evidence of the last 12 months, there are players available now who can do better than Roberts can at what he specialises in doing. Now as far as your "calm down" comment goes, I am perfectly calm but if we were not to express opinions and points of view then there would be little point in this forum at all. It would be a very boring place if every time a report came out or an incident occurred we all agreed it was interesting and expressed no opinions it would be a very dull place.

I'm not. It isn't a fact, it's subjective. I think Roberts is he best welsh inside centre and I'll wager Gatland does too. I don't think he is the best IC in Britain, but If Gatland thinks he's the best to execute the gameplan he wants to see, then I can at least see where he is coming from, even if I disagree.

And it's possible to express opinions and have meaningful debate without needless sensationalism. I personally feel that sensationalism, hype and vitriol gets in the way of good debate. Of course one mans sensational is another mans understated, but its a bit daft on here sometimes.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And no you're clearly not correct more deluded,

Sorry, based on what?

I'd be very surprised if the BBC published something like this without an unbelievably solid source(s), so don't hold your breath.

As you still seem to be relying on one incident where Farrell made a slight error in what you yourself said was a great attacking piece of play as a judgement to say that Joseph is poor defensively. All this as I said last year he was the best defensive 13 in rest rugby. If the beeb have got it right I suppose we're back to relying on injuries.

Miaow is trying to perpetuate the same myths based on a single piece move that didn't highlight any defensive weakness in JJ.

If the squad does turn out as reported I almost want the All Blacks to humiliate Gatland not just beat them.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Miaow is trying to perpetuate the same myths based on a single piece move that didn't highlight any defensive weakness in JJ.

If the squad does turn out as reported I almost want the All Blacks to humiliate Gatland not just beat them.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of your post.

The second part is absolutely ridiculous IMO. You sound like a scorned toddler.

cascough wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Miaow is trying to perpetuate the same myths based on a single piece move that didn't highlight any defensive weakness in JJ.

If the squad does turn out as reported I almost want the All Blacks to humiliate Gatland not just beat them.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of your post.

The second part is absolutely ridiculous IMO. You sound like a scorned toddler.

I simply have no interest in watching a team coached by an imbecile and I do not want any England player involved in it.

No boys, as I made my statements on here before Christmas, clearly that's not just what I'm basing it on

Clearly, too, Gatland and the Lions coaching team have come to the same opinion.

This forum really does skew perceptions of the Lions. Your national bias is pretty disgraceful, blinding you against both the actual evidence in front of your eyes to the point that you're now just arguing with me for the sake of saving face lest you concede that, actually, you might have misjudged Joseph due to your partisan bias (we all do it, from time to time).

If you were representative of the tone of the Tour, it would be practically unwatchable with supporters from the other 3 countries. I think this will be another Summer where it's better to stay away from online forums like this for the most part, as there is so much bitterness and national point scoring going on that.

Thankfully you're not representative at all.

miaow wrote:No boys, as I made my statements on here before Christmas, clearly that's not just what I'm basing it on

Clearly, too, Gatland and the Lions coaching team have come to the same opinion.

This forum really does skew perceptions of the Lions. Your national bias is pretty disgraceful, blinding you against both the actual evidence in front of your eyes to the point that you're now just arguing with me for the sake of saving face lest you concede that, actually, you might have misjudged Joseph due to your partisan bias (we all do it, from time to time).

If you were representative of the tone of the Tour, it would be practically unwatchable with supporters from the other 3 countries. I think this will be another Summer where it's better to stay away from online forums like this for the most part, as there is so much bitterness and national point scoring going on that.

Thankfully you're not representative at all.

More inane drivel from the forums self professed saviour and bastian of all reason.

You seem to think that your opinion is fact and cannot possibly be questioned, what you define as evidence most see as clutching at straws.

If the reports are correct, out of interest, why do you (collectively) think that Joseph hasn't made the squad?

Let's be fair Miaow, you did indeed make your claims pre 6n but then promptly admitted you hadn't watched Joseph over then previous 12 months. You then promised to pay close attention to Joseph over the forthcoming tournament.

