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.

miaow wrote:To be honest anyone who seriously thinks Gatland selects players based on their nationality rather than their individual merits isn't worth talking to beyond a certain point, sorry. There are plenty of reasons why certain players, Welsh and non-Welsh, were either selected, or just missed out. It's bordering on conspiracy theory to genuinely believe that Gatland- in what will be the biggest test in his coaching career- would select players based on nationality because of, what, some personal bias? What could he possibly hope to gain by doing this?

Chill out man!

If you have a 50/50 call between 2 players, you'll take the one you know surely? It's hardly a derogatory statement to suggest this, I imagine every coach would do the same, I certainly would.

miaow wrote:To be honest anyone who seriously thinks Gatland selects players based on their nationality rather than their individual merits isn't worth talking to beyond a certain point, sorry. There are plenty of reasons why certain players, Welsh and non-Welsh, were either selected, or just missed out. It's bordering on conspiracy theory to genuinely believe that Gatland- in what will be the biggest test in his coaching career- would select players based on nationality because of, what, some personal bias? What could he possibly hope to gain by doing this?

He's already said that Scottish players would need someone representing them to get a fair shake. That is admission of bias, even if bias through familiarity.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Mainly people who have watched him miaow.

Mikey he wasn't good in the 6ns especially considering he was playing 8. Outstanding tackler, he's going as this year's Lydiate albeit fit.

Moriarty was often one of the best players for us. It only seems to be only some English who are of the opinion that he was poor.

When the general consensus is heavily anti-Welsh based on seemingly nothing more than "my country's player is better because he comes from my country", then yeah, it does get a bit tedious, and suggesting that the primary reason Moriarty was selected because he was Welsh is just adding fuel to the fire.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
If you have a 50/50 call between 2 players, you'll take the one you know surely? It's hardly a derogatory statement to suggest this, I imagine every coach would do the same, I certainly would.

"Do you disagree with me? That's derogatory!"

miaow wrote:To be honest anyone who seriously thinks Gatland selects players based on their nationality rather than their individual merits isn't worth talking to beyond a certain point, sorry. It's bordering on conspiracy theory to genuinely believe that Gatland- in what will be the biggest test in his coaching career- would select players based on nationality because of, what, some personal bias? What could he possibly hope to gain by doing this?

Fair comment, he is leaving some New Zealanders behind.

You misunderstood the point mikey which was his carrying during the 6Ns. That, especially from 8, wasn't good enough. He looked as he was a blind side making a good fist of playing there.

miaow wrote:When the general consensus is heavily anti-Welsh based on seemingly nothing more than "my country's player is better because he comes from my country", then yeah, it does get a bit tedious, and suggesting that the primary reason Moriarty was selected because he was Welsh is just adding fuel to the fire.

You've ignored the form comment then?

I rate Moriarty, he's had a great year. I'd have him and Haskell very close, hence why I suggested maybe the Welsh inside knowledge got him in ahead of Haskell.

You should learn to calm down a little Miaow, not everybody on here is a wum.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You misunderstood the point mikey which was his carrying during the 6Ns.  That, especially from 8, wasn't good enough. He looked as he was a blind side making a good fist of playing there.

So is he specialist ....

Gooseberry wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You misunderstood the point mikey which was his carrying during the 6Ns.  That, especially from 8, wasn't good enough. He looked as he was a blind side making a good fist of playing there.

So is he specialist ....

Scottrff wrote:

miaow wrote:To be honest anyone who seriously thinks Gatland selects players based on their nationality rather than their individual merits isn't worth talking to beyond a certain point, sorry. There are plenty of reasons why certain players, Welsh and non-Welsh, were either selected, or just missed out. It's bordering on conspiracy theory to genuinely believe that Gatland- in what will be the biggest test in his coaching career- would select players based on nationality because of, what, some personal bias? What could he possibly hope to gain by doing this?

He's already said that Scottish players would need someone representing them to get a fair shake. That is admission of bias, even if bias through familiarity.

I think Moriarty is a great player to be honest. However judging on how well Watson played over the 6N and for Edinburgh all season he is IMO more worthy of touring.

