British & Irish Lions Squad 2017

by Guest Tue 09 May 2017, 1:27 pm

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.

by marty2086 Mon 22 May 2017, 12:22 pm

beshocked wrote: That's why Ireland have only picked Stander at 8 when Heaslip has been injured... as cover....

Bergamasco is a 9 based on your logic, same with Monye being a full back.

So Schmidt has had Stander acting as cover for a couple of years by your logic.....

Was cover when he got his hattrick vs Ireland and when beating the ABs. Can't say I've ever heard of a player covering for such a long time....

He's a specialist 8 honest... despite barely playing there for Ireland......

Marty a player needs to prove themselves in a different position yes. Not just 1 game or 2. Doesn't take 1 game to start claiming to be a specialist!

Well no obviously not because Farrell will have still played numerous games as a 10. Not 1 or 2.

Actually its by your logic Bergamasco is a specialist 9, Stander plays at 8 for Munster

He plays 6 for Ireland because that's where he is needed, POM wasn't available at 6 and Henderson was needed in the second row so Ireland were short at 6. With everyone available we don't know where Joe selects Stander but we know where he needed him

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon 22 May 2017, 12:25 pm

Stander for me has always been an 8, he's at his most effective IMO when picking up from the base of the scrum.

Ireland's (and by extension Schmidt's) obsession with Heaslip is the issue here, not whether or not Stander is an 8 or a 6.

He gets played at 8 by Munster who's backrow is absolutely ferocious. Personally I think a backrow of POM, O'Brien and Stander is Ireland's best backrow combo.

Now that Billy is out I'd say POM, Warbs and Stander would be the Lions best backrow unless you want Faletau's ball playing abilities at 8. In that case I'd play Stander at 6, Warbs at 7 and Faletau at 8, and you always have the powerful ball carrying option in the loose if needed.

However what POM brings in the lineout and at the breakdown outweighs what Faletau brings with the ball in hand.

It all depends on how Gat's wants to play up front. He has the players to pick a fast open game or the players to play the power game and dominate the set piece. Its nice to have options.

by munkian Mon 22 May 2017, 12:26 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
GunsGermsV2 wrote:Beshocked you are bit a bit silly yourself. Stander has always as far as I know played number 8 in club/provincial rugby etc. In his career to date that has been his specialist position.

He has played most his games for Ireland at 6 but like a lot of back row forwards he can slot in at more than one position.

Same with Liam Williams. He's played more on the wing for Wales than he has at full back, but that doesn't mean he's a winger / not a full back.

He's nailed on at 10 after those penalties against Leinster.

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon 22 May 2017, 12:30 pm

munkian wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
GunsGermsV2 wrote:Beshocked you are bit a bit silly yourself. Stander has always as far as I know played number 8 in club/provincial rugby etc. In his career to date that has been his specialist position.

He has played most his games for Ireland at 6 but like a lot of back row forwards he can slot in at more than one position.

Same with Liam Williams. He's played more on the wing for Wales than he has at full back, but that doesn't mean he's a winger / not a full back.

He's nailed on at 10 after those penalties against Leinster.

Again this obsession with a 10 having to take place kicks.

Halfpenny bangs them over from 15, Laidlaw and Parra bang them over at 9.

And John Eales! It was great to see a lock bang over penalties and conversions. He's the highest scoring forward in test rugby history! heart

Why don't we see more forwards taking place kicks?

by Scottrf Mon 22 May 2017, 12:31 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Why don't we see more forwards taking place kicks?

Because forwards are fat and have no skill?

by beshocked Mon 22 May 2017, 12:32 pm

eirebilly supposedly the best no 8 Ireland have produced and yet he's way down the pecking order for the Lions?

I think that's an understatement saying CJ Stander hasn't let anyone down to be honest.

Playing 8 for Munster isn't the same as starting for Ireland.

Has POM be permanently injured the last 2 years then?

Well yes I am correct when it comes to international rugby.

If I think people are foolish for completely ignoring the bleeding obvious that almost all of Stander's caps have been at 6 for Ireland I'll say it.

It's called ignoring evidence.

Stander has played no 8 for Munster but Munster is not Ireland.

Stander hasn't been warming the 6 shirt for POM, he's been playing well in that position.

My initial point was Stander isn't a specialist 8 which he can't claim to be when basically all his caps and success I should add has been at 6. Even if it's because of an injury to another player, it's irrelevant.

Injury is generally how players move up the pecking order and CJ Stander is a key man for Ireland, and it's been primarily at 6.

Heaslip has been at 8 no matter how you want to twist history.

