Warrenball - feeling the pressure already Mr Gatland?

First topic message reminder :

http://bbc.in/2rKmESz

Who put this guy in charge, cracks are appearing already. Lol :

The england game more backs up the idea he's first and foremost a defensive pick. Excellent tackling but not much go forward.

To be fair that could also be lack of options elsewhere. The lions will surely have more carriers and thus more threat to cover for nz.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Topic is about Gatland.

Wales are 8th in the world. Weren't they 4th in 2012?

5th in the 6 nations 2017, 1st in 2012.

Mikey is right, clearly they haven't stagnated.

That's freefall not stagnation.

2017 Gats wasn't Wales coach, therefore an incorrect reference. I didn't say Wales have not stagnated, freefalled, etc.

Why are the English so intent on ruining the Lions with their wumming and lack of unity?

None of the comments are about Nationality until you bring it up. Check the match thread. Someone says Biggar hasn't been great so you snipe at Russell who isn't even on tour.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Why are the English so intent on ruining the Lions with their wumming and lack of unity?

We know whats coming as we've seen these tactics deployed against SH teams from Gatland time and time again.

Even you mikey dragon as a Gatland fan must be a bit alarmed by the performance in the 1st match vs the weakest opposition.

I am actually pro quite a few selections of Welsh players like Williams,Webb,North,Owens,Faletau,Tipuric and Warburton.

Wales do have good players, just not being utilised properly by Gatland and Howley.

Scottrf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Topic is about Gatland.

Wales are 8th in the world. Weren't they 4th in 2012?

5th in the 6 nations 2017, 1st in 2012.

Mikey is right, clearly they haven't stagnated.

That's freefall not stagnation.

2017 Gats wasn't Wales coach, therefore an incorrect reference. I didn't say Wales have not stagnated, freefalled, etc.

Why are the English so intent on ruining the Lions with their wumming and lack of unity?

None of the comments are about Nationality until you bring it up. Check the match thread. Someone says Biggar hasn't been great so you snipe at Russell who isn't even on tour.

The lack of unity from some English and their constant wumming is just anti-Lions. Which match thread is that? It wasn't the Baa-baa's one? The only time I've mentioned Russell is to Scots who are constantly berating Biggar. To give you an idea, Russell once took out Biggar in the air, illegal challenge and only received a yellow. Their fans blamed Biggar. The citing and ban subsequently followed.

I really don't understand why Moriarty is being put down somewhat on here. In the first game he was one of the standout players when supposed better/more experienced players failed. He showed strength and composure.

Some players simply come out of the blue and perform brilliantly on Lions tours, its not unheard of so why bring Moriarty down? Until we see how all perform, its too early to write him off but what he has contributed in a tight first game should not be dismissed.

eirebilly wrote:I really don't understand why Moriarty is being put down somewhat on here. In the first game he was one of the standout players when supposed better/more experienced players failed. He showed strength and composure.

Some players simply come out of the blue and perform brilliantly on Lions tours, its not unheard of so why bring Moriarty down? Until we see how all perform, its too early to write him off but what he has contributed in a tight first game should not be dismissed.

Agreed. I wouldn't have selected him or Te'o for the tour, but both have been selected and, if they play well enough, why shouldn't they be rewarded with test starts?

People are also blowing up after one game. We haven't seen everyone play. If Moriarty isn't the best option at 6, surely Haskell, Stander or O'Mahony will put his performance in the shade over the next couple of games?

beshocked wrote:Even you mikey dragon as a Gatland fan must be a bit alarmed by the performance in the 1st match vs the weakest opposition.

I am actually pro quite a few selections of Welsh players like Williams,Webb,North,Owens,Faletau,Tipuric and Warburton.

Wales do have good players, just not being utilised properly by Gatland and Howley.

