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.

TJ wrote: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.

Really though? I would say the opposite. Anyone can have a poor game but Farrell is someone who pressure doesn't seem to affect. He was MOTM in the Heineken Cup final the week before yet now he can't cope with pressure. Nonsense.

Exiledinborders wrote:

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.

I do rate Farrell but I feel he needs a very strong 9. I have seen some very attacking moves from him at Sarries but that was more due to the platform being laid for him. When Sarries get rushed, he seems to have off days and I feel that the AB's will rush the Lions. I think that he has been excellent at 12, he looks very comfortable at second play maker.

George Carlin wrote:
Correct, but as the game wears on it's more tiring to have to put down physically larger men.

Or, as the game wears on, will the physically larger men be chasing shadows and slipping off tackles against their lighter, fitter, and more skilled oppoenents?

The key to the Lions' tactics will be controlling the game ass much as they can so that, when NZ do cut loose, they're not running on empty in the final quarter. It might sound a bit obvious, but the right mix of fitness, skill, and tactical discipline has to be married to size and strength. We'll find out who those players are in the warm ups, although the coaching staff will obviously have a good idea of who the best placed players are already to do that- as I'm sure most of us on here do, too.

It doesn't leave much space for a 'bolter' to stake a claim for the tests unless they hit the ground running, but the nature of the Lions means they can't be too sure of anything, particularly in terms of personnel.

Vunipola is a massive loss. I've said before I don't think he was nailed on to start at 8, and it would be a very close call between him and Faletau, although now he's out it's a lot easier to rewrite it as 'Vunipola was nailed on' etc. But the Lions don't have anyone like him. He's a big loss, and I'm sure he'll be devastated to miss out, too. Haskell's a great squad replacement, he'll be good for morale- and publicity, presumably- but in Rugby terms, he's hardly a direct replacement. No-one would be. One of the key points of difference the Lions held over NZ has been lost by Billy Vunipola's injury. If Faletau is injured before the Tests, or not in form, the drop off in quality for any potential replacement is quite sizeable. The Lions have to hope he stays injury free, which he hasn't managed to do with any consistency over the last season or two. It's not the time to wrap him in cotton wool, but it might be prudent to do that one or two games into the Tour.

Scottrf wrote:

TJ wrote: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.

Really though? I would say the opposite. Anyone can have a poor game but Farrell is someone who pressure doesn't seem to affect. He was MOTM in the Heineken Cup final the week before yet now he can't cope with pressure. Nonsense.

Hes had a few fruity performances in key games recently. Equally hes had some good ones. For your HEC final MOM theres the Jeff semi flop.

England as a whole seem to get rattled when teams knock them off their game and dont let them have their own way. How much thats Farrell and how much its a collective issue is another thing. But he certainly isnt a metronome and is prone to bad days at the office despite the perception of being a robot.

Its possible hes just had too much under the spotlight of late, with england and Saracens hes been in the firing line pretty continuously for several years with a lot "must win" games. Not ideal going into a Lions tour, but at least hes got out of the Jeff final.

How do you link the poor games to pressure as he's had some excellent performances in huge games?

Interesting comments about players playing out of position do much to seemingly or actually cover for others. It's something the Wallabies have been experiencing, usually very unsuccessfully when it comes to playing the ABs, where things that usually work against some sides, such as 'pooper' - playing Hooper and Pocock at 7 and 8, Cooper and Foley at 10 and 12 etc the combo as a whole get exposed too easily. The back row figures overall were well below the ABs across the board, where they were one of the better points against other sides.

It will be interesting then to have a Sexton Farrell combo, one that isn't proven at all, but an option purely because the impression is that the Ford, Farrell combo worked well for England...albeit against non AB sides. I think the ABs would have pressured that combination enough to cause Jones a rethink on Farrell at 12 rather than 10, where I think his best position is.

Two 10s just doesn't work against the ABs. That's why I think Gats will go Farrell at 10, and go for a solid Roberts/ Davies type midfield.

I think the locking combos are also going to come under pressure without Launchberry and how Gatland sees Itoje now that Billy V is out. I think like Jones he'll be tempted to play him at 6 to make up for that.

The drop off in quality in between Faletau and Stander would be non existent.

carpet baboon

Well actually one could argue George is unproven as a starter, yes. The Hartley fan club seem to very much enjoy that point. Unfortunately George cannot get experience as a starter if not allowed to start.