It does not matter why, Stander is playing 6, he is the one who was playing at 6 when Ireland defeated NZ, when he scored a hattrick vs Italy etc.

As far as Schmidt is concerned Heaslip has been his go to no 8 with Stander his go to 6 in the circumstances. It's what has largely worked for Ireland.

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 22 May 2017, 12:36 pm

I'm not sure how you can be a specialist 8 at club level and a specialist 6 at International level.

by eirebilly Mon 22 May 2017, 12:40 pm

Yes beshocked, I do believe that Heaslip is one of the best 8's Ireland have ever produced, he has also represented the Lions... He is out injured at the moment and in Vunipola and Falatau, Gatland had better options. CJ's selection (for me) was down to his versatility.

I do not agree with Heaslip starting at 8 ahead of CJ for Ireland but that is down to Schmidt's game planning, not CJ's ability to play 8. I am sure CJ will be Irelands starting 8 very soon.

Its a credit to CJ's skill and versatility that he was able to cover 6 for the duration of POM's injury (yes it was long term).

His whole career has been as a specialist 8 that could cover 6 very well. That he has limited experience playing internationally at 8 does not mean he is not a specialist 8.

by beshocked Mon 22 May 2017, 12:42 pm

I've never claimed Stander is a specialist. Gooseberry did.

I see him as primarily a 6 at international who can cover 8. At club level, he's an 8 who can cover 6.

It's where he's played most of his rugby in both circumstances. In the context of the Lions he's got much more experience at 6 at international level but can cover 8. With only 1-2 games at 8 he's still mostly unproven in that particular position.

You can pretend he's an 8 if you want but it's not where the national coach of Ireland has primarily picked him.

He's his 2nd choice 8 but 1st choice 6.

Difference between Stander and Farrell is that Farrell has played many games now at both 10 and 12. He's not a specialist either.

Specialist no 8s are the likes of Billy Vunipola and Toby Faletau.

By the definition of specialist - Stander is clearly not a specialist, he is versatile but at international level so far his bread and butter has been at 6.

He must play more at 8 for Ireland, it's simple as that. He might well in the future but not yet.

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon 22 May 2017, 12:45 pm

eirebilly wrote:Yes beshocked, I do believe that Heaslip is one of the best 8's Ireland have ever produced, he has also represented the Lions... He is out injured at the moment and in Vunipola and Falatau, Gatland had better options. CJ's selection (for me) was down to his versatility.

I do not agree with Heaslip starting at 8 ahead of CJ for Ireland but that is down to Schmidt's game planning, not CJ's ability to play 8. I am sure CJ will be Irelands starting 8 very soon.

Its a credit to CJ's skill and versatility that he was able to cover 6 for duration of POM's injury (yes it was long term).

His whole career has been as a specialist 8 that could cover 6 very well. That he has limited experience playing internationally at 8 does not mean he is not a specialist 8.

Some backrow forwards have a complete skill set.

John Barclay is an openside, that's where his skills suit him best. However he has played across the backrow for club and country. He Captains Scotland from 6, mainly because Watson is a pure 7, however he just captained the Scarlets to the pro 12 final from no.8.

I'm not sure why Stander playing at 6 for Ireland is a problem? He know how to play 8 and will probably have Murray as his 9, so the Munster synergy at the back of the scrum is another plus for the Lions surely?

Does this quantify having an argument in an empty room because I'm not sure what point is trying to be made and by whom...

by No 7&1/2 Mon 22 May 2017, 12:45 pm

So he's not a specialised 8 as he can play 6. And in this thread it's only about internationals and in the england thread it's important to count club games.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 22 May 2017, 12:48 pm

Brings up the point that Daly isn't a centre either.

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon 22 May 2017, 12:51 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Brings up the point that Daly isn't a centre either.

Ant Watson isn't a Winger either. Nor is Williams a Fullback... by this logic anyway.

The way I see it, the Lions will lose a massive ammount of players on this tour. Expect more of this kind of debate as the tour continues... Rolling Eyes

by beshocked Mon 22 May 2017, 12:52 pm

No 7 & 1/2 you still have difficulty understanding. I seriously do not know why. I feel that I have been very clear.

Stander has only played a very few games at 8 for Ireland - maybe 1-2 with all the rest at 6.

Yet supposedly he's a specialist no 8? Makes no sense.

Stander hasn't just played 6, he's played it to a high standard and has been picked as a 6 instead of an 8.

ruggerradge my initial point was with Billy injured we only have 1 specialist no 8 - Faletau.

Gooseberry said no, Stander is a specialist no 8 - I have been using evidence to show this not true.

