British & Irish Lions Squad 2017

First topic message reminder :

robbo277 wrote:
But as I said, I don't want players to water down their comments. I want to read what the players think, I don't want to read what the press officer tells them to say.

That's fair enough, and I agree with the rest of your comment on this basis. I personally don't particularly care what Mike Brown thinks, especially when it's as obvious as "experienced test player is disappointed to have not been selected for the Lions". I could have told you that without Mike Brown's public statement. The point where it deviated from him merely expressing his disappointment to one where he's put his foot in his mouth is the fact he questioned the coaches' lack of communication to him personally. Even if he's right- and I think he may well be- to publicly bring that into question in the way he has done is antithetical to the whole business of a squad as a unity, a whole above the self.

As for him being a liability, I agree to an extent, but equally he does get in his fair few verbal and physical scraps. He's clearly not a player who's particularly in control of his emotions, a bit like Biggar, in that he wants to plead his case long after it is obvious his efforts are utterly in vain. He's not a catastrophe by any means, but having played with people like him, they can be liabilities. Ticking time bomb may be the incorrect phrase, and overdoing it slightly, but that doesn't negate the point entirely. Either way, it doesn't particularly matter, as I don't think it really affects his performance or mentality, and the players around him, too much: but if it did, it's hard to quantify anyway.

To be fair Gatlands desire to have a big man up the middle is well documented.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Taylorman, Farrell is around 6'2" and 15st + he might not be the biggest, but is defensively sound, has good all-round skills and has been working on his speed, he may not be as quick as a winger, but he doesn't lack for pace anymore and has a subtlety in his game that was missing a couple of years ago.

I cannot think of anyone who has got the better of him in the EJ era when playing 12. The harder they run, the harder they fall.

Yep, I might be wrong with Farrell, he's a bit hard to read with his switching between 10 and 12, which from what I've seen, always seems to be to accommodate another 10. Those sorts of selections don't convince unless the sides superior anyway as they were vs Oz. Our 12's are nothing like our 10's. We need the impact through midfield, the Te'o type, straight hard runners with an eye for the gap, tough defenders. From there they can build on their game as say Nonu did with the wide passing, chips etc.

Farrell is doing it the opposite way, has the kicking and playmaker role but is now taking up the power game needed at 12. Whether he's adapted enough for this I don't know.

Gooseberry wrote:To be fair Gatlands desire to have a big man up the middle is well documented.

Yes, part of his predictability, probably contributed by having JD2 and Roberts in the roles so long and so successfully. He'll be looking for clones of that setup.

Gooseberry wrote:To be fair Gatlands desire to have a big man up the middle is well documented.

While Eddie prefers a big mouth at the back.

Gwlad wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Billy will start. Ireland beat NZ by physically outmatchibg them which Billy can do. These days trying to outskill them is a lost cause

Yep, one of the first names on the start sheet. Best form 8 in the NH at the moment (Lions group at least).

Form 8? Wrong, again

Faletau just awarded Premiership player of the month and has had 3 MOMs since 6 Nations.

Sorry I meant 6N, International form. Pre Lions tour firm may not be reliable especially if one has been shoulder tapped and one has been told to lift their game. There's a likelihood players could avoid injury to make sure their on tour. But if BillyVP is injured and Faletau in form then fair enough. I'd prefer him anyway, more mobility and he's always gone strongly against the ABs, one of the better no. 8s around, more similar to those we go for,

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Billy will start. Ireland beat NZ by physically outmatchibg them which Billy can do. These days trying to outskill them is a lost cause

I thin if we go there to beat them up we'll get stuffed. Except for a debatable scrum they aren't exactly weak anywhere. I think matching them for tempo has always been a way into the All Blacks. The stars will have to align: physicality, fitness and execution.

When has it worked?

Chicago, England in 2012, Boks in 2014, Oz in 2015 bled.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Why would you pick Farrell at 10 when he hasnt started at 10 for about 20 tests? Also why wouldnt you pick itoje at lock when it is his best position?

Why do you think Gatland doesnt rate Sexton when he already has started Sexton in three tests ahead of Farrell?

He's played most of his tests at 10 and if it weren't for Ford would have played there. He's a have cake and eat it to selection, so one things for sure he'll start.

I wouldn't play him at 10, I think Gatland will because he's had a better run against the ABs, where in many big matches Sextons gone soft? Farrell was central to the 2012 win and toured well in 2014.

Plus I think his experience at 12 will add to his scope at 10, defensively and offensively, and make him a better playmaker.

Point taken though and we'll see when the first matches start. I think he'll run both and 10 and pick the better one in the end.