Barclay is in the same position. He's been great all year and was again tremendous captaining the Scarlets against Leinster at the weekend.

I'm willing to give Gatland the benefit of the doubt over Barclay, because he's not as physical as Moriarty, however Watson was the best 7 in the Lions pool by some distance this season. Haskell, SOB, Tipuric and Warburton haven't played as well as he has.

He and Robshaw are the two I would have taken over Tipuric and Haskell, but it's horses for courses. I've had my whinge and I'm over it now.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

miaow wrote:When the general consensus is heavily anti-Welsh based on seemingly nothing more than "my country's player is better because he comes from my country", then yeah, it does get a bit tedious, and suggesting that the primary reason Moriarty was selected because he was Welsh is just adding fuel to the fire.

You've ignored the form comment then?  

I rate Moriarty, he's had a great year. I'd have him and Haskell very close, hence why I suggested maybe the Welsh inside knowledge got him in ahead of Haskell.

You should learn to calm down a little Miaow, not everybody on here is a wum.

Genuinely, I'm perfectly calm Pooly, you're inferring a tone that isn't there. It's just that you stated the reasons where #1. he was Welsh #2. form. Going literally on what you said, the main reason, ranked before any other, for his selection was because he is Welsh. It's really boring and lazy commentary, and I'm just trying to work out how people can think these things- my main guess is the kind of echo chambers of opinions like you have on 606 in the aftermath of the squad announcement, where so much national disappointment springs up, and we end up with a lot of xenophobic bile being thrown at anything Welsh. This is only exacerbated by some really third rate Welsh WUMs, who don't make it any easier for the Welsh posters on here who are trying to discuss rugby, and not start a fight. But genuinely, I'm not having a go at you, I'm not angry, the questions were merely questions, not rhetorical statements meant to try and hammer you. It be hard to convey tone on the internet sometimes, particularly when it's a matter of disagreement, as this is, but no harm meant on my part, and no harm taken on your presumption of my anger

miaow wrote:Get called a "menopausal cat" having called out someone for having some really strange/dubious opinions...snide? Really?

Sorry, I thought your original 'dubious' comment was aimed at me (I'd posted just before that).

No bother pal, I could have quite easily put form at #1....perhaps would have made more sense

[quote="RuggerRadge2611"]

I think Moriarty is a great player to be honest. However judging on how well Watson played over the 6N and for Edinburgh all season he is IMO more worthy of touring.

Barclay is in the same position. He's been great all year and was again tremendous captaining the Scarlets against Leinster at the weekend.

I'm willing to give Gatland the benefit of the doubt over Barclay, because he's not as physical as Moriarty, however Watson was the best 7 in the Lions pool by some distance this season. Haskell, SOB, Tipuric and Warburton haven't played as well as he has.

He and Robshaw are the two I would have taken over Tipuric and Haskell, but it's horses for courses. I've had my whinge and I'm over it now.[/quote]

Completely agree with you on this post. I'm not sure how Haskell got ahead of the guys you mentioned, though not as sure on Barclay. Robshaw and Watson both better options, haven't seen Haskell have a decent game since the Australia series.

SamTheQuin wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

I think Moriarty is a great player to be honest. However judging on how well Watson played over the 6N and for Edinburgh all season he is IMO more worthy of touring.

Barclay is in the same position. He's been great all year and was again tremendous captaining the Scarlets against Leinster at the weekend.

I'm willing to give Gatland the benefit of the doubt over Barclay, because he's not as physical as Moriarty, however Watson was the best 7 in the Lions pool by some distance this season. Haskell, SOB, Tipuric and Warburton haven't played as well as he has.

He and Robshaw are the two I would have taken over Tipuric and Haskell, but it's horses for courses. I've had my whinge and I'm over it now.

Completely agree with you on this post. I'm not sure how Haskell got ahead of the guys you mentioned, though not as sure on Barclay. Robshaw and Watson both better options, haven't seen Haskell have a decent game since the Australia series.

Thought Moriarty was great against England, knocking his opposite over a few times it seems, big hits.

Taylorman wrote:

SamTheQuin wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

I think Moriarty is a great player to be honest. However judging on how well Watson played over the 6N and for Edinburgh all season he is IMO more worthy of touring.