Stander is not a proven quantity at no 8 at international level with only 1-2 games with almost all his rugby coming as a 6.

no 7 & 1/2

Daly isn't really proven at international level in the centres for England so don't pretend he is.

You need to play sufficient games.

Daly is being picked as a winger not a centre.

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 22 May 2017, 12:54 pm

David Pocock is a specialist openside who plays number 8 to accommodate Michael Hooper.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 22 May 2017, 12:54 pm

No I get your point. Daly is a specialised winger isn't he?

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Mon 22 May 2017, 12:56 pm

beshocked wrote:eirebilly supposedly the best no 8 Ireland have produced and yet he's way down the pecking order for the Lions?
Looking at his whole career he's Ireland's best 8. Just a little bit past it now, and injured out of Lions' consideration

I think that's an understatement saying CJ Stander hasn't let anyone down to be honest.
Can't say that I've ever seen him let anyone down

Playing 8 for Munster isn't the same as starting for Ireland.

Has POM be permanently injured the last 2 years then?
he's missed a lot

Well yes I am correct when it comes to international rugby.

If I think people are foolish for completely ignoring the bleeding obvious that almost all of Stander's caps have been at 6 for Ireland I'll say it.

It's called ignoring evidence.
something you're also guilty of.

Stander has played no 8 for Munster but Munster is not Ireland.
True. Otoh Farrell is playing decently at 10 (this weekend excepted) for Saracens, and has been filling in at 12 for yonks for England - for about as long as Stander has been filling in at 6 for Ireland

Stander hasn't been warming the 6 shirt for POM, he's been playing well in that position.
he's been warming the 6 shirt for POM and playing well in that position. Like Farrell at 12

My initial point was Stander isn't a specialist 8 which he can't claim to be when basically all his caps and success I should add has been at 6. Even if it's because of an injury to another player, it's irrelevant.
he's a specialist 8 who's also a very good 6. Like Farrell is a specialist 10 who's also a decent 12

Moriarty is a 6 who's been filling in at 8 for Wales. But one look at his stat tells you he's playing mostly a 6's role

Injury is generally how players move up the pecking order and CJ Stander is a key man for Ireland, and it's been primarily at 6.
Primarily yes. Doesn't mean he's not even better at 8. And when he has played 8 for Ireland they've looked better for it this year than with both him and Heaslip in the same trio

Heaslip has been at 8 no matter how you want to twist history.

It does not matter why, Stander is playing 6, he is the one who was playing at 6 when Ireland defeated NZ, when he scored a hat-trick vs Italy etc.

As far as Schmidt is concerned Heaslip has been his go to no 8 with Stander his go to 6 in the circumstances. It's what has largely worked for Ireland.
Schmidt is notoriously conservative when it comes to dropping his favourites

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Mon 22 May 2017, 12:58 pm

beshocked wrote:...

Gooseberry said no, Stander is a specialist no 8 - I have been using evidence to show this not true.

...

... and ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary. Take the blinkers off mate.

by **LondonTiger** Mon 22 May 2017, 12:59 pm

OK, trying to get this right in my head.

Stander is a specialist 8 being played out of position by Schmidt at 6.
Haskell is a specialist 6 being played out of position by Jones at 7.
Moriarty is a specialist 6 being played out of position by Howley at 8.
Warburton is a specialist 7 being played out of position by Howley at 6.
Itoje is a specialist 4 being played out of position by Jones at 6.
Henderson is a specialist something, being played out of position somewhere by someone.
SOB is a non-specialist back-rower, being played wherever he wants.
Mako is a specialsit centre being palyed out of position at 1.
Sinckler is a specialist 10 being played out of position at 3.

Daly is a specialist 13 being played out of position by Jones at 11.
Williams is a specialist 15 being played out of position by Howley at 11.
Payne is a specialist 15 being played out of position by Schmidt at 13.
Hogg is a ... nah giving up now.

by beshocked Mon 22 May 2017, 12:59 pm

No 7 & 1/2 you really are struggling aren't you.

Most of Daly's caps for England have been as a winger so he's picked as a winger. He's not sufficiently proven yet in other positions at international level.

Hammersmith Harrier hasn't Pocock played a lot of rugby in both positions? He is experienced in both.

Pete C what evidence am I ignoring?

Please do tell.

by marty2086 Mon 22 May 2017, 1:00 pm

beshocked wrote:No 7 & 1/2 you still have difficulty understanding. I seriously do not know why. I feel that I have been very clear.

Stander has only played a very few games at 8 for Ireland - maybe 1-2 with all the rest at 6.

Yet supposedly he's a specialist no 8? Makes no sense.