Now I'm not saying this is what you did, but it could reasonably be asserted that you have be trying to justify your pre conception ever since. Like I said, maybe that's not true, but it's not crazy to think so.

As for your comments on nationalistic bias, I agree. It's disheartening.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

cascough wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Miaow is trying to perpetuate the same myths based on a single piece move that didn't highlight any defensive weakness in JJ.

If the squad does turn out as reported I almost want the All Blacks to humiliate Gatland not just beat them.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of your post.

The second part is absolutely ridiculous IMO. You sound like a scorned toddler.

I simply have no interest in watching a team coached by an imbecile and I do not want any England player involved in it.

Stuart Lancaster's wife refuses to attend RWC 2015

Gats picking his mates, did anyone expect anything different from this bloke?

cascough wrote:Let's be fair Miaow, you did indeed make your claims pre 6n but then promptly admitted you hadn't watched Joseph over then previous 12 months.

No, that's incorrect, you're paraphrasing what someone accused me of, not what I said.

It's important to critique where you're getting your information from. As we all (hopefully) learnt by reading Orwell, just because a lie is repeated enough times that it's accepted as truth, it is still a lie.

I'm genuinely interested, though.

Could some of the posters who've been so condescending to me regarding my opinions on Joseph try to come up with a reason as to why- if the report is correct- he may be left out of the Lions squad?

I just thought of a really brief summary as to why I am not that keen on the Lions

The players who do go come back broken and for the ones who don't we have to put up with 4 years of 'X isn't as good as Y because he's not a Lion'

Fair enough. I think he hasn't selected Joseph because he doesn't dominate collisions. If he's selected ringrose instead then I'm truly perplexed.

Back to constructive debate the only reason I can see for Gatland omitting Joseph is that he doesn't suit the game plan that Gats wishes to employ - in which case we are looking at Warrenball surprisingly enough.

Joseph offers a point of difference to the other options, he is familiar with Farrell who could well end up at 12. JJ could also offer a good partner to Henshaw who should be the other option at 12.

JJs defence has largely been praised in the Gustard defensive structure, which is basically the same structure as Farrell employs - they developed as coaches together at Sarries. His high tackle completion makes him a good rush defender but he also has the pace to shut down outside breaks which is very important against NZ.

JJ has better hands than Davies and Te'o. A better kicking game too. He also offers more versatility to the touring squad and match day 23s given he has the pace to play wing and has spent plenty of time playing there.

Boil that down and the only thing that the guys rumoured to be getting picked ahead of JJ offer above him is a better crash ball option.

miaow wrote:

cascough wrote:Let's be fair Miaow, you did indeed make your claims pre 6n but then promptly admitted you hadn't watched Joseph over then previous 12 months.

No, that's incorrect, you're paraphrasing what someone accused me of, not what I said.

It's important to critique where you're getting your information from. As we all (hopefully) learnt by reading Orwell, just because a lie is repeated enough times that it's accepted as truth, it is still a lie.

miaow is intelligent

Surprising decision to omit Joseph entirely, but Gatland obviously has a clear strategy and the benefit of a winning Lions tour under his belt. Always likely to be conservative gameplan when trying to meld a team out of a scratch squad.

Ireland, Wales or England would probably stand a better chance of winning if they travelled as individual nations nowadays, rather than touring collectively.

Crazy decision to leave out JJ. Defensively he is very solid and his speed, quick feet and excellent passing offer a point of difference over the other candidates. Launchbury deserves to travel and is hard done by. Halfpenny is very lucky as he offers little apart from goalkicking. With Sexton and Farrell he is not required. I don't mind Brown missing out for Watson or Daly but he also deserves a spot. Ford and Robshaw I cannot quibble but Haskell is also unlucky. He has played well against the top sides away from home. It will be interesting to see who is prepared to stay fit ready to be called up and who throws their toys out of the pram and asks for the summer off?

If Gatland hasn't selected Joseph, then the chances that he has selected Daly must be high.