George needs more starts at 2, and I believe Stander needs more starts at 8.

eirebilly If Russell could be Jekyll and not Hyde I think he would have been picked for the Lions.

Great attacking player but far too prone to make howlers.


Pete C I've gone over this. Farrell has played many internationals at 10. He's even beaten your beloved team, outplaying Carter in the process. That's 1 game, he's done more than that.

ruggerradge I've gone over this. Farrell has played many games at 10. It's getting boring repeating that point. It is not the same as playing 1-2 games. Farrell had in general played well too.

You are making my point, Hogg playing 1-2 games doesn't make him an international proven 10.



1) We are not talking about club rugby, we are talking about international rugby. If you want to talk about Stander's merits as a 8 at club level go to the appropriate forum labelled - club rugby.
2) Yes and that means Stander is playing 6, not 8.
3)It doesn't matter how Stander got his chance, what matters is how many games he's played and how well he's done at 6. Many players get a chance with injury to someone else.
4) Might well have been unbalanced but still good enough to beat your team. Balance might well be better with Stander at 8 but it doesn't change that's he's barely played at 8 for Ireland.

Doesn't change that Pocock is now experienced as both 7 and 8 and pretty successful in both.

Gooseberry next said that. Haskell has more experience as a 8 than Stander but I don't think many England fans have happy memories of Haskell at 8.


Ireland might well have an obsession with Heaslip but it doesn't change that it was him wearing the 8 shirt with Stander wearing 6.

Schmidt obviously felt - Stander and Heaslip was working well enough.

I am not even saying Stander at 8 would be a disaster, he's just barely played at 8 for Ireland and people are happy to see him selected at 8 for the Lions.

I was simply questioning the lack of another specialist no 8 after Faletau. Stander might well be able to cover well at no 8, we'll have to see.

Scottrf wrote:How do you link the poor games to pressure as he's had some excellent performances in huge games?

So you odnt think he had a bad game against Ireland, or that that wasnt a pressure game?
Or that he didnt have a bad game against Exeter, or that that wasnt a pressure game?
World cup? He got himslef carded just when they were rallying against Aus.

I havent denied that hes had some good games under pressure, just pointed out he has gone to pieces a few times too in the big games. Hes not immune to it.

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.

He's proven he can play back row at international level. Carrying, tackling, rucking, handling - all where they need to be for an International players. What additional skills would he need to show?

Other than controlling the ball at the base of the scrum, I can't think of anything that an 8 has to do that a 6 doesn't do. He's proved he can provide that control playing for Munster and I do not think the gulf between club and international level is that great for skill.

We're not talking about a natural flanker to slot in at 8, we're talking about a very good club 8 who has shown up well in his appearances at back row in Internationals shifting one spot around the scrum. His natural game and his power lends itself to playing at 8.

The supposition that he'd make a good International 8 is supported by the fact that in the one chance he was given to do this for Ireland, he showed up well.

robbo277 wrote:

The supposition that he'd make a good International 8 is supported by the fact that in the one chance he was given to do this for Ireland, he showed up well.

...and notably against Vunipola who was cack.

It's fun that the rest of the world are being introduced to Beshocked and his black and white logic.

To be completely fair, Stander is quite unproven on the Int stage at 8 despite playing very well for Munster. What isn't correct is suggesting he's not a specialist 8 (I'm sick of reading that word). I honestly think we'll see Gats go with Faletau and balance out the carrying elsewhere as he knows what he can do.

Gooseberry wrote:

Scottrf wrote:How do you link the poor games to pressure as he's had some excellent performances in huge games?

So you odnt think he had a bad game against Ireland, or that that wasnt a pressure game?
Or that he didnt have a bad game against Exeter, or that that wasnt a pressure game?
World cup? He got himslef carded just when they were rallying against Aus.

I havent denied that hes had some good games under pressure, just pointed out he has gone to pieces a few times too in the big games. Hes not immune to it.

Still no evidence of a link. If you play poorly in 10% of games, you can pick 10% of pressure games to show that he plays poorly in pressure games.

Prem final MOTM. Heineken Cup Final MOTM.

TJ wrote: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.

Yeah, I agree with this wholeheartedly. Farrell is much, much better than he used to be as an outside half. His passing and vision at times is fantastic.