Stander hasn't just played 6, he's played it to a high standard and has been picked as a 6 instead of an 8.

ruggerradge my initial point was with Billy injured we only have 1 specialist no 8 - Faletau.

Gooseberry said no, Stander is a specialist no 8 - I have been using evidence to show this not true.

Stander is not a proven quantity at no 8 at international level with only 1-2 games with almost all his rugby coming as a 6.

beshocked you are the one having difficulty understanding, Stander was needed at 6 because Ireland were short there, if Ireland had all their 6s available there is no guarantee that Stander plays there is also no guarantee that Heaslip plays. Ireland needed both Stander and Heaslip, come November with POM available with Stander and Heaslip we could see Heaslip miss out

by No 7&1/2 Mon 22 May 2017, 1:01 pm

Yup I am struggling. Why don't you just stop digging and accept what everyone else is saying?

by robbo277 Mon 22 May 2017, 1:01 pm

beshocked wrote:eirebilly supposedly the best no 8 Ireland have produced and yet he's way down the pecking order for the Lions?

I think that's an understatement saying CJ Stander hasn't let anyone down to be honest.

Playing 8 for Munster isn't the same as starting for Ireland.

Has POM be permanently injured the last 2 years then?

Well yes I am correct when it comes to international rugby.

If I think people are foolish for completely ignoring the bleeding obvious that almost all of Stander's caps have been at 6 for Ireland I'll say it.

It's called ignoring evidence.

Stander has played no 8 for Munster but Munster is not Ireland.

Stander hasn't been warming the 6 shirt for POM, he's been playing well in that position.

My initial point was Stander isn't a specialist 8 which he can't claim to be when basically all his caps and success I should add has been at 6. Even if it's because of an injury to another player, it's irrelevant.

Injury is generally how players move up the pecking order and CJ Stander is a key man for Ireland, and it's been primarily at 6.

Heaslip has been at 8 no matter how you want to twist history.

It does not matter why, Stander is playing 6, he is the one who was playing at 6 when Ireland defeated NZ, when he scored a hattrick vs Italy etc.

As far as Schmidt is concerned Heaslip has been his go to no 8 with Stander his go to 6 in the circumstances. It's what has largely worked for Ireland.

I regularly switch between 6, 7 and 8 for my club. A summary of the differences:

At 8, you have to control the ball at the base of the scrum.

That's it.

There's nothing specifically in the roles that are different, other than that.

The roles are determined by balance. The simplest one is the line-out. If you play at 8 and are usually the 4th choice jumper and the 3rd choice jumper is replaced by a lump, you're going to take more line-out ball. No-one has changed your position or your role, you will just be used more in the line-out.

Similarly, if you are a ball carrying 8 that usually plays with a tackling 6 and a groundhog 7 and you move to 6 to make room for another ball carrying 8 you may find you make fewer carries and more tackles, because you're sharing the carrying duties but picking up the slack for the missing tackler. That's more to do with the players you are playing with, not the number on your back.

If Stander is a successful International back row and is capable of controlling the ball at the base of the scrum at club level, I don't think it is a wild leap to say that he would make a successful International number 8, because he has demonstrated all the required attributes and futhermore all but one of the required attributes at International level.

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon 22 May 2017, 1:04 pm

beshocked wrote:No 7 & 1/2 you still have difficulty understanding. I seriously do not know why. I feel that I have been very clear.

Stander has only played a very few games at 8 for Ireland - maybe 1-2 with all the rest at 6.

Yet supposedly he's a specialist no 8? Makes no sense.

Stander hasn't just played 6, he's played it to a high standard and has been picked as a 6 instead of an 8.

ruggerradge my initial point was with Billy injured we only have 1 specialist no 8 - Faletau.

Gooseberry said no, Stander is a specialist no 8 - I have been using evidence to show this not true.

Stander is not a proven quantity at no 8 at international level with only 1-2 games with almost all his rugby coming as a 6.

no 7 & 1/2

Daly isn't really proven at international level in the centres for England so don't pretend he is.

You need to play sufficient games.

Daly is being picked as a winger not a centre.

We have one specialist 8, by your yard stick and your opinion. Nothing more.

Since you like using Facts, Stander is an effective number 8 and has been so for a few years playing for Munster at number 8. Stander to me is a specialist 8, he plays like a specialist 8, his powerful ball carrying is an example.

by BamBam Mon 22 May 2017, 1:06 pm

lostinwales wrote:
BamBam wrote:Can some Munster/Ireland fans please head this off and correct BS before this is dragged out for the next 3 days/weeks/months

Good luck with that

Ah.

