British & Irish Lions Squad 2017

Scottrf wrote:Lawes was better than AWJ every week in the 6 Nations and isn't injured yet he's the strange call

AWJ is a leader and well respected by his peers as well as being a former winning Lions test captain.

Lions players aren't just based on how well they did in the six nations, they are picked on how well the coaches think they will gel into the squad.

You need leaders on and off the pitch.

But not the England captain. If AWJ was a leader Biggar wouldn't ignore him.

Scottrf wrote:But not the England captain.

You think he'd gel well within the squad ?

munkian wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Lawes was better than AWJ every week in the 6 Nations and isn't injured yet he's the strange call

AWJ is a leader and well respected by his peers as well as being a former winning Lions test captain.

Lions players aren't just  based on how well they did in the six nations, they are picked on how well the coaches think they will gel into the squad.

You need leaders on and off the pitch.

No need for AWJ to lead though when Dan Biggars about

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Payne's form has been good though Pete whereas T'eo only has a handfull of average games from the bench and Halfpenny has been off form and off confidence. He even turned down kicks when AWJ asked to take them because he didnt feel confident. I also think Payne is a better 15 than all the players you mention except Hogg and maybe Williams. Davies is going on past form alone it seems.

The only reason Payne is a surprise is because he missed the six nations otherwise I feel he meets the right criteria.

I'm not too fussed about Payne being picked but can you really say his form is good when he missed the whole 6N??

Yeah because he played a key role in all of Ireland's big wins in the last few years. He also did play in the Ireland v England game in the Aviva. This game was also POMs only game for Ireland in some time, POM didnt feature in the wins v SA and NZ unlike Payne.

Sometimes you never can do enough to get a badge from some folks.

munkian wrote:

Scottrf wrote:But not the England captain.

You think he'd gel well within the squad ?

Well enough. They're not going to Butlins.

You not want to answer munkian?

munkian wrote:

Scottrf wrote:But not the England captain.

You think he'd gel well within the squad ?

Too many Irishmen about he's due to stamp on one soon

Scottrf wrote:

munkian wrote:

Scottrf wrote:But not the England captain.

You think he'd gel well within the squad ?

Well enough. They're not going to Butlins.

I love that you are so bitter you are actually sticking up for Hartley...

No 7&1/2 wrote:You not want to answer munkian?

What are you babbling about ?

marty2086 wrote:

munkian wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Lawes was better than AWJ every week in the 6 Nations and isn't injured yet he's the strange call

AWJ is a leader and well respected by his peers as well as being a former winning Lions test captain.

Lions players aren't just  based on how well they did in the six nations, they are picked on how well the coaches think they will gel into the squad.

You need leaders on and off the pitch.

No need for AWJ to lead though when Dan Biggars about

Very good!

Scottrf wrote:

munkian wrote:

Scottrf wrote:But not the England captain.

You think he'd gel well within the squad ?

Well enough. They're not going to Butlins.

munkian wrote:I love that you are so bitter you are actually sticking up for Hartley...

Double 6 Nations and 18 straight game winning captain.

Need more winners in the team.

If you define lucky as scraping through on a marginal call and unlucky as missing out on a marginal call, I think a few English players are lucky to be there, where a few are unlucky to miss out.

Hartley, Launchbury and Ford would get in the England team before George, Lawes and Te'o, yet the latter 3 have been taken. Personally I'd have Hartley and Launchbury close to first choice in their respective positions, and Ford either instead of Biggar, or instead of a centre with Farrell shifting across and giving Gatland the option of going for the proven combos of Sexton / Henshaw or Ford / Farrell at 10/12, or picking his two best individuals in Sexton and Farrell.

Sinckler is lucky given that he is one of the most unproven players in the squad, where in other areas Gatland plumped for proven, experienced players. Watson, for example, has more experience and missed out to players who were more experienced again.

Robshaw is unlucky, given some others have been selected despite missing large parts of the 6 Nations (Payne and O'Mahony).