The problem is, he is privileged by the fact that he plays behind the England and Saracens packs. Whilst someone like, say, Barrett, or Russell, can execute an inside ball that creates a break in a position that isn't obviously strong, Farrell does it less frequently. He needs more chances or opportunities to not just make these plays work, but also to try them in the first place. It's a big difference between what we understand as a 'natural' playmaker, and someone who has perhaps had to learn playmaking whilst a professional rugby player with the benefit of experience and a good platform (although I'd contest the only real difference is that a 'playmaking' outside half learns these skills at a younger age- whilst some of this might be natural/inherent, you still need to hone such skills).

Put Farrell behind a pack that isn't dominant, and- most worryingly- we see the return of his petulant streak. Australia in the 2015 RWC was a prime example, but I'm sure there's been more recent incidents, for club or country, though they're not springing to mind specifically.

His kicking is a big advantage. However, I'd say that Dan Biggar is a better kicker out of hand and at goal than him, and perhaps Biggar is better than Sexton too in this area. Whilst Sexton perhaps takes the prize for best aerial kicker, he had a mixed Six Nations in this regard, varying between pinpoint excellence and massively overcooked. Biggar's ability to reclaim the aerial ball is also a bonus for him.

So it will be telling how Farrell gets on in the warm up games where the Lions' pack is really tested. For me, his playmaking ability is where he can 'win' the test shirt- if he proves himself Sexton's equal, I think there's enough to justify picking him to start. Out of the 3, in terms of who can be rattled the least, I'd say- surprisingly- that's Biggar. I think Sexton is targeted to the point where he is so battered he invariably suffers. Farrell, behind a non-dominant pack, still has wobbles that aren't necessarily the same as Sexton's- getting frustrated, missing easy kicks at goal etc. Biggar, though gobby, rarely sees his performance deviate. We know what we're getting with Biggar, and as such I think he's a pretty good option to bring on in the last 15-20 minutes of a Test if it needs closing out.

I've done a little tally below, where the lower your score, the better. It's hardly scientific- for instance there's a big gap between Farrell/Sexton and Biggar in terms of creativity, but the scoring system doesn't reflect that- and also subjective, but I think quite telling in terms of what outside halves we have, and what we'll need. It also doesn't reflect how, say, drop goals will only be a minor part of the game, whereas defence and playmaking will be much more important: they're all worth the same points weighting.

Durability: 1. Farrell 2. Biggar 3. Sexton
Goalkicking: 1. Biggar 2. Farrell 3. Sexton
Playmaking/Passing: 1. Sexton 2. Farrell 3. Biggar
Defence: Tempted to say all three are about equal here, Farrell maybe a bit more physical, but Biggar and Sexton are unbelievably committed. 1 point each.
Running: 1. Sexton 2. Farrell 3. Biggar
Aerial Kicking: 1. Sexton 2. Biggar 3. Farrell
Composure: 1. Biggar 2. Sexton/Farrell
Touch/Space Kicking: 1. Biggar 2. Sexton 3. Farrell
Grubber/Chip Kicking: 1. Sexton 2. Biggar 3. Farrell
Dropgoals: Again, I'd go evens. 1 point each.

Biggar: 17 Farrell: 20 Sexton: 16

I don't think Biggar should start the Tests. We can't rely on the 9- whether Webb or Murray- to be the only creative playmaking force in the backline. There won't be such a player at 12, so you need one at 10, and Biggar isn't that. But as a bench option, as I said, he's very useful, particularly if Halfpenny is injured/not selected to take the goals. The above doesn't take into consideration things like leadership, partnership, suitability the tactics and conditions etc. Too many variables. The key one, perhaps, will be the ability to perform on the back foot. But interesting nonetheless- and also I can't help but feel many people are dismissing Biggar out of the equation, perhaps due to nationality and public image, when he is a very effective international player at what he does, and could sneak onto the bench for the tests.

Wales fans literally think their players are better than Englands in every position yet they are 8th in the world and England 2nd. Bizarre.

robbo277 his game might well suit 8 but he's only had 1 game there. He still must prove himself as a 8.

Perhaps this Lions tour will introduce us to Stander, the no 8 at international level.

I'd like it to happen and yes you are right his attributes should suit 8, just needs to show it now.

Sgt Pooly he's not a specialist no 8. Like saying Daly is a specialist centre when he's got basically no experience for England in the centres.

Can't call himself a specialist no 8 when his caps at 6 heavily outweigh those at 8.

Gooseberry crazy as it sounds but you know Vunipola just coming back from injury might have affected his performance.