Well I tried angel

by beshocked Mon 22 May 2017, 1:11 pm

marty it doesn't matter whether he was needed at or not - Stander has played at 6 basically his entire international career - FACT.

Ifs and buts - doesn't matter. It's what has happened. Yes Ireland needed both Stander and Heaslip - I am talking about what has happened.

I am the one using evidence.

Can't predict what will happen in the future but as of now Stander has played almost all his rugby at 6 at international level - FACT.

pete C you seem to be another who doesn't understand the difference between Farrell and Stander?

Why is it so difficult to understand?

Farrell has played numerous games at 10 and 12, not 1-2 games in 1 position like Stander.

So beating NZ with Stander at 6 isn't good enough? Nah mate he's just cover for the god like POM.....

Schmidt might be conservative but he's in charge of a strong Ireland side and Stander has contributed well - as primarily a 6.

Stander might well be the best no 8 in the world when Schmidt picks him there consistently but he hasn't yet.

That's what ultimately it comes down to - Stander is proven to be a good 6 at international level but still unproven at 8. He might well move to 8 but hasn't yet.

You are talking about future and what if's. I am talking about what has actually happened in the real world, not some made up fantasy where Stander has been crushing opposition wearing the no 8 shirt for Ireland.

He played well in 1 game vs England but it's 1 game and he was technically cover.

robbo277 Stander isn't proven at 8 though for Ireland.

ruggerradge club level isn't international level.

It's not my opinion - it's a fact that Stander has only played 1-2 games at international level at 8, it's a fact that primarily all his game time has been at 6 with another player wearing 8 for Ireland.

You can disagree with the evidence but it's clearly there.

by Geordie Mon 22 May 2017, 1:15 pm

Haskell has played a lot at 8 Very Happy

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon 22 May 2017, 1:18 pm

beshocked wrote:marty it doesn't matter whether he was needed at or not - Stander has played at 6 basically his entire international career - FACT.

Ifs and buts - doesn't matter. It's what has happened. Yes Ireland needed both Stander and Heaslip - I am talking about what has happened.

I am the one using evidence.

Can't predict what will happen in the future but as of now Stander has played almost all his rugby at 6 at international level - FACT.

pete C you seem to be another who doesn't understand the difference between Farrell and Stander?

Why is it so difficult to understand?

Farrell has played numerous games at 10 and 12, not 1-2 games in 1 position like Stander.

So beating NZ with Stander at 6 isn't good enough? Nah mate he's just cover for the god like POM.....

Schmidt might be conservative but he's in charge of a strong Ireland side and Stander has contributed well - as primarily a 6.

Stander might well be the best no 8 in the world when Schmidt picks him there consistently but he hasn't yet.

That's what ultimately it comes down to - Stander is proven to be a good 6 at international level but still unproven at 8. He might well move to 8 but hasn't yet.

You are talking about future and what if's. I am talking about what has actually happened in the real world, not some made up fantasy where Stander has been crushing opposition wearing the no 8 shirt for Ireland.

He played well in 1 game vs England but it's 1 game and he was technically cover.

robbo277 Stander isn't proven at 8 though for Ireland.

ruggerradge club level isn't international level.

It's not my opinion - it's a fact that Stander has only played 1-2 games at international level at 8, it's a fact that primarily all his game time has been at 6 with another player wearing 8 for Ireland.

You can disagree with the evidence but it's clearly there.

So?

That means we can't play Farrell at 10.

It's been far too long since he has played 10 at international level. Ford has been flyhalf since Jones took over.

That is executing your logic in team selection. Hogg had never played 10 at international level before but filled in there twice for the Lions 4 years ago!

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Mon 22 May 2017, 1:20 pm

beshocked wrote:No 7 & 1/2 you really are struggling aren't you.

Most of Daly's caps for England have been as a winger so he's picked as a winger. He's not sufficiently proven yet in other positions at international level.

Hammersmith Harrier hasn't Pocock played a lot of rugby in both positions? He is experienced in both.

Pete C what evidence am I ignoring?

Please do tell.

Have you read any of the posts disagreeing with you above? There's a host of evidence. You're ignoring it and repeating your initial point, based on a somewhat limited knowledge of the player (based on your statements above I assume you haven't watched him play for Munster). People who know more about Irish rugby than you do are providing facts, and you're sticking your fingers in your ears and reciting your own mantra.