BS I watched the match a couple days late. There was cause for concern but I didn't think it to be as bad as made out on here - at least that's the way I see it. It was almost expected. I don't think singling out people was fair either when the team was out of sync, although a few guys did put in very good performances. The match against Blues will be a close one as they have their ABs and I expect if the Lions win it'll still be doom and gloom on here.

I think deep down inside you mean well BS and you care about Wales, but stop dragging things off topic and we'll get on fine .

robbo277 fair enough if that's how you feel. I wouldn't want either facing NZ as things stand.

Maybe both will change my mind.

mikey dragon not off topic to be alarmed about the first game. As I said, they are the weakest opposition, should have stuck 30 points + even if a bit disjointed.

If Gatland and co learn, then maybe all will be well.

Moriarty should perform well vs the weakest side as should all the players.

The level of opposition goes up every game.

beshocked wrote:Moriarty should perform well vs the weakest side as should all the players.

But he did and others didn't? I wouldn't have said he's of the required caliber before but his performances recently have been good, and we complain about others being selected when not on form.

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Moriarty should perform well vs the weakest side as should all the players.

But he did and others didn't? I wouldn't have said he's of the required caliber before but his performances recently have been good, and we complain about others being selected when not on form.

True. He's obviously doing enough to keep people happy. Still doesn't mean I think he'll be good enough against the ABs but I might well be wrong.

I think it's fair to say he hasn't let the Lions down yet. Perhaps I am being overly harsh but will see if he can prove me wrong.

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Moriarty should perform well vs the weakest side as should all the players.

But he did and others didn't? I wouldn't have said he's of the required caliber before but his performances recently have been good, and we complain about others being selected when not on form.

Exactly what I was saying as well. Until we see how the others play when given their chances, its too early to say that Moriarty should not play against the AB's. I just find it very confusing that one of the better players in a side that did not perform is being questioned on here by some.

eirebilly wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Moriarty should perform well vs the weakest side as should all the players.

But he did and others didn't? I wouldn't have said he's of the required caliber before but his performances recently have been good, and we complain about others being selected when not on form.

Exactly what I was saying as well. Until we see how the others play when given their chances, its too early to say that Moriarty should not play against the AB's. I just find it very confusing that one of the better players in a side that did not perform is being questioned on here by some.

It just depends whether you think Moriarty is a superior player to the likes O Mahony,Stander and Faletau. I don't but we'll agree to disagree.

If those 3 are woefully out of form and Moriarty is the only player showing any remote form then yes he might well move into contention but as things stand.... no way.

I think it comes down to choice of tactics as well which brings us nicely full circle. No matter how well te'o played for instance I'd still feel that Farrell, or another ball player should play at 12. It's worked so well for England and for me brings the best out of the outside centre and back 3. Same with moriarty really. The question comes if moriarty s performance levels are the best and who else makes up that back row. I kind of doubt we'll see anyone other than Warburton and faletau for 7 and 8.

Howley has said he has no idea what Warrenball is, Umm just watch a game form this years 6 nations Rob.

TightHEAD wrote:Howley has said he has no idea what Warrenball is, Umm just watch a game form this years 6 nations Rob.  

That was Howlerball.

beshocked wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Moriarty should perform well vs the weakest side as should all the players.

But he did and others didn't? I wouldn't have said he's of the required caliber before but his performances recently have been good, and we complain about others being selected when not on form.

Exactly what I was saying as well. Until we see how the others play when given their chances, its too early to say that Moriarty should not play against the AB's. I just find it very confusing that one of the better players in a side that did not perform is being questioned on here by some.

It just depends whether you think Moriarty is a superior player to the likes O Mahony,Stander and Faletau. I don't but we'll agree to disagree.

If those 3 are woefully out of form and Moriarty is the only player showing any remote form then yes he might well move into contention but as things stand.... no way.

To me, on a Lions tour, it matters not who is the perceived superior players. It matters who is performing the best that should get the starts. Its the players that adjust to these tours best that make the most impact so again, until we see all play, I will reserve my judgment but at the moment, Moriarty played a good first game and that should not be dismissed.