Whereas I'd acknowledge those are just tallies of your opinion I'm surprised you rank Farrell so low for types of kicking given how much and how well saracens control games and open games through the use of it at 9 and 10.

miaow wrote:
Goalkicking: 1. Biggar 2. Farrell 3. Sexton

Did Biggar not miss a kick in front of the sticks in the 6Ns?

Scottrf wrote:Wales fans literally think their players are better than Englands in every position yet they are 8th in the world and England 2nd. Bizarre.

Think you're projecting there, Scott. Revealing your own national bias as a reader an poster, assuming that the reason for assessing the merits of the Lions players is to assert that the player from your own country is 'better'.

Haha. I've missed this place.

Composure - Biggar above Farrell and Sexton?


Farrell isn't the most graceful player in the world but generally (not always) gets the job done.

He's not faultless, he occasionally misses tackles, makes silly errors and he's not the fastest player.

I'd say in general, he controls the game well though.

Biggar and Sexton make mistakes too.

I wouldn't have picked Biggar because I think he's too similar to Farrell and Sexton in type of fly half.

miaow wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Wales fans literally think their players are better than Englands in every position yet they are 8th in the world and England 2nd. Bizarre.

Think you're projecting there, Scott. Revealing your own national bias as a reader an poster, assuming that the reason for assessing the merits of the Lions players is to assert that the player from your own country is 'better'.

No just an observation, and an accurate one. Other than lock and maybe prop I haven't seen much evidence on the contrary and loads to support in back row, half back and back line discussion.

People are dismissing Biggar because he's not as good as Farrell or Sexton, he doesn't even come into the equation and his selection as a tourist is odd considering how poor he's been.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Whereas I'd acknowledge those are just tallies of your opinion I'm surprised you rank Farrell so low for types of kicking given how much and how well saracens control games and open games through the use of it at 9 and 10.

Some of them are very marginal, most of them in fact, but some of them are not. In terms of the playmaking and passing, Biggar is some way short of the other two- just look at how Ireland targeted him this 6Ns- and for that reason alone he's too much of a liability to be a playmaker against the All Blacks in such high stakes. However, he brings other things to the game, and I honestly believe he is, generally speaking, the best kicker of the 3, albeit it it's not a large margin between them. But margins do matter- in the way that Halfpenny is the best goalkicker in the Lions squad, and that has to be recognised.

Again, I think you have to consider the context of both players, and whilst Farrell does generally seem very composed, as I mentioned above the tally (don't give the final ranking points too much heed, the individual ranks in isolation are more interesting/impotant IMO) he does suffer the most when not given 'an armchair ride' for want of a better phrase. But, again, this is infrequent, and hopefully irrelevant for the Lions. But it's still worth considering.

I wouldn't count being behind Biggar and Sexton in the rankings as being so low, or a criticism; rather, I'd see it as a benefit that we have 3 very good outside halves in this regard. The worry is not their strengths, which is obviously kicking, but their weaknesses, the playmaking and skillset and durability that the All Blacks will try to expose, and where Barrett will be far superior to any of the 3. That's why, as I said, if Farrell proves to be a good enough playmaker in the tough midweek games, it may just nudge him in front.

Scottrf wrote:

miaow wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Wales fans literally think their players are better than Englands in every position yet they are 8th in the world and England 2nd. Bizarre.

Think you're projecting there, Scott. Revealing your own national bias as a reader an poster, assuming that the reason for assessing the merits of the Lions players is to assert that the player from your own country is 'better'.

No just an observation, and an accurate one. Other than lock and maybe prop I haven't seen much evidence on the contrary and loads to support in back row, half back and back line discussion.

Whilst that might be accurate for the WUMs on here, the fact your wrote it directly after my comment suggests it was aimed at me.

I'm not quite sure how this...

miaow wrote:I wouldn't count being behind Biggar and Sexton in the rankings as being so low, or a criticism; rather, I'd see it as a benefit that we have 3 very good outside halves in this regard. The worry is not their strengths, which is obviously kicking, but their weaknesses, the playmaking and skillset and durability that the All Blacks will try to expose, and where Barrett will be far superior to any of the 3. That's why, as I said, if Farrell proves to be a good enough playmaker in the tough midweek games, it may just nudge him in front.