Barclay is in the same position. He's been great all year and was again tremendous captaining the Scarlets against Leinster at the weekend.

I'm willing to give Gatland the benefit of the doubt over Barclay, because he's not as physical as Moriarty, however Watson was the best 7 in the Lions pool by some distance this season. Haskell, SOB, Tipuric and Warburton haven't played as well as he has.

He and Robshaw are the two I would have taken over Tipuric and Haskell, but it's horses for courses. I've had my whinge and I'm over it now.

Completely agree with you on this post. I'm not sure how Haskell got ahead of the guys you mentioned, though not as sure on Barclay. Robshaw and Watson both better options, haven't seen Haskell have a decent game since the Australia series.

Thought Moriarty was great against England, knocking his opposite over a few times it seems, big hits.

Yeah he had a good game against England, not so good against Scotland and France though.

I dunno it might just be me but I want more from my flankers than "knocking over his opposite number".

I want my openside to win crucial turnovers, link up with the backs, carry hard and look to offload. Sam Warburton epitomizes that. He is probably the best hybrid of all of those skills, the next best Hybrid version of a flanker is probably Watson.

Robshaw however is more of a pure 6 who like Moriarty tackles really well, tidies up a lot of loose ball, is a terrific counter rucker and would be another good member of the leadership team.

Haskell and Tipuric by contrast seem to be more luxuary players as opposed to grafters. I suppose I could include SOB in the luxuary player column too.

Certainly the flanks for the test for me any way would be POM, Warbs and either Stander or Faletau, depending on the centre combo.

If he goes for beefy centres like Teo or Henshaw I'd take Faletau. If he plays play makers in the centre like Farrell or JJ, I'd take Stander to make powerful carries.

Gats is obsessed with size so I'd not be surprised if Teo and Henshaw start along with Stander and anyone else who is a chunky monkey

tigertattie wrote:Gats is obsessed with size so I'd not be surprised if Teo and Henshaw start along with Stander and anyone else who is a chunky monkey

What about Halfpenny?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:Gats is obsessed with size so I'd not be surprised if Teo and Henshaw start along with Stander and anyone else who is a chunky monkey

What about Halfpenny?

he seems to think Halfpenny is a better defender. 1/2p is 1.78m tall while Hogg is 1.8m which is only 2 cms taller so little in it!

I heard all the Coaches are singing the praises of Ben Teo in the training camps.

I think he'll start if he shows even the slightest bit of form in the warm up games.


Gats new Jamie Roberts!!!!!

Will all be about whether Gatland opts for Sexton/Farrell in the 10-12 shirts. Teo could get himself onto the bench for his impact but could well be Farrell, Henshaw and Joseph with Sexton and Teo off the bench. Could work well.

"he seems to think Halfpenny is a better defender. 1/2p is 1.78m tall while Hogg is 1.8m which is only 2 cms taller so little in it!"

Is the difference really that little? It looks more. 1/2p is the better defender, but given how little he offers in attack from FB I hope that isn't decisive. I think Hogg would worry the ABs, as would Liam Williams.

Winzer wrote:"he seems to think Halfpenny is a better defender. 1/2p is 1.78m tall while Hogg is 1.8m which is only 2 cms taller so little in it!"

Is the difference really that little?  It looks more.  1/2p is the better defender, but given how little he offers in attack from FB I hope that isn't decisive.  I think Hogg would worry the ABs, as would Liam Williams.

I do think the back 3 spots are all up for grabs. Every back 3 player that has been selected can trouble defenders.

What do people really want out of this Tour (series win obviously!) but what else?

To put it into perspective, to win a World Cup you might have to beat NZ once, to win a Lions series you've got to win twice!
Big ask.

I just hope we are competitive in every Test and make the 3rd test the series decider, plus win most of the mid week games.
Another 2005 would be so disappointing after this great build up.

TightHEAD wrote:What do people really want out of this Tour (series win obviously!) but what else?

To put it into perspective, to win a World Cup you might have to beat NZ once, to win a Lions series you've got to win twice!
Big ask.