Could well be 5 Sarries starters for the Lions in the pack plus Owen Farrell as Bod has just said.
Gatland picked 13 Ospreys players for Wales because they were relatively successful at that time and there was limited preparation time for the 6 Nations by him.
Clearly the same applies for the Lions & the other factor not to be ignored is the winning mentality that the players have.

Gooseberry wrote:Of course Farrells dad and his former captain/current club coach being on the staff wont influence slection at all

In terms of Andy Farrell he doesn't strike me as the type of guy to be biased toward his own son. The only time that Farrell has been selected for a squad or a team when it's been arguably dubious was 2013 and from the Lions DVD thing it was Andy Farrell saying that if Wilkinson was available he had to travel. Given Gatland was apparently set on a 10, a back-up and a utility player it was Owen Farrell's position under threat. Remember Farrell is still a reasonably young coach and a Lions win against New Zealand on his cv would presumably be more important than keeping his son artificially happy, additionally his role as Ireland coach may be quite severely impacted if he treats Sexton blatantly unfairly in favour of his own son.

For once I agree with numbers, its just the gooseberry on the WUM who tries to suggest that everything lions has some ulterior conspiratorial motive because he's sulking about Gtaland's selection.

Gatland has confirmed he and his coaches are biased towards their current nations players and are unable to judge and argue based on players.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Gatland has confirmed he and his coaches are biased towards their current nations players and are unable to judge and argue based on players.

Just what I've read. Sure you've said yourself that it's the fault of townsend that more Scottish players weren't chosen? You've changed your mind now?

Straw man

I don't see why Townsend being there or not had any bearing on who was picked. I seriously doubt Gatland invites the Welsh regions coaches to a meeting when he picks the Welsh international team. Likewise I doubt Jones invites every premiership manager round. I'm fairly sure he watches the players play and picks the best ones.

By the way 7.5 you're whole MO on here is so transparent and rather perverse. You make stupid statements such as that above - which are incomplete: judge on player's what exactly? - and then when people challenge you you point out your subjective perceptions of the inconsistencies in their statements and then try and have arguments about points that were never made. You aren't actually interested in the debate more pointing out what you consider to be an inconsistency.

Its pointless and rather sad.

And for the record, what Townsend does has the square root of bugger all to do with what Gatland does so your attempt to promulgate an argument is as usual baseless and frankly boring. Townsend making himself absent from the selection has no bearing on Gatland's bias other than in your own head.

Eh? So you're saying that Gatland/his coaches aren't biased or are? Did you not blame townsend for turning down a job as the reason more s ottish playersxwerent chosen?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Eh? So you're saying that Gatland/his coaches aren't biased or are? Did you not blame townsend for turning down a job as the reason more s ottish playersxwerent chosen?

Straw man.

Yet again for the hard of learning. Townsend chose not to been the tour and was therefore not able to argue the case for Scots players,
Gatland is on the tour and his biases are not affected by Townsend's absence.

We're done here straw man.

Cos you're kinda caught between 2 wums. Fair enough see ya.

And you are nothing but WUM straw man.

Is it a wum to call out inconsistencies? I suppose if you find yourself getting annoyed: yes. Do I mind jn this case? Not so much.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Is it a wum to call out inconsistencies? I suppose if you find yourself getting annoyed: yes. Do I mind jn this case? Not so much.

The only consistent thing about you is that you engage in straw man arguments to meet some deep manipulative need to point out what you think are inconsistencies.

Gregor Townsend has no bearing on Gatland's bias, perceived or otherwise. Are you incapable of understanding that?

Fair enough. Just go back to gatland himself saying he and his coaching staff are biased and thus I assume gatland will believe that Farrell and Borthwick are biased towards owen Farrell. Do you think he'll just go with the bias or go hard against it? Or just ignore it?

Glad you finally got it but your obsession with bias suggests you don't really understand it. You are referring to negativity bias.
Everyone including you has biases - Townsend included. Or, are you suggesting his presence would have been the single tartan voice of non biased reason?!
What he would have provided is balance and I believe a Lions coaching staff you always have a rep from each nation. Human nature is to use bias to assist decision making. Often such biases are autonomic and not consciously made which is called prejudice.
Its not always unhelpful or, as I imagine it is for you, full of pejorative meaning that bias eases your cognition.
I do not believe Gatland et al dismissed Scots players out of hand - why Laidlaw over Care - I think their advocate didn't take the opportunity to be present to fight their corner.

So you agree with the 1st point. Gatland and his staff are biased. As gatland himself said.

I think the person who is most biased regarding this is you.

If the is all some biased conspiracy then Townsend's presence would have just mean't more bias. The Power of Four bias.

I think you're biased against bias and rather ignorant, that it's really boring because you won't/can't differentiate between what you think bias is and what it really is and what has happened in this case

All in the rather pointless pursuit of straw man point scoring, in that at least you're consistent.