...is "literally" saying Welsh players are better than English players. Can you expand, or was your comment not about me?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:People are dismissing Biggar because he's not as good as Farrell or Sexton, he doesn't even come into the equation and his selection as a tourist is odd considering how poor he's been.

I'm dismissing you because you're not as good as Cyril or Tighthead, you don't even come into the equation and your suggestions as a poster are odd considering how poor they've always been.

beshocked wrote:Composure - Biggar above Farrell and Sexton? .

I wouldn't laugh. I've just had to skip over two pages of "Stander's an 8", "no he's not!". Not fun.

Ok. But I'm a assuming you don't watch many saracens games. I'd also not take it as criticism to Farrell that you think he's not as good a kicker from hand.

miaow wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:People are dismissing Biggar because he's not as good as Farrell or Sexton, he doesn't even come into the equation and his selection as a tourist is odd considering how poor he's been.

I'm dismissing you because you're not as good as Cyril or Tighthead, you don't even come into the equation and your suggestions as a poster are odd considering how poor they've always been.

Someones getting a bit pi$$y

marty2086 wrote:

miaow wrote:
Goalkicking: 1. Biggar 2. Farrell 3. Sexton

Did Biggar not miss a kick in front of the sticks in the 6Ns?

Don't think so?

He may well have done so for the Ospreys once or twice, but it can happen to anyone- not least Chris Paterson- if the ball happens to roll in the breeze just before you kick it.

Hardly a marker of him being a poor goalkicker. I'd say his showing in the RWC proved that he's right up there as one of the best in the World, maybe only second to an in form Halfpenny.

I like Bigger a lot but let's be honest, he's been pretty poor for a while now. I'm pretty happy with as 3rd choice as he can stick to a plan, which we'll need. Farrell & Sexton have to be front runners though, they're on a different level imo.

miaow wrote:
Whilst that might be accurate for the WUMs on here, the fact your wrote it directly after my comment suggests it was aimed at me.

I'm not quite sure how this...

...is "literally" saying Welsh players are better than English players. Can you expand, or was your comment not about me?

No wasn't solely about you, more an accumulation of the posts in Lions threads.

Have to agree about Biggar's goalkicking being at least equal, but loses points for his action.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ok. But I'm a assuming you don't watch many saracens games. I'd also not take it as criticism to Farrell that you think he's not as good a kicker from hand.

As who? Biggar and Sexton, who are two of the best in the world?

marty2086 wrote:

miaow wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:People are dismissing Biggar because he's not as good as Farrell or Sexton, he doesn't even come into the equation and his selection as a tourist is odd considering how poor he's been.

I'm dismissing you because you're not as good as Cyril or Tighthead, you don't even come into the equation and your suggestions as a poster are odd considering how poor they've always been.

Someones getting a bit pi$$y

I'm so nationalistically biased I think Sexton is a better player than Farrell and felt that number 8 was a toss up between Billy V and Stander.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:It's fun that the rest of the world are being introduced to Beshocked and his black and white logic.

It's great isn't it

miaow wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

miaow wrote:
Goalkicking: 1. Biggar 2. Farrell 3. Sexton

Did Biggar not miss a kick in front of the sticks in the 6Ns?

Don't think so?

He may well have done so for the Ospreys once or twice, but it can happen to anyone- not least Chris Paterson- if the ball happens to roll in the breeze just before you kick it.

Hardly a marker of him being a poor goalkicker. I'd say his showing in the RWC proved that he's right up there as one of the best in the World, maybe only second to an in form Halfpenny.

Had a look back it was actually Russell against France I was thinking off

Yup as the other 2. Like I said I don't view it as criticism. Saracens are absolute quality in their kicking from both defensive and offensive areas. If you're view is Biggar and Sexton are better good.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yup as the other 2. Like I said I don't view it as criticism. Saracens are absolute quality in their kicking from both defensive and offensive areas. If you're view is Biggar and Sexton are better good.

Yeah absolutely, that's what I was suggesting:

miaow wrote:I wouldn't count being behind Biggar and Sexton in the rankings as being so low, or a criticism; rather, I'd see it as a benefit that we have 3 very good outside halves in this regard.

The difference in kicking ability of the 3 Lions 10s will be marginal. The important things to pay attention to will be how adept each player is at coping with New Zealand and everything that brings over 3 Tests and several warm up games.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:
I'm so nationalistically biased

If you say so

I'm hoping so. Form was a bit ignored from the warm ups last time and we've seen reputation favoured in selections so it will be interesting to see how.players step up to show the coaches what they can do and how that affects choices.