No 7&1/2 wrote:...No matter how well te'o played for instance I'd still feel that Farrell, or another ball player should play at 12...

We don't really have another ball playing 12 like Farrell. Biggar might fit that role at a pinch. Would you really want to play him out of position in such a big match? I don't recall that going too well for Woodward when he switched Wilkinson to 12.

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:...No matter how well te'o played for instance I'd still feel that Farrell, or another ball player should play at 12...

We don't really have another ball playing 12 like Farrell. Biggar might fit that role at a pinch. Would you really want to play him out of position in such a big match? I don't recall that going too well for Woodward when he switched Wilkinson to 12.

When allowed, Henshaw can be a very playmaking 12 (comes from experience at 13). I also feel that Daly has the potential to be a ball playing 12 but next to no experience there.
JJ could also play 12 with JD2 at 13.

There are options out there for this role to not force Farrell to 12.

eirebilly wrote:

beshocked wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Moriarty should perform well vs the weakest side as should all the players.

But he did and others didn't? I wouldn't have said he's of the required caliber before but his performances recently have been good, and we complain about others being selected when not on form.

Exactly what I was saying as well. Until we see how the others play when given their chances, its too early to say that Moriarty should not play against the AB's. I just find it very confusing that one of the better players in a side that did not perform is being questioned on here by some.

It just depends whether you think Moriarty is a superior player to the likes O Mahony,Stander and Faletau. I don't but we'll agree to disagree.

If those 3 are woefully out of form and Moriarty is the only player showing any remote form then yes he might well move into contention but as things stand.... no way.

To me, on a Lions tour, it matters not who is the perceived superior players. It matters who is performing the best that should get the starts. Its the players that adjust to these tours best that make the most impact so again, until we see all play, I will reserve my judgment but at the moment, Moriarty played a good first game and that should not be dismissed.

You have to factor in that this is the weakest opposition.

Much tougher opposition to come. Sure I guess the mantra with Moriarty would be he can only perform against what is in front of him but just because been solid so far doesn't mean he's well prepared for the best side in the world.

If he keeps performing as the difficulty level goes from 1 out of 10  upwards gradually to 10/10 then sure.... he might come into contention.

beshocked wrote:

You have to factor in that this is the weakest opposition.

Much tougher opposition to come. Sure I guess the mantra with Moriarty would be he can only perform against what is in front of him but just because been solid so far doesn't mean he's well prepared for the best side in the world.

If he keeps performing as the difficulty level goes from 1 out of 10  upwards gradually to 10/10 then sure.... he might come into contention.

It was the weakest opposition, yes, but far more experienced players played poorly and Moriarty played well.

I am not saying he is set for a test start against the AB's, I am saying that we should see the rest play before Moriarty is either pencilled in or written off. You are basically writing him off before seeing how others play because you perceive them to be superior players to him and I disagree with you on that as I don't see superior players in a Lions setup, I see a squad that gels together and play together. You can have the best player in the world on tour but if he does not fit in with the team or the tactics, he is a pointless tourist.

Give every player a chance and them form an opinion as to who will be the best fit for a test team against the AB's.

eirebilly wrote:

beshocked wrote:

You have to factor in that this is the weakest opposition.

Much tougher opposition to come. Sure I guess the mantra with Moriarty would be he can only perform against what is in front of him but just because been solid so far doesn't mean he's well prepared for the best side in the world.

If he keeps performing as the difficulty level goes from 1 out of 10  upwards gradually to 10/10 then sure.... he might come into contention.

It was the weakest opposition, yes, but far more experienced players played poorly and Moriarty played well.

I am not saying he is set for a test start against the AB's, I am saying that we should see the rest play before Moriarty is either pencilled in or written off. You are basically writing him off before seeing how others play because you perceive them to be superior players to him and I disagree with you on that as I don't see superior players in a Lions setup, I see a squad that gels together and play together. You can have the best player in the world on tour but if he does not fit in with the team or the tactics, he is a pointless tourist.