I think you're getting a little het up for no reason gwlad. Gatland said he was biased. He said his team was biased. You acknowledge the bias. You just think that Farrell isn't biased in 1 respect and that's to his son. The problem with trying to wum gwlad and nog just making points you agree with is that you end up being inconsistent.

I think you'd like to think I was 'het up' because thats what you like to try and achieve on here but you are of no consequence to me 7.5. I really don't care what you think other than I would like others to recognize you as the straw man you are, who just loves to go around in little circles time after time because your points lead nowhere. Please, go try and haunt someone else its so boring, there's a good chap.

No. I argue what I think and point out where I think others are wrong. Ignore me if you want, that's fine but if you continue to wum so often you end up contradicting yourself.

Likewise if you continue to argue a different point to the point made you can claim you are right about everything and will continue to be a transparent straw man. Grow up.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. I argue what I think and point out where I think others are wrong. Ignore me if you want, that's fine but if you continue to wum so often you end up contradicting yourself.

You're arguing for the sake of it as you always do and you have this unusual habit of just going on and on and on about the most insignificant little details. Get over it.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. I argue what I think and point out where I think others are wrong. Ignore me if you want, that's fine but if you continue to wum so often you end up contradicting yourself.

You're arguing for the sake of it as you always do and you have this unusual habit of just going on and on and on about the most insignificant little details. Get over it.

Chill out lads, we're arguing over very trivial things here.

On Sarries performance at the weekend, I'm not sure if Mako and Itoje covered themselves in too much glory. Good players yes, but each have issues. Mako continually struggles in the scrum, usually when he starts to tire. Itoje just doesn't seem to be hitting the heights of last season. He's giving away a lot of pens and is getting knocked back a fair bit when carrying. I don't think they're realistic starters at this point.

I really don't mind though hammer. If gwlad wants to wum fine just asking him to be consistent.

Kruis was immense though.

Yea, he was outstanding Scott. He's the best lock in the NH imo, we really missed him in the 6N.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I really don't mind though hammer. If gwlad wants to wum fine just asking him to be consistent.

You don't need to infect the boards with a constant stream of garbage.

Cool. Can you give me a list of what you consider as ok to talk about please?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Chill out lads, we're arguing over very trivial things here.

On Sarries performance at the weekend, I'm not sure if Mako and Itoje covered themselves in too much glory. Good players yes, but each have issues. Mako continually struggles in the scrum, usually when he starts to tire. Itoje just doesn't seem to be hitting the heights of last season. He's giving away a lot of pens and is getting knocked back a fair bit when carrying. I don't think they're realistic starters at this point.

Think that's harsh on Mako personally. Clermont are a fantastic scrummaging side and it was continually singled out as a real weapon pre match. Having not watched the game back or looked at the stats I'm ready to be corrected on this, but from memory Sarries completed all their scrums bar one penalty conceded and also gleaned a penalty of their own? Mako isn't a dominant scrummager, but then the NZ scrum isn't a dominant one either. I'm still confident that the Lions can get the upper hand in the scrum with Mako part of the pack.

I watched Itoje closely on Saturday and I agree he didn't have the best of games - missed a few tackles, gave away a stupid penalty in the lineout on their 5m line (why give them an easy out?) and his ruck clearouts and carrying weren't as powerful as you normally see.

He's still young and is an immensely powerful athlete - he'll be a great asset for the Lions but may be more of an impact sub for the tests than a starter.

Mako is a bit of a pot luck type of prop, you just never really know what you'll get from him the scrum. His technique isn't strong and he can really be targeted despite being an obviously powerful guy. I can't see him starting a test, he's more of an impact player really.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I don't see why Townsend being there or not had any bearing on who was picked. I seriously doubt Gatland invites the Welsh regions coaches to a meeting when he picks the Welsh international team. Likewise I doubt Jones invites every premiership manager round. I'm fairly sure he watches the players play and picks the best ones.

Good points, but Gatland isn't Ospreys + Wales coach and Eddie Jones isn't Sarries + England coach, for example.

I don't think for one second Gatland picked a single player because it would avoid a difficult conversation when they meet up in October to prepare for the November tests. I also don't think Gatland rejected Scots to shove it up Townsend for rejecting his Lions call.

However, he has a large population of "data" (experience) when watching Welsh players and a smaller population of data when watching other players. Other players are therefore intrinsically more risky, because they're less known to him.

With Borthwick and Farrell, there is a lot of knowledge being brought in about the English players and Irish players. There was no-one for Scotland to vouch for their consistency e.g. "he's been doing this week in, week out for two years" or fight for the intangibles e.g. "this guy is phenomenal in training, he raises the standards of those around him" - these are things Gatland has less data on and although in the end Gatland might have picked the same squad, there's every chance that a Scottish voice in the set-up may have lead to a few marginal calls going the way of Scottish players.

robbo277 wrote:However, he has a large population of "data" (experience) when watching Welsh players and a smaller population of data when watching other players. Other players are therefore intrinsically more risky, because they're less known to him.