Scottrf wrote:

munkian wrote:I love that you are so bitter you are actually sticking up for Hartley...

Double 6 Nations and 18 straight game winning captain.

Need more winners in the team.

How many captains get subbed off in almost every game? Hartley had his chance in 2013 and he blew it.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

munkian wrote:I love that you are so bitter you are actually sticking up for Hartley...

Double 6 Nations and 18 straight game winning captain.

Need more winners in the team.

How many captains get subbed off in almost every game? Hartley had his chance in 2013 and he blew it.

Guirado did but I suppose he's crap too.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

munkian wrote:I love that you are so bitter you are actually sticking up for Hartley...

Double 6 Nations and 18 straight game winning captain.

Need more winners in the team.

How many captains get subbed off in almost every game? Hartley had his chance in 2013 and he blew it.

How many captains get subbed off in almost every game? Pretty much every captain that plays in the front row

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

munkian wrote:I love that you are so bitter you are actually sticking up for Hartley...

Double 6 Nations and 18 straight game winning captain.

Need more winners in the team.

How many captains get subbed off in almost every game? Hartley had his chance in 2013 and he blew it.

How many other countries have a Lions player sitting on the bench behind their captain?

Rory Best would have been replaced every game. Front rows are always changed, aren't they?

Scottrf wrote:

munkian wrote:

Scottrf wrote:But not the England captain.

You think he'd gel well within the squad ?

Well enough. They're not going to Butlins.

I don't think the England captain would be an issue in a predominantly English squad, the players obviously react well to him unlike others in the squad.

Do you want to answer the question munkian?

I think they wanted a more competitive darts tournament in the camp.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

munkian wrote:I love that you are so bitter you are actually sticking up for Hartley...

Double 6 Nations and 18 straight game winning captain.

Need more winners in the team.

How many captains get subbed off in almost every game? Hartley had his chance in 2013 and he blew it.

And Gats blew it for him this time. I'd have taken Hartley. You need men there with old school ruffianism.

robbo277 wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

munkian wrote:I love that you are so bitter you are actually sticking up for Hartley...

Double 6 Nations and 18 straight game winning captain.

Need more winners in the team.

How many captains get subbed off in almost every game? Hartley had his chance in 2013 and he blew it.

How many other countries have a Lions player sitting on the bench behind their captain?

robbo277 You could also conclude that the player sitting on the bench, he should be starting instead.....

Hartley didn't have a good 6 nations either as a captain (his leadership was pretty shoddy, needing Haskell as an interpreter) or as a player.

George is also a player that would offer much more if picked on the bench.

Have to think about the 23, not just the 15.


Loyalty to Hartley who has one of the worst disciplinary records currently plying their trade in rugby is admirable though.

His fanbase is loyal.

SecretFly wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

munkian wrote:I love that you are so bitter you are actually sticking up for Hartley...

Double 6 Nations and 18 straight game winning captain.

Need more winners in the team.

How many captains get subbed off in almost every game? Hartley had his chance in 2013 and he blew it.

And Gats blew it for him this time.  I'd have taken Hartley.  You need men there with old school ruffianism.  

Its Wayne Barnes' fault.

Interesting you say george offers more from the bench beshocked. You won't be campaigning for George to start the tests then?

beshocked wrote:

Hartley didn't have a good 6 nations either as a captain (his leadership was pretty shoddy, needing Haskell as an interpreter) or as a player.

So what? He had a good run at being Captain of the 2nd ranked team in the World. Every player needs a little off time - form isn't eternal, it's sequential. Let's see how some of the chosen elties handle the upstep in conditioning that will be demanded now in advance of tough tough games midweek and weekend. Maybe some of the guys who shined in this 6N will find the going tough to keep form now into Summer.

no 7 & 1/2 George offers more from the bench than Hartley yes. You have to look at how versatile a player is.