Give every player a chance and them form an opinion as to who will be the best fit for a test team against the AB's.

It's the first game of the tour, doesn't make for great viewing.

Of course it's early days to pick a Lions team vs ABs but surely there are players you'd rather see.

You are right, some players are better tourists. Hogg is a player who unsurprisingly doesn't seem to fit well with Gatland/Howley tactics - so despite being one of the best full backs might not be as suitable for Gatland/Howley as L.Williams.

Moriarty might well turn out to be a good tourist but he still must convince me he's good enough to take on the best.

I personally feel that the likes of Stander and O Mahony will be more comfortable than Hogg but we'll see.

beshocked wrote:Welsh fans don't seem to care how Wales have stagnated in the last 3-4 years.

Don't believe it.

beshocked wrote:

You are right, some players are better tourists. Hogg is a player who unsurprisingly doesn't seem to fit well with Gatland/Howley tactics - so despite being one of the best full backs might not be as suitable for Gatland/Howley as L.Williams.

Another odd comparison.

Once all the players have started a game (so Saturday morning) we can have a constructive, balanced discussion on the merits of different players in relation to current form.

Until that point it is merely conjecture, prejudice and hot air. Which to be fair is what an internet forum is for I guess.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

beshocked wrote:Welsh fans don't seem to care how Wales have stagnated in the last 3-4 years.

Don't believe it.

It rather depends on whether they are responding to a Rob Howley interview on the Western Mail boards or responding to an English cvhap making a disparging remark about Alex Cuthbert on here.

eirebilly wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:...No matter how well te'o played for instance I'd still feel that Farrell, or another ball player should play at 12...

We don't really have another ball playing 12 like Farrell. Biggar might fit that role at a pinch. Would you really want to play him out of position in such a big match? I don't recall that going too well for Woodward when he switched Wilkinson to 12.

When allowed, Henshaw can be a very playmaking 12 (comes from experience at 13). I also feel that Daly has the potential to be a ball playing 12 but next to no experience there.
JJ could also play 12 with JD2 at 13.

There are options out there for this role to not force Farrell to 12.

Billy, I think pushing either Daly or JJ to 12 would be forcing the issue far more than if Farrell was there - Farrell is comfortable there internationally, and it suits his skills in the right game plan

Daly and JJ both like the open spaces and attacking the outside shoulder, Daly in particular would struggle with the head on tackling required, his defence is best when he's able to use his pace to drag down people attacking his outside shoulder

I have accepted that we're playing a bludgeon at 12.

BamBam wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:...No matter how well te'o played for instance I'd still feel that Farrell, or another ball player should play at 12...

We don't really have another ball playing 12 like Farrell. Biggar might fit that role at a pinch. Would you really want to play him out of position in such a big match? I don't recall that going too well for Woodward when he switched Wilkinson to 12.

When allowed, Henshaw can be a very playmaking 12 (comes from experience at 13). I also feel that Daly has the potential to be a ball playing 12 but next to no experience there.
JJ could also play 12 with JD2 at 13.

There are options out there for this role to not force Farrell to 12.

Billy, I think pushing either Daly or JJ to 12 would be forcing the issue far more than if Farrell was there - Farrell is comfortable there internationally, and it suits his skills in the right game plan

Daly and JJ both like the open spaces and attacking the outside shoulder, Daly in particular would struggle with the head on tackling required, his defence is best when he's able to use his pace to drag down people attacking his outside shoulder

Neither JJ nor Daly are realistic contenders at 12.

Talk all you like about playmakers anyway but it was Barrett and Henshaw at 12 the last two times an NH side beat the All Blacks, with some pace outside. Whilst yes Barrett in theory was a converted 10 in reality he is/was very much a direct running physical 12 who also put in a lot of tackles.