Eirebilly, I would have taken Paddy Jackson over DB in the first place.

I would defer to anyone on here who has played rugby at a serious level, which I haven't, but - about playing people out of position, it seems to me that the higher the level you play at, the less time you've got to think and the more pressure you're under, so the more you need to know instinctually what to do, which is acquired from years of playing in that position. Sure, many skills aren't specific to one position, but quite a lot are. For a Number 8, controlling the ball at the back of a messy scrum and being able to rescue it/make yards nevertheless must be something learned over the years, and it always seems to me that blindsides standing in struggle with that. Of course it's not an issue if the scrum is steady, but obviously you can't guarantee that. It's the same with positioning for FBs, for example. Or Wales' habit for years of sticking looseheads at tighthead, which they rarely got away with.

When you're talking about the cream of 4 individually strong nations, it must be possible to play 15 specialists. Okay, the bench may be a bit different, you need to think about covering options as well as who might provide a specific type of impact.

Contradicting myself, after Faletau, there does seem to be a bit of a lack of specialist 8s in the home nations at the moment.

I think form is, if anything, more likely to negatively affect someone's chances than the other way round. It's more likely that a player, particularly if lacking game time, or playing with a bit of a knock, looks off the pace or not up to the demands of the Tour, and that in turn perhaps bumps them down the pecking order, than it is that someone like, say, Biggar or Nowell plays so well that the coaches deem it enough for them to replace the Test players they have pencilled in.

Doesn't mean it's impossible though, just the less likely of the two scenarios.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yup as the other 2. Like I said I don't view it as criticism. Saracens are absolute quality in their kicking from both defensive and offensive areas. If you're view is Biggar and Sexton are better good.

Just on that. Wigglesworth has been brilliant for Sarries. Was surprised to see his form not rewarded. He is a quality 9 and his partnership with Farrell at club level would have helped his cause for the Lions.

Farrell has got what it takes to play 10 and Stander has got what it takes to play 8.
That is where they play regularly and to a very high standard, for their teams.

A lot irrelevant posts here saying otherwise

geoff999rugby wrote:Farrell has got what it takes to play 10 and Stander has got what it takes to play 8.
That is where they play regularly and to a very high standard, for their teams.

A lot irrelevant posts here saying otherwise

Indeed.

Wigglesworth isn't good enough on everything other than kicking though where he is probably still number 1.

Like I said miaow I hope gatland and his coaches keep an open mind.

Maybe I have not seen enough of Wigglesworth then but when I have he has been the best open field kicker and has been very good at the rest.

eirebilly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yup as the other 2. Like I said I don't view it as criticism. Saracens are absolute quality in their kicking from both defensive and offensive areas. If you're view is Biggar and Sexton are better good.

Just on that. Wigglesworth has been brilliant for Sarries. Was surprised to see his form not rewarded. He is a quality 9 and his partnership with Farrell at club level would have helped his cause for the Lions.

Very hard to bring someone in who isn't playing international Rugby. However high the competition in European Rugby, you benefit from a settled squad environment and everything that comes with it.

The ability to step up and perform with players you don't play and train with most weeks of the year- i.e. Test rugby- is the best indicator of suitability for the Lions. Moreover, Saracens tend to dominate just about every team they play with. As we've seen with several England players this season- Ford, Haskell, Joseph- when your pack isn't dominating around the field and in the set piece (which will be the case for the majority of the Tests in NZ), players who previously looked unstoppable lose their shine somewhat.

It's perfectly natural, but it's important to see ability in context. Wigglesworth has never really looked effective for England- in part because he's always been in and out of the squad, never given a starting run of games- and that doesn't put him in good stead for the Lions.

eirebilly problem with Wigglesworth is his speed/lack of it.

Great box kicker, IMO one of the best in the NH but I think his pass is too slow and sometimes he takes too much time to get to the ball, plus as a running threat he doesn't offer as much as other 9s.

As a controlling 9 he's fine but lacks fizz. Still miss a prime Kyran Bracken.

IMO Wigglesworth looked ponderous compared to the Exeter youngster at 9. I wouldn't want him for the Lions.

I think B.Youngs is a big loss that's not really been talked about much though saying that Webb and Murray are 2 good 9s.


Care-Farrell has worked really well in the past hence why I was disappointed not to see Care called up as well.