Daly is also a pacy outside centre who, like Joseph, can cover wing, but also can do a job at full back, as well as take shots at goal. At centre, his defence isn't a patch on Joseph but he offers a similar attacking threat.

If Daly is a back three selection, that Gatland might figure he already has that tactical option in his squad.

This should be the last Lions tour.

Drop the Lions and the international money go round will Poopie out meaning the old empire countries + France will have to restructure especially down south.

miaow wrote:I'm genuinely interested, though.

Could some of the posters who've been so condescending to me regarding my opinions on Joseph try to come up with a reason as to why- if the report is correct- he may be left out of the Lions squad?

He can pass and he's below 16st.

I think Joseph might be suffering from a pretty poor 6 nations aside from 1 game.

Now I think Joseph deserves to tour but he's not really suited to Gatlandball.

Looks like Gatland will find room for the likes of Halfpenny,Roberts and Jonathan Davies.

hugehandoff wrote:Crazy decision to leave out JJ. Defensively he is very solid and his speed, quick feet and excellent passing offer a point of difference over the other candidates. Launchbury deserves to travel and is hard done by. Halfpenny is very lucky as he offers little apart from goalkicking. With Sexton and Farrell he is not required. I don't mind Brown missing out for Watson or Daly but he also deserves a spot. Ford and Robshaw I cannot quibble but Haskell is also unlucky. He has played well against the top sides away from home. It will be interesting to see who is prepared to stay fit ready to be called up and who throws their toys out of the pram and asks for the summer off?

I agree, cant see why Halpenny would be selected.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

hugehandoff wrote:Crazy decision to leave out JJ. Defensively he is very solid and his speed, quick feet and excellent passing offer a point of difference over the other candidates. Launchbury deserves to travel and is hard done by. Halfpenny is very lucky as he offers little apart from goalkicking. With Sexton and Farrell he is not required. I don't mind Brown missing out for Watson or Daly but he also deserves a spot. Ford and Robshaw I cannot quibble but Haskell is also unlucky. He has played well against the top sides away from home. It will be interesting to see who is prepared to stay fit ready to be called up and who throws their toys out of the pram and asks for the summer off?

I agree, cant see why Halpenny would be selected.

Halfpenny is Welsh. Plus he knows Gatlandball well.

how do folk know that JJ has been omitted from the tour?

On the last tour Corbs flew out from Argentina and had a massive impact so it will be interesting to see this time who does something similar. Wales will already be in the right part of the world, but for the older players who miss out they need to remain fit, go on their respective summer tours and await the call to glory.

tigertattie wrote:how do folk know that JJ has been omitted from the tour?

Reports in the media...BBC, Telegraph and many other papers.

tigertattie wrote:how do folk know that JJ has been omitted from the tour?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39624348

JD2 over JJ would be a travesty.

I saw JD2 play at the weekend and he looks like he is burnt out, the Scarlet's fans around me thought he was hopeless yet Gatland has selected him based on past form if the leaks are true.

king_carlos wrote:Back to constructive debate the only reason I can see for Gatland omitting Joseph is that he doesn't suit the game plan that Gats wishes to employ - in which case we are looking at Warrenball surprisingly enough.

Literally what I've been saying, but worded differently.

Where you (presumably) see 'Warrenball' as primarily a negative thing, I see it as a basic, pragmatic blueprint that enables a team to beat an opposition through tactical control rather than relying on luck or talent etc. The results are mixed, but- on the whole- positive. I have also said this blueprint will have/needs to have some novelty to it in order for the Lions to be competitive, and, frankly, 'Warrenball' usually does this when it matters (RWCs, big games etc). It's a crude and simplified characterisation to just label Warrenball as crashball and nothing else.

Anyway, back to Joseph. If (not you specifically) you can get past the idea that Warrenball is a negative, then isn't it sensible for Gatland to pick what he knows, and more importantly, needs for his basic blueprint? Whilst I'm slightly surprised and disappointed Joseph is likely to miss out completely, it does make sense if you're making the deicision with skin in the game; if you have a general gameplan in mind, then selecting a 13 wholly different to everyone else means that, come the warm ups, you're having to tailor your gameplan to suit this player which, due to the nature of the Lions, you simply don't have the time nor wiggle room in terms of standard of opposition to do.