His experience of Welsh players in the last couple of years is that their performance has been declining to the point where they are the lowest ranked Lions nation. So whilst is true that the uncertainty is higher with Welsh players, I fail to see why a high degree of certainty of a mediocre performance warrants selection.

robbo277 wrote:

With Borthwick and Farrell, there is a lot of knowledge being brought in about the English players and Irish players. There was no-one for Scotland to vouch for their consistency e.g. "he's been doing this week in, week out for two years" or fight for the intangibles e.g. "this guy is phenomenal in training, he raises the standards of those around him" - these are things Gatland has less data on and although in the end Gatland might have picked the same squad, there's every chance that a Scottish voice in the set-up may have lead to a few marginal calls going the way of Scottish players.

To be fair a few marginal calls have gone thge way of the scotts, theve ended up with three in rather than none.

robbo277 wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I don't see why Townsend being there or not had any bearing on who was picked. I seriously doubt Gatland invites the Welsh regions coaches to a meeting when he picks the Welsh international team. Likewise I doubt Jones invites every premiership manager round. I'm fairly sure he watches the players play and picks the best ones.

Good points, but Gatland isn't Ospreys + Wales coach and Eddie Jones isn't Sarries + England coach, for example.

I don't think for one second Gatland picked a single player because it would avoid a difficult conversation when they meet up in October to prepare for the November tests. I also don't think Gatland rejected Scots to shove it up Townsend for rejecting his Lions call.

However, he has a large population of "data" (experience) when watching Welsh players and a smaller population of data when watching other players. Other players are therefore intrinsically more risky, because they're less known to him.

With Borthwick and Farrell, there is a lot of knowledge being brought in about the English players and Irish players. There was no-one for Scotland to vouch for their consistency e.g. "he's been doing this week in, week out for two years" or fight for the intangibles e.g. "this guy is phenomenal in training, he raises the standards of those around him" - these are things Gatland has less data on and although in the end Gatland might have picked the same squad, there's every chance that a Scottish voice in the set-up may have lead to a few marginal calls going the way of Scottish players.

While i get that, I think it should not have caused an issue - as all it would take would be a call, a meeting or even 2 to get that sort of information.

Not going on tour should not exclude conversations before hand, and if it did, then it is very shoddy management.

Farrell is the best 10 in the NH.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Chill out lads, we're arguing over very trivial things here.

On Sarries performance at the weekend, I'm not sure if Mako and Itoje covered themselves in too much glory. Good players yes, but each have issues. Mako continually struggles in the scrum, usually when he starts to tire. Itoje just doesn't seem to be hitting the heights of last season. He's giving away a lot of pens and is getting knocked back a fair bit when carrying. I don't think they're realistic starters at this point.

Two players you like to criticise - no surprise you find an excuse to bash both.

Wasn't Itoje's best game but I thought he got himself involved and put in a good shift, not as good as Kruis but Kruis had a very good game.

As for Mako, not sure how you can pan him, his workrate was really good, defensively put in a massive shift and carrying was excellent.

Mako's scrummaging wasn't outstanding but he's not in the team for his scrummaging realistically.

Nice to see George answer his doubters again - put in a good solid shift. Wasnt the best Saracens forward but contributed well when on the field.

Don't forget Brits weakens the scrum when he comes on.

Interesting piece of analysis after the Crusaders managed to shut down the Barrett show on Saturday - note that it was an All Black-stacked tight five that got the win mind, so easier said than done.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/92580905/marc-hinton-crusaders-big-squeeze-shows-warren-gatlands-lions-the-way-forward

I don't like to pan anyone, I'm just being realistic. Mako isn't a good scrummager so I would be adverse to him starting for the Lions, he's an ideal bench option.

Itoje was ok, as he has been all season....ok.

I also said Kruis was outstanding but that doesn't fit in well with your point of Sarries bashing.

Gwlad wrote:I think the person who is most biased regarding this is you.

If the is all some biased conspiracy then Townsend's presence would have just mean't more bias. The Power of Four bias.

I think you're biased against bias and rather ignorant, that it's really boring because you won't/can't differentiate between what you think bias is and what it really is and what has happened in this case

All in the rather pointless pursuit of straw man point scoring, in that at least you're consistent.

A truly pathetic individual defending the indefensible

Ffs gatland picked more welsh players than irish and ireland are 4th ranked and wales 9th. Thats not a small margin.

If thats not more evidence of bias i dont know what is.

Wales shouldnt have had more than 5 or 6 and everyone else a couple more players.

Debate over.