I just hope we are competitive in every Test and make the 3rd test the series decider, plus win most of the mid week games.
Another 2005 would be so disappointing after this great build up.

Yeah Im the same. I obviously want a series win and I think they can do it but Id be happy with a tight series with 1 win a bit like the last SA tour but with the win in the first or second test.

The six nations is a far stronger competition than it was in 2005 even when compared to the rugby championship so I think the Lions have to aim big.

2009 was my favourite Lions tour but we lost. I loved it because the test games were mind bendingly itense and I loved the players and camaraderie that was clearly evident on the tour

I think winning a test in NZ, being competitive in the other two and a successful, enjoyable tour for players and fans alike would be a big success.

TightHEAD wrote:I heard all the Coaches are singing the praises of Ben Teo in the training camps.

I think he'll start if he shows even the slightest bit of form in the warm up games.


Gats new Jamie Roberts!!!!!

Won't do any harm that he should know the Irish contingent pretty well

What would be very disappointing is if we get well beaten playing boring, negative rugby, which seems eminently possible.

Winzer wrote:What would be very disappointing is if we get well beaten playing boring, negative rugby, which seems eminently possible.

Gatlandball.........!

Can't see a Gatland team losing in NZ tbh.

Scottrf wrote:Can't see a Gatland team losing in NZ tbh.

Well he does have such a great record vs SH teams.

He was the obvious man for the job seeing as he embraces everything the Lions stands for!

Scottrf wrote:Can't see a Gatland team losing in NZ tbh.

Again...this is sarcasm?

Tbh winning one test would be a huge achievement. Rugby relies so much on preparation these days that the lions are at a real disadvantage. Beating the Crusaders will be hard enough let alone the All Blacks.

I just want to see some exciting rugby played by some of the best players in the world and I would love the lions to win at least one test.

The final thing on my wish list is for a really unpredicted star to emerge for the lions. Someone like Moriarty, or POM, or even better, someone who hasn't even been called up yet, getting into the tests and delivering stand out performances. Like Tom Croft did in '09, or Will Greenwood in '97. Basically I want something a bit different. If Gatland plays Warrenball with the expected faces in the team then 1) we won't win and 2) it'll be really dull. I hope he and his team have some tricks up their sleeves.

Winzer wrote:What would be very disappointing is if we get well beaten playing boring, negative rugby, which seems eminently possible.

I think the style of play is so important. I don't want to play a Barbarians-style or 7s-style game, but I want to see players be brave. Yes, it is test rugby, but I want to see players who want the ball in hand and want to take the game to the opposition.

Let's not forget, this is a scratch side. A 3-0 loss would hurt, but if the team plays good rugby and runs them close, then it wouldn't hurt nearly as much than the same scoreline, 30% possession, lateral attack and scoring in 3s.

A series win is the ideal, but if we don't we have to at least play like we believe we can beat the All Blacks.

screamingaddabs wrote:Tbh winning one test would be a huge achievement.  Rugby relies so much on preparation these days that the lions are at a real disadvantage.  Beating the Crusaders will be hard enough let alone the All Blacks.  

I just want to see some exciting rugby played by some of the best players in the world and I would love the lions to win at least one test.

The final thing on my wish list is for a really unpredicted star to emerge for the lions.  Someone like Moriarty, or POM, or even better, someone who hasn't even been called up yet, getting into the tests and delivering stand out performances.  Like Tom Croft did in '09, or Will Greenwood in '97.  Basically I want something a bit different.  If Gatland plays Warrenball with the expected faces in the team then 1) we won't win and 2) it'll be really dull.  I hope he and his team have some tricks up their sleeves.  

Sinck.

robbo277 wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:Tbh winning one test would be a huge achievement.  Rugby relies so much on preparation these days that the lions are at a real disadvantage.  Beating the Crusaders will be hard enough let alone the All Blacks.  

I just want to see some exciting rugby played by some of the best players in the world and I would love the lions to win at least one test.

The final thing on my wish list is for a really unpredicted star to emerge for the lions.  Someone like Moriarty, or POM, or even better, someone who hasn't even been called up yet, getting into the tests and delivering stand out performances.  Like Tom Croft did in '09, or Will Greenwood in '97.  Basically I want something a bit different.  If Gatland plays Warrenball with the expected faces in the team then 1) we won't win and 2) it'll be really dull.  I hope he and his team have some tricks up their sleeves.  