Frankly, Joseph isn't a good fit for the Gatland plan at 13, which is what I've been saying for 6 months. He's an excellent player, one of the best in the NH, and were he a winger, he'd be in there like a shot. With a different coach, he'd be Lions standard, no doubt. But this is Gatland. Just as there is little point selecting Gatland and getting upset when his team doesn't play 7s style rugby, it's pointless selecting Joseph at 13 if you're then asking him to play in a way where he is worse than several other 13s in the NH.

Which, if we're honest, is the case. He didn't have a good Six Nations. Other than against Scotland, he didn't shine with ball in hand, which was worrying, because it's the one exceptional thing about him that can counteract his deficiencies in defensive power and positional discipline. He's not a great distributor or kicker of the ball, either, so effectively you're selecting a running threat at 13- as I said, Gatland will only have a player like that on the wing, not 15, not 13.

It's unfortunate for Joseph, but stylistic versatility relative to the other centre options doesn't actually go in his favour here, quite the opposite. Critique that coaching methodology all you like, but you have to be able to see the merits of it, surely?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

miaow wrote:I'm genuinely interested, though.

Could some of the posters who've been so condescending to me regarding my opinions on Joseph try to come up with a reason as to why- if the report is correct- he may be left out of the Lions squad?

He can pass and he's below 16st.

https://youtu.be/0OtUvG3C9jg?t=1m26s

Great hands by a 16st 'cant pass' crashball centre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh4HBF-IIl8

Shocking defence by Jospeh.

Just so I know for sure can you explain what you mean by Joseph not being a great distributor please miaow?

miaow wrote:I'm genuinely interested, though.

Could some of the posters who've been so condescending to me regarding my opinions on Joseph try to come up with a reason as to why- if the report is correct- he may be left out of the Lions squad?

I wasn't condescending to you but I think Joseph isnt going to be picked because Gatland tends to go with Welsh options when there isnt much between players. It is understandable because it is less a risk to work with someone you know. However, for me Joseph is marginally the best 13 at the moment and should have been picked on merit.

I hope Ringrose is selected though as it would I think accelerate his development.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just so I know for sure can you explain what you mean by Joseph not being a great distributor please miaow?

Basically, passing 7.5.

Whilst this isn't an area of strength for NH centres generally, were Joseph to pair his running ability with, say, a BOD-level offloading or passing ability, it would be another feather in his cap to mitigate against his weaknesses. Unfortunately, whilst he's a pretty good offloader, he's not top drawer (Which, unfortunately, is the reason why I think Launchbury has been left out. There's no area he's obviously weak in, and a tremendous workhorse, but not quite 'top level'.), and the effectiveness of his offloads often seem to come as a result of his footwork and pace putting defenders on the backfoot, rather than intrinsic handling ability and speed of thought (which may seem a petty distinction for the end result of a successful offload, but important in this case).

He doesn't have the eye of a top level distributing, playmaking 13, who can send his wingers or full backs over with a slight of hand against a set defence. That said, nor do any of the Lions centres, in my opinion, certainly not to a level that could/will consistently threaten the All Blacks.

Rather than this being an area of criticism for Joseph relative to his competition at 13, it's more of an absence of an ability that would have separated him from the rest.

So he's poor defensively and can't pass. I'm really struggling with the idea you've actually watched him.

miaow wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Back to constructive debate the only reason I can see for Gatland omitting Joseph is that he doesn't suit the game plan that Gats wishes to employ - in which case we are looking at Warrenball surprisingly enough.

Literally what I've been saying, but worded differently.

Where you (presumably) see 'Warrenball' as primarily a negative thing, I see it as a basic, pragmatic blueprint that enables a team to beat an opposition through tactical control rather than relying on luck or talent etc. The results are mixed, but- on the whole- positive. I have also said this blueprint will have/needs to have some novelty to it in order for the Lions to be competitive, and, frankly, 'Warrenball' usually does this when it matters (RWCs, big games etc). It's a crude and simplified characterisation to just label Warrenball as crashball and nothing else.