George can challenge both for a starter and bench spot whilst I think Hartley would have only been able to challenge for a starter spot.

Secretfly Hartley was in the team yes but he shouldn't take sole credit for England's run. Also I felt he was a passenger in this year's 6 nations.

Jones and his fellow coaches have improved a similar squad to Lancaster - you think it's just down to Hartley? I don't. He's contributed sure but so have many others.

His leadership during the first half of the Italy game was appalling too.

munkian wrote:His leadership during the first half of the Italy game was appalling too.

He should take tips from AWJ.

Thanks. Was a point of mine in the 6ns that Hartley with george on the bench potentially offers a better end product even if george was seen to be in better form than the other way around. I assume you're backing best to start then?

Still no answer munkian?

beshocked wrote:

Secretfly Hartley was in the team yes but he shouldn't take sole credit for England's run.

Well he obviously didn't GET the credit, you're right on that score, shocked. I always knew I had a soft spot for Hartley though, even when he was nipping the fingers of Irish players. Now even more so, I'm in his camp. The man gets far too much grief from the holier then thou sect. It would be great to see a begging letter go out to him later if a few Lions class players fall by the wayside to injury.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Thanks. Was a point of mine in the 6ns that Hartley with george on the bench potentially offers a better end product even if george was seen to be in better form than the other way around. I assume you're backing best to start then?

Still no answer munkian?

Again, to what ?

munkian wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Thanks. Was a point of mine in the 6ns that Hartley with george on the bench potentially offers a better end product even if george was seen to be in better form than the other way around. I assume you're backing best to start then?

Still no answer munkian?

Again, to what ?

The Sun. How far away is it? Precisely.

I expect Best will start.

Lions is less about player development and more about winning so if George will add the most from the bench that's where he should play. Depends on how everyone does.

Of course injuries might happen, maybe Hartley will start for the Lions after all. I know it's what you want no 7 & 1/2.

I don't think George should have been a permanent substitute for England but that's for another discussion.

Saracens generally rotate George and Brits. Having 2 first choice hookers who can be useful as a starter and from the bench is the ideal situation.

I'd have Hartley and George either way for the lions team.

Asked you twice now munkian. Re basing selection on one game especially one with injuries.

Aparently Ringrose was originally pencilled in to tour ahead of Joseph. I guess that means there is a good chance he will get called up which would be great.

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/gatland-ringrose-unlucky/

I think you can read that as Joseph was definitely in and ring rose was unlucky to miss out on another place as well.

Ringrose? Now there's a player with a hype team working on a bonus system.

beshocked wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

munkian wrote:I love that you are so bitter you are actually sticking up for Hartley...

Double 6 Nations and 18 straight game winning captain.

Need more winners in the team.

How many captains get subbed off in almost every game? Hartley had his chance in 2013 and he blew it.

How many other countries have a Lions player sitting on the bench behind their captain?

robbo277 You could also conclude that the player sitting on the bench, he should be starting instead.....

Hartley didn't have a good 6 nations either as a captain (his leadership was pretty shoddy, needing Haskell as an interpreter) or as a player.

George is also a player that would offer much more if picked on the bench.

Have to think about the 23, not just the 15.


Loyalty to Hartley who has one of the worst disciplinary records currently plying their trade in rugby is admirable though.

His fanbase is loyal.

Perhaps George should have started in the Six Nations, perhaps not.

Hartley's too integral to England at the moment, hence he was rushed back after his suspension. We could have started George for the first two weeks, but then who would have sat on the bench? Putting your captain on the bench when he needs minutes would be counter-productive, and no-one else is knocking the door down to get in the squad.

Jones gambled on him hitting the ground running and while he didn't hit great heights, he did a solid enough job and didn't let us down.

I'd wager he'd be stronger going into a summer tour with a run of games behind him. And if we can ignore 6 Nations form for certain players in red based on proven track record, why not the same treatment for Hartley?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think you can read that as Joseph was definitely in and ring rose was unlucky to miss out on another place  as well.