1) Stander plays primarily 8 for Munster - i.e. most of his rugby. He's won a phenomenal number of MOTM awards at 8 for Munster this season.
2) Heaslip was the established 8 for Ireland until very recently - while he's not the player he was 3 years ago Schmidt is a very loyal selector
3) Stander got his chance for Ireland due to POM being injured, meaning he was asked to fill in at 6. Something he's done quite well as he's a very good player and (note this) there's a lot of overlap in job descriptions for a 6 and an 8 - his one weakness at 6 is probably in the lineout, where you'd have liked him to be a bit taller to be a jumping option. Had POM not been injured it's likely Stander would have been benching for Ireland - despite the fact that he's probably a better 8 than Heaslip is at this late point in Heaslip's career (See numerous notes re. Schmidt and excessive loyalty)
4) In the 6N Ireland's back row looked a little unbalanced with both Heaslip and Stander starting. They got away with it a lot as Wales also lacked back row balance, and Italy were rubbish. Craig Gilroy scored a 20 minute hat trick verse them and he can't make the Irish squad minus their Lions now. POM/SOB/Stander as 6/7/8 looked much better balance wise vs England.

On Pocock, he's played the vast majority of his rugby at 7. He's only been at 8 because Australia want to shoehorn their 2 world class #7s into the starting XV, and they lack a really good #8

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Mon 22 May 2017, 1:23 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
beshocked wrote:marty it doesn't matter whether he was needed at or not - Stander has played at 6 basically his entire international career - FACT.

Ifs and buts - doesn't matter. It's what has happened. Yes Ireland needed both Stander and Heaslip - I am talking about what has happened.

I am the one using evidence.

Can't predict what will happen in the future but as of now Stander has played almost all his rugby at 6 at international level - FACT.

pete C you seem to be another who doesn't understand the difference between Farrell and Stander?

Why is it so difficult to understand?

Farrell has played numerous games at 10 and 12, not 1-2 games in 1 position like Stander.

So beating NZ with Stander at 6 isn't good enough? Nah mate he's just cover for the god like POM.....

Schmidt might be conservative but he's in charge of a strong Ireland side and Stander has contributed well - as primarily a 6.

Stander might well be the best no 8 in the world when Schmidt picks him there consistently but he hasn't yet.

That's what ultimately it comes down to - Stander is proven to be a good 6 at international level but still unproven at 8. He might well move to 8 but hasn't yet.

You are talking about future and what if's. I am talking about what has actually happened in the real world, not some made up fantasy where Stander has been crushing opposition wearing the no 8 shirt for Ireland.

He played well in 1 game vs England but it's 1 game and he was technically cover.

robbo277 Stander isn't proven at 8 though for Ireland.

ruggerradge club level isn't international level.

It's not my opinion - it's a fact that Stander has only played 1-2 games at international level at 8, it's a fact that primarily all his game time has been at 6 with another player wearing 8 for Ireland.

You can disagree with the evidence but it's clearly there.

So?

That means we can't play Farrell at 10.

It's been far too long since he has played 10 at international level. Ford has been flyhalf since Jones took over.

That is executing your logic in team selection. Hogg had never played 10 at international level before but filled in there twice for the Lions 4 years ago!

And frankly Farrell wouldn't get a start at 10 for the Crusaders, Chiefs, Hurricanes or Highlanders in Super Rugby. He'd probably get a start at 12 in a couple of those sides

by Scottrf Mon 22 May 2017, 1:25 pm

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:And frankly Farrell wouldn't get a start at 10 for the Crusaders, Chiefs, Hurricanes or Highlanders in Super Rugby. He'd probably get a start at 12 in a couple of those sides

And that's why they kick at 60%.

by **George Carlin** Mon 22 May 2017, 1:27 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Stander for me has always been an 8, he's at his most effective IMO when picking up from the base of the scrum.

Ireland's (and by extension Schmidt's) obsession with Heaslip is the issue here, not whether or not Stander is an 8 or a 6.

British & Irish Lions Squad 2017 - Page 10 Norris

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Mon 22 May 2017, 1:29 pm

Scottrf wrote:
Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:And frankly Farrell wouldn't get a start at 10 for the Crusaders, Chiefs, Hurricanes or Highlanders in Super Rugby. He'd probably get a start at 12 in a couple of those sides

And that's why they kick at 60%.

And still score 30+ points a match

by Scottrf Mon 22 May 2017, 1:29 pm

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:And frankly Farrell wouldn't get a start at 10 for the Crusaders, Chiefs, Hurricanes or Highlanders in Super Rugby. He'd probably get a start at 12 in a couple of those sides

And that's why they kick at 60%.

And still score 30+ points a match

Shows how weak the defences are.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Mon 22 May 2017, 1:33 pm

Scottrf wrote:
Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:And frankly Farrell wouldn't get a start at 10 for the Crusaders, Chiefs, Hurricanes or Highlanders in Super Rugby. He'd probably get a start at 12 in a couple of those sides

And that's why they kick at 60%.