Anyway, back to Joseph. If (not you specifically) you can get past the idea that Warrenball is a negative, then isn't it sensible for Gatland to pick what he knows, and more importantly, needs for his basic blueprint? Whilst I'm slightly surprised and disappointed Joseph is likely to miss out completely, it does make sense if you're making the deicision with skin in the game; if you have a general gameplan in mind, then selecting a 13 wholly different to everyone else means that, come the warm ups, you're having to tailor your gameplan to suit this player which, due to the nature of the Lions, you simply don't have the time nor wiggle room in terms of standard of opposition to do.

Frankly, Joseph isn't a good fit for the Gatland plan at 13, which is what I've been saying for 6 months. He's an excellent player, one of the best in the NH, and were he a winger, he'd be in there like a shot. With a different coach, he'd be Lions standard, no doubt. But this is Gatland. Just as there is little point selecting Gatland and getting upset when his team doesn't play 7s style rugby, it's pointless selecting Joseph at 13 if you're then asking him to play in a way where he is worse than several other 13s in the NH.

Which, if we're honest, is the case. He didn't have a good Six Nations. Other than against Scotland, he didn't shine with ball in hand, which was worrying, because it's the one exceptional thing about him that can counteract his deficiencies in defensive power and positional discipline. He's not a great distributor or kicker of the ball, either, so effectively you're selecting a running threat at 13- as I said, Gatland will only have a player like that on the wing, not 15, not 13.

It's unfortunate for Joseph, but stylistic versatility relative to the other centre options doesn't actually go in his favour here, quite the opposite. Critique that coaching methodology all you like, but you have to be able to see the merits of it, surely?

Warrenball's all well and good in the NH - it's served Wales pretty well in the 6N over the past few years. But it doesn't work that well vs SH teams who have the individual skill levels to work around it - the likes of Samoa can give Warrenballing Wales a scare, & the Sanzar teams brush it off more often than not.

It doesn't matter how good your defense is against a 2005-grade Carter or a 2016-17 grade Barrett, they're going to find a way through. Hence you're better off trying to find ways to score as many points as possible.

Here's me thinking the Lions squad would be the most important announcement this week...

IanBru wrote:Here's me thinking the Lions squad would be the most important announcement this week...

I doubt very much that JJ's distribution is a major factor in leaving him out, especially when selecting JD who is pretty poor in this area.

It seems Gatland is wanting centres with defensive solidity first off rather than their attacking prowess. JJ is a good defender, he has no issues there at all, but JD is strong and quite dominant for a 13.

My confusion comes when Ringrose gets in and JJ doesn't, JJ is better in pretty much every aspect. Throw in Daly too and I'm even more confused, unless he's more of a winger? Daly can be a terrible defender at times when playing 13, he's not an International centre.

miaow Gatland ball has been shown to be mostly ineffective vs SH sides with a poor record.

You say that it works when it matters. No it doesn't unless you believe that beating England in the RWC in 2015 is the only game that matters.

NZ have dealt with Wales and Gatland every single time.

I have seen on some of these "leaked teams" that Laidlaw is in with a shout.

I try to be as balanced and as fair as possible but Laidlaw? Really? He is currently injured and there are far more deserving Scottish players than him!

beshocked wrote:miaow Gatland ball has been shown to be mostly ineffective vs SH sides with a poor record.

You say that it works when it matters. No it doesn't unless you believe that beating England in the RWC in 2015 is the only game that matters.

NZ have dealt with Wales and Gatland every single time.

He has won about half his games in charge. Has a poor record against most sides.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
My confusion comes when Ringrose gets in and JJ doesn't, JJ is better in pretty much every aspect.

Well he has four years head start as an International so yeah, his record in an International shirt might glisten more than Ringrose's so far. But better in pretty much every aspect? Let's wait a few years more and tally them closer to the end of their International careers rather than judging them on their unequal exposure to the International game.