BamBam wrote:

Billy, I think pushing either Daly or JJ to 12 would be forcing the issue far more than if Farrell was there - Farrell is comfortable there internationally, and it suits his skills in the right game plan

Daly and JJ both like the open spaces and attacking the outside shoulder, Daly in particular would struggle with the head on tackling required, his defence is best when he's able to use his pace to drag down people attacking his outside shoulder

Its me just thinking outside the box. I just do not think that a bosh 12 is the way to beat the AB's, I feel you have to attack them. For Farrell to play 12, Sexton has to be fully match fit and on his game which I have question marks about.

You can get away with a bosh 12 with Farrell at 10 but then you need a playmaking 9 of which I feel Webb is the best the Lions have there. Then you need a very good distributing 13 to bring the back 3 into play and that I feel is Payne.

eirebilly wrote:

BamBam wrote:

Billy, I think pushing either Daly or JJ to 12 would be forcing the issue far more than if Farrell was there - Farrell is comfortable there internationally, and it suits his skills in the right game plan

Daly and JJ both like the open spaces and attacking the outside shoulder, Daly in particular would struggle with the head on tackling required, his defence is best when he's able to use his pace to drag down people attacking his outside shoulder

Its me just thinking outside the box. I just do not think that a bosh 12 is the way to beat the AB's, I feel you have to attack them. For Farrell to play 12, Sexton has to be fully match fit and on his game which I have question marks about.

You can get away with a bosh 12 with Farrell at 10 but then you need a playmaking 9 of which I feel Webb is the best the Lions have there. Then you need a very good distributing 13 to bring the back 3 into play and that I feel is Payne.

When England and Ireland beat NZ these were the centre partnerships - Barritt-Tuilagi, Henshaw and Payne.

It shows that you can beat NZ with a hard runner at 12. Yes it's just 1 game but shows the possibility.

Funnily enough Farrell was the 10 the day, England beat NZ too, Farrell is a better player now than then too.


It's about how you use the players. Barritt and Tuilagi had their best game together by far. Both Henshaw and Payne are touring.

Henshaw and Payne played pretty well this morning, as did Biggar. Liam Williams had a very poor game and neither Nowell nor Halfpenny covered themselves in glory. Daly looked lively at both wing and OC.

Pack looks promising, particularly the 4 props on display, who are probably in pole position for test slots now.

I thought Biggar was pretty shaky. Better than Sexton was on Saturday but far too many misplaced passes and some silly mistakes. Hope the blow he took to the head was not too bad though as with Sexton's form a spot in the Test 23 is there for the asking.

GATLANDBALL SUCKS...........

What worries me more than the obviously blunt tactics is the absence of a plan B selection. The chosen fly halves are all pretty bland. Solid and stable type guys.

Had Ford or Russel been picked instead of Biggar you could at least try a maverick at 10 to roll the dice a bit.

It's not the time to panic yet, and the saving grace is that all of the super rugby teams play like the All Blacks. The super rugby teams intrinsically play the same way as the international team so by the time we get to the tests, we'll be battle hardened and hopefully will have ironed out the kinks and be familiar with the defensive pattern to make the series competitive.

I'm dreading Saturday though.

Gwlad wrote:We don't stand a chance if this is what people like ruggeradge call support. Get off your Mylittlepony and support the guy ffs.

I really believe that some so called Lions supporters on here would actually like to see us fail just so they can be right in their pathetic assumptions about Gatland and anything Welsh

Possibly the first thing you've ever posted that I've agreed on  Can't we merge all Titheads threads into one big negative misery thread?
PS I'm no fan of Gats.

Crusaders 45 Pu ss y Cats 17

Anyone else worried the crusaders might target our key/inform players this weekend?

I fear for umm.............?

Dont worry guys its all fine. According to his latest outburst the Lions are keeping their real game on the training ground to keep the All Blacks in the dark.