And still score 30+ points a match

Shows how weak the defences are.

Dry pitches and sublime attack driven by greater ball-playing skills rather than NH gym-monkeys running into each other. Granted on defense the focus tends to be different because teams know how good the attack is, so focus on trying covering the breaks they know will happen, as well as being set up for turn overs and counters.

by SamTheQuin Mon 22 May 2017, 1:34 pm

Farrell wouldn't get a start for a NZ s15 franchise. Not sure I would agree with that one. Been great for Sarries in attack this season and can actually kick goals too.

by EST Mon 22 May 2017, 1:37 pm

I cant believe we are debating if Stander can play at 8, or that Farrell wouldn't get a start for a s15 franchise.

He is better than Richie Mo'unga, Sopoaga, Francis and Banks.

by marty2086 Mon 22 May 2017, 1:39 pm

Scottrf wrote:
Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:And frankly Farrell wouldn't get a start at 10 for the Crusaders, Chiefs, Hurricanes or Highlanders in Super Rugby. He'd probably get a start at 12 in a couple of those sides

And that's why they kick at 60%.

Position doesn't define who kicks though

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon 22 May 2017, 1:43 pm

GREAT SCOTT MARTY2086

marty2086 wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:And frankly Farrell wouldn't get a start at 10 for the Crusaders, Chiefs, Hurricanes or Highlanders in Super Rugby. He'd probably get a start at 12 in a couple of those sides

And that's why they kick at 60%.

Position doesn't define who kicks though

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
munkian wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
GunsGermsV2 wrote:Beshocked you are bit a bit silly yourself. Stander has always as far as I know played number 8 in club/provincial rugby etc. In his career to date that has been his specialist position.

He has played most his games for Ireland at 6 but like a lot of back row forwards he can slot in at more than one position.

Same with Liam Williams. He's played more on the wing for Wales than he has at full back, but that doesn't mean he's a winger / not a full back.

He's nailed on at 10 after those penalties against Leinster.

Again this obsession with a 10 having to take place kicks.

Halfpenny bangs them over from 15, Laidlaw and Parra bang them over at 9.

And John Eales! It was great to see a lock bang over penalties and conversions. He's the highest scoring forward in test rugby history!

Why don't we see more forwards taking place kicks?

the superconducting 606v2 flux capacitor powered loop is now complete. We can now send this thread back to the future!

by Hammersmith harrier Mon 22 May 2017, 1:43 pm

Scottrf wrote:
Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:And frankly Farrell wouldn't get a start at 10 for the Crusaders, Chiefs, Hurricanes or Highlanders in Super Rugby. He'd probably get a start at 12 in a couple of those sides

And that's why they kick at 60%.

Seems a growing trend that no NH player would get a start for any NZ franchise, embarrassing that a couple of injuries destroyed them against Ireland really.

by Scottrf Mon 22 May 2017, 1:44 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:And frankly Farrell wouldn't get a start at 10 for the Crusaders, Chiefs, Hurricanes or Highlanders in Super Rugby. He'd probably get a start at 12 in a couple of those sides

And that's why they kick at 60%.

Position doesn't define who kicks though

But if you don't have any decent kickers, adding an 80% kicker is useful.

Please stop following my posts to disagree. It's getting boring.

by TJ Mon 22 May 2017, 1:47 pm

SamTheQuin wrote:Farrell wouldn't get a start for a NZ s15 franchise. Not sure I would agree with that one. Been great for Sarries in attack this season and can actually kick goals too.

IIRC his goal kicking % was the worst of the 10s in the 6N

by Scottrf Mon 22 May 2017, 1:51 pm

TJ wrote:
SamTheQuin wrote:Farrell wouldn't get a start for a NZ s15 franchise. Not sure I would agree with that one. Been great for Sarries in attack this season and can actually kick goals too.

IIRC his goal kicking % was the worst of the 10s in the 6N

786/936 is still an 84% kicker. It's less relevant if you just take a few games as it can be swayed by harder kicks, wind or a off-day.

http://rugby.statbunker.com/players/getPlayerStats?player_id=25337

by Gooseberry Mon 22 May 2017, 1:51 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:Haskell has played a lot at 8

Well according to Beshocked definition hes more of an 8 than Stander is having started 7 tests there.

Which shows how daft Beshockeds derfinition is.

It is fair though to say that the Lions only have one experienced test 8 in the squad. And that Standers lack of power should be a concern if they are looking at the likes of Warburton and POM at flanker.