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:miaow Gatland ball has been shown to be mostly ineffective vs SH sides with a poor record.

You say that it works when it matters. No it doesn't unless you believe that beating England in the RWC in 2015 is the only game that matters.

NZ have dealt with Wales and Gatland every single time.

He has won about half his games in charge. Has a poor record against most sides.

Which sides?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

miaow wrote:I'm genuinely interested, though.

Could some of the posters who've been so condescending to me regarding my opinions on Joseph try to come up with a reason as to why- if the report is correct- he may be left out of the Lions squad?

I wasn't condescending to you but I think Joseph isnt going to be picked because Gatland tends to go with Welsh options when there isnt much between players. It is understandable because it is less a risk to work with someone you know. However, for me Joseph is marginally the best 13 at the moment and should have been picked on merit.

I hope Ringrose is selected though as it would I think accelerate his development.

Hmm, I'm not sure. I can see your reasoning, but I don't think it's fair.

I think the reliance on Welsh players in 2013 was in part a last ditch, desperate measure for the Lions to consistently and accurately play the game he wanted them to play over 80 minutes, and on relatively short notice (particularly before in the week of the last Test). That meant the Welsh players were, by and large, best suited to playing that style of play, as well as- having had experience with Gatland- being a known quantity to him, and therefore the 'safest' bet. Individually taken, of course. The logic isn't "well, we need Welsh boys in here, let's pick 2/3rds Welsh and fill in from the rest". It's part of the interesting part of a flawed analysis; assuming a bias permeates above all else, i.e. that Gatland is pro-Welsh/anti-Irish above his own utilitarian judgements.

I'd say, of the 4 countries that comprise the Lions, Gatland's coaching is actually best suited to the English first, and then the Irish, partly because he values big, strong players, who are happy to play pragmatic Rugby. He then also values a set piece, and the Irish are- typically- the best lineout operators and defenders of the four. However, the way things worked out, he's ended up in Wales instead.

In many Wales, Wales is least suited to Gatland. However, Gatland has been in charge of Wales for a long time, and as such has moulded the team to reflect what he wants. It's why certain players have had long careers where perhaps they shouldn't, i.e. Roberts over Scott Williams, Lydiate over Tipuric.

Rather than it being a case of Gatland being pro-Welsh, it's just that Gatland has made Wales into the best example of the team he wants- for better and/or worse. So that's why I think you see certain players selected over others, rather than anything more sinister. Gatland has a relatively docile and obedient group of Welsh players that play the way he wants them to, and that he trusts- Warburton, JD2, Roberts etc. It's really as simple as that. He obviously has a chip on his shoulder about the Irish, and can't get the discipline from some of them that he does from the Welsh or English, but that's only a small percentage of the selection criteria, I believe, which primarily focuses on a players' utility above their national status.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So he's poor defensively and can't pass. I'm really struggling with the idea you've actually watched him.

Can't pass? I'm really struggling with the idea you actually read what I wrote.

Unlike you to fail to grasp nuance, 7.5...

mikey_dragon wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:miaow Gatland ball has been shown to be mostly ineffective vs SH sides with a poor record.

You say that it works when it matters. No it doesn't unless you believe that beating England in the RWC in 2015 is the only game that matters.

NZ have dealt with Wales and Gatland every single time.

He has won about half his games in charge. Has a poor record against most sides.

Which sides?

I'm sure you can research that.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I have seen on some of these "leaked teams" that Laidlaw is in with a shout.

I try to be as balanced and as fair as possible but Laidlaw? Really? He is currently injured and there are far more deserving Scottish players than him!

What does nationality have to do with it? Or are you suggesting Price and Pyrgos?

I can see the logic behind taking someone like Laidlaw, he puts the ball in the right areas of the field and for a power game, that's a good thing. I personally think the SH best at doing this is Wigglesworth (plus he's fit!), but he would always be an outside bet as he's in the international wilderness.

That being said, both Murray and Youngs have strong tactical kicking games so I'd pick those 2 and then one of Webb, Care or Davies to provide an alternative.