Sinck.

Aye Sinckler would be a good shout for doing that. Or Daly I guess (though his form seems to have dipped at Wasps judging from the last couple of games)

I think Stander will emnerge as a hero and established test 8 specialist



Even if he starts at 6

Yeah I think Sinckler has a terrific oppertunity to show what he can do on this tour as does Jamie George.

I also think Tommy Seymour will impress on the tour too.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Yeah I think Sinckler has a terrific oppertunity to show what he can do on this tour as does Jamie George..

As impact bench options perhaps

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Yeah I think Sinckler has a terrific oppertunity to show what he can do on this tour as does Jamie George..

As impact bench options perhaps

You can turn in terrific performances on the dirt tracks. You don't have to be a test Lion IMO to absolutely shine. Chris Cusiter in 2005 for example.

The tour will have been a success if no player gets a career-ending or career-affecting injury - the results are irrelevant.

The Great Aukster wrote:The tour will have been a success if no player gets a career-ending or career-affecting injury - the results are irrelevant.

I seriously doubt players go out there and measure success based on not getting injured. If they do, they are playing the wrong sport.

The players should be going out there with the mindset of "Let's get out there and try and beat NZ". If they go out there thinking "I hope I don't pick up a career affecting injury" they should have been left behind.

screamingaddabs wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:Tbh winning one test would be a huge achievement.  Rugby relies so much on preparation these days that the lions are at a real disadvantage.  Beating the Crusaders will be hard enough let alone the All Blacks.  

I just want to see some exciting rugby played by some of the best players in the world and I would love the lions to win at least one test.

The final thing on my wish list is for a really unpredicted star to emerge for the lions.  Someone like Moriarty, or POM, or even better, someone who hasn't even been called up yet, getting into the tests and delivering stand out performances.  Like Tom Croft did in '09, or Will Greenwood in '97.  Basically I want something a bit different.  If Gatland plays Warrenball with the expected faces in the team then 1) we won't win and 2) it'll be really dull.  I hope he and his team have some tricks up their sleeves.  

Sinck.

Aye Sinckler would be a good shout for doing that.  Or Daly I guess (though his form seems to have dipped at Wasps judging from the last couple of games)

I can see Jack Nowell having a great tour.

If we predict every single player on the tour between us that means there cant be an unpredicted one emerge. So pls stop.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I can see Jack Nowell having a great tour.

Already a star*

Scottrf wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I can see Jack Nowell having a great tour.

Already a star*

He wouldn't be in many people's Test sides though. He's a player I can see forcing his way into the reckoning.

I have been called naive for thinking anyone can play their way into the Test side, but I hope that's not true.

Even if he doesn't make the Test side, I think he'll have a good tour. He's a team player.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I can see Jack Nowell having a great tour.

Already a star*

He wouldn't be in many people's Test sides though. He's a player I can see forcing his way into the reckoning.

I have been called naive for thinking anyone can play their way into the Test side, but I hope that's not true.

Even if he doesn't make the Test side, I think he'll have a good tour. He's a team player.

If you are, so am I. Really hoping it's an open tour. If we're to beat the All Blacks, we need players who are in form on tour.

Howell can certainly make the Test side, his performance at the weekend was brilliant. Enjoy watching him play.

robbo277 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I can see Jack Nowell having a great tour.

Already a star*

He wouldn't be in many people's Test sides though. He's a player I can see forcing his way into the reckoning.

I have been called naive for thinking anyone can play their way into the Test side, but I hope that's not true.

Even if he doesn't make the Test side, I think he'll have a good tour. He's a team player.

If you are, so am I. Really hoping it's an open tour. If we're to beat the All Blacks, we need players who are in form on tour.

I'm afraid I can't see Gatland picking a test side without AWJ, North and Halfpenny.

Warburton I leave out because he is the captain and at this stage, despite being injured is there on merit. However I think AWJ, North and Halfpenny will all start the first test, regardless of the form of their peers unless they are injured.