Eh? The article says "It appears that the Leinster centre was taken out of the squad at the last minute to be replaced by England centre Jonathan Joseph."

Also "Ring rose"?

It was nice to see Andy Farrell fighting his corner anyway. Come on Ireland.

beshocked wrote:I expect Best will start.

Lions is less about player development and more about winning so if George will add the most from the bench that's where he should play. Depends on how everyone does.

Of course injuries might happen, maybe Hartley will start for the Lions after all. I know it's what you want no 7 & 1/2.

I don't think George should have been a permanent substitute for England but that's for another discussion.

Saracens generally rotate George and Brits. Having 2 first choice hookers who can be useful as a starter and from the bench is the ideal situation.

I don't think Corbisiero was an original pick in 2013, and he ended up starting one or two of the tests I think. An early injury to a hooker and good tour performances by Hartley could see him start, although it's a long shot.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Aparently Ringrose was originally pencilled in to tour ahead of Joseph. I guess that means there is a good chance he will get called up which would be great.

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/gatland-ringrose-unlucky/

That implies JD2 or Payne is 1st-choice #13. Oh deary me. Unless the Lions' pack can somehow win 70%+ of possession this is going to be a bloodbath.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Also "Ring rose"?

I thought that has Hogg's nickname. You just have to sneeze and he goes down.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think you can read that as Joseph was definitely in and ring rose was unlucky to miss out on another place  as well.

Eh? The article says "It appears that the Leinster centre was taken out of the squad at the last minute to be replaced by England centre Jonathan Joseph."

Also "Ring rose"?

It was nice to see Andy Farrell fighting his corner anyway. Come on Ireland.

Perhaps that was autocorrect.

I would have had Joseph and Ringrose, but I fully believe Gatland wanted 1 of the 2 + Davies.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Aparently Ringrose was originally pencilled in to tour ahead of Joseph. I guess that means there is a good chance he will get called up which would be great.

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/gatland-ringrose-unlucky/

That implies JD2 or Payne is 1st-choice #13. Oh deary me. Unless the Lions' pack can somehow win 70%+ of possession this is going to be a bloodbath.

Henshaw may be first choice 13. He has played there too but lets face it Gatland is likely to pick Davies. He cant help himself.

Auto correct. Reading the direct quotes from gatland rather than the journalists opinion you can take both that Joseph sneaked in ahead of ringrose or that Joseph was a definite pick and that ringrose was unlucky to miss out on another spot.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Aparently Ringrose was originally pencilled in to tour ahead of Joseph. I guess that means there is a good chance he will get called up which would be great.

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/gatland-ringrose-unlucky/

That implies JD2 or Payne is 1st-choice #13. Oh deary me. Unless the Lions' pack can somehow win 70%+ of possession this is going to be a bloodbath.

Henshaw may be first choice 13. He has played there too but lets face it Gatland is likely to pick Davies. He cant help himself.

I like Henshaw at 13 to be honest. And that'd imply Farrell at 12, which I'm also a fan of. Not exactly a Warrenball selection though.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Aparently Ringrose was originally pencilled in to tour ahead of Joseph. I guess that means there is a good chance he will get called up which would be great.

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/gatland-ringrose-unlucky/

That implies JD2 or Payne is 1st-choice #13. Oh deary me. Unless the Lions' pack can somehow win 70%+ of possession this is going to be a bloodbath.

well 70% possession against the ABs is already a bloodbath. So rest easy, C, you'll get your horror flicks.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Auto correct. Reading the direct quotes from gatland rather than the journalists opinion you can take both that Joseph sneaked in ahead of ringrose or that Joseph was a definite pick and that ringrose was unlucky to miss out on another spot.

I'd read it that everyone had settled on Ringrose but that Gatland kept coming to them with his dreams about Joseph that just wouldn't go away. He had what ya might call a casting vote and insisted on using it.... cause of that dream sent to him by an angel.