Without getting into the pedantry of what Beshocked initially posted and what hes now claiming he meant it doesnt change that Stander isnt an A grade option for the Lions. He is however the only other player who plays most of his rugby at 8 in the squad. That he offers cover for 6 is a bonus for a bench player.

by carpet baboon Mon 22 May 2017, 1:59 pm

Hang on. Using beshocked logic George can only be a sub as that's where he has started all his tests.

by eirebilly Mon 22 May 2017, 2:02 pm

One major concern for me for the Lions is at 10. Sexton is a very targeted player and picks up injuries very quickly now. Biggar, to me, is not good enough at 10 to trouble the AB's so that pretty much leaves Farrell. A very good player but I am not convinced he is attacking enough to ignite a back line to compete with the AB's.

I actually really rate Russell and Paddy Jackson as they play a more attacking style which would trouble the AB's. Honestly felt that Russell deserved selection.

by Exiledinborders Mon 22 May 2017, 2:14 pm

eirebilly wrote:One major concern for me for the Lions is at 10. Sexton is a very targeted player and picks up injuries very quickly now. Biggar, to me, is not good enough at 10 to trouble the AB's so that pretty much leaves Farrell. A very good player but I am not convinced he is attacking enough to ignite a back line to compete with the AB's.

I actually really rate Russell and Paddy Jackson as they play a more attacking style which would trouble the AB's. Honestly felt that Russell deserved selection.

Sarries score plenty of tries.

I think too many people judge Farrell as a ten based on his international play of a few years ago when he was playing in a piss poor England team and he was very inexperienced.

by Guest Mon 22 May 2017, 2:20 pm

Scottrf wrote:
beshocked wrote:Gooseberry Sorry but that's a load of codswallop.

Really? So why was his first cap at 6? His position vs NZ in their victory at 6. When scoring his hattrick vs Italy at 6.

Vs Wales this year at 6.

Only vs England did he start at 8 because Heaslip was injured.

Tour of SA - Stander played 6.

Think you'll find most his caps if not all have been at 6.

He's a 6 who can cover 8 not the other way round.

I am talking about internationals by the way.

Most of Itoje's caps have been at lock so yes he's clearly a lock.

My point is Stander is still unproven at 8 mostly at international level.

Forget the number on his back, watch him play, you really think he's a 6?

Likewise the discussions around Moriarty at 8.

I'm not quite sure why he's received so much criticism/aversion to him being picked on this page, at least. He was the best player on the pitch against England, and though wearing 8, was clearly playing as what we'd understand to be a blindside flanker.

I think we have to consider the carrying units in the back 5 of the pack, rather than the back row itself. That's why I feel Lawes has a real chance of starting, or at least doing 'better than expected' on this tour, because of the fact that he allows experimentation with his lock partner and/or the back row.

by TJ Mon 22 May 2017, 2:21 pm

eirebilly wrote:One major concern for me for the Lions is at 10. Sexton is a very targeted player and picks up injuries very quickly now. Biggar, to me, is not good enough at 10 to trouble the AB's so that pretty much leaves Farrell. A very good player but I am not convinced he is attacking enough to ignite a back line to compete with the AB's.

I actually really rate Russell and Paddy Jackson as they play a more attacking style which would trouble the AB's. Honestly felt that Russell deserved selection.

Its not just Farrell is not good enough at attacking - its that his game can go to pieces when he is under pressure like at the weekend.

However despite being huge Russell fan I wouldn't have taken him. Makes too many mistakes, gets too flustered at times and without familiar players around him he would be much less useful and he is not going to get the scots 7/8/12/13 to play with

Lions need a more conventional player given how little time they have to gel.

10 does remain a real issue and probably the weakest area for the lions. I hope Sexton is fit but if not I'd go for Biaggar with Farrell as sub - but the other way round would not lose yo much

by Gooseberry Mon 22 May 2017, 2:22 pm

eirebilly wrote:A very good player but I am not convinced he is attacking enough to ignite a back line to compete with the AB's.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/20534229

Farell was also starting 10 in two away tests in NZ which England lost by 3 and 1 points, as good as any NH tour side has managed there. The tries all came through the backs...inclduing one form Yarde who as we know from another thread isnt good enough to play for England.

Whilst conventional wisom would have it that hes rubbish and dull England have actually had a pretty decent number of tries through the backs against NZ when hes been starting 10.

Whereas Sexton oversaw the 60-0 drubbing (OK and the win of course but for the purposes of this point Im overlooking that)
...and Russels only game against them saw one scoltand try scored.

So yeah the theories great ...but the evidence is that England have been able to attack New Zealand through the backs with Farrell starting. They've still ended up on the losing side most times regardless.

by Sponsored content