Chiefs v British & Irish Lions, 20 June

  
Chiefs v British & Irish Lions
20 June 2017
KO: 19:35 NZST (8.35am BST)
Waikato Stadium, Hamilton

Live on Sky Sports, Sky Sports HD and SkyGo

Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)
Touch judges: [tbc]
TMO: [tbc]

A. FORM:

1993-06-29 
Waikato 38 - 10 British and Irish Lions

1983-07-12
Waikato 13 - 40 British and Irish Lions

1977-07-16
Waikato 13 - 18 British and Irish Lions

B. TEAMS:

Chiefs
1. Siegfried Fisi'ihoi (24)
2. Liam Polwart (2)
3. Nepo Laulala (11)
4. Dominic Bird (25)
5. Michael Allardice (20)
6. Mitchell Brown (14)
7. Lachlan Boshier (15)
8. Tom Sanders (19)

9. Finlay Christie (6)
10. Stephen Donald (c) (100)
11. Solomon Alaimalo (6)
12. Johnny Faauli (5)
13. Tim Nanai-Williams (82)
14. Toni Pulu (21)
15. Shaun Stevenson (21)

16. Hika Elliot (116)
17. Aidan Ross (2)
18. Atu Moli (24)
19. Liam Messam (159)
20. Mitchell Karpik (5)
21. Jonathan Taumateine (6)
22. Luteru Laulala (0)
23. Chase Tiatia (0)

British & Irish Lions
15. Liam Williams
14. Jack Nowell
13. Jared Payne
12. Robbie Henshaw
11. Elliot Daly
10. Dan Biggar
9. Greig Laidlaw

8. CJ Stander
7. Justin Tipuric
6. James Haskell
5. Courtney Lawes
4. Iain Henderson
3. Dan Cole
2. Rory Best (captain)
1. Joe Marler

16. Kristian Dacey
17. Allan Dell
18. Tomas Francis
19. Cory Hill
20. Alun Wyn Jones
21. Gareth Davies
22. Finn Russell
23. Tommy Seymour

C. PREVIEW

Chiefs missing a lot of key players who were grabbed to play in the Maori game first. Damien MacKenzie is carrying a knock and so is also out.

Press keen to brand this simplistically as a 'second string' Lions side, but I cannot see that this is true in every case.

Finn Russell must be knackered but I still hope that he gets some minutes and carries on the amazing form he showed in beating the Wallabies at the weekend.

I think second string is right. It leaves us with a test 23 of:

Mako, McGrath
George, Owens
Furlong, Sinckler
Itoje, Kruis, (Jones)
O'Mahony, O'Brien, Warburton
Faletau
Murray, Webb
Farrell, Sexton
Te'o, Davies, Joseph
North, Watson, Halfpenny

Couple of questions over who Gatland will start with, but hard to believe that wouldn't be the 23. Especially as the reason for calling up extra players was so the test guys didn't have to pull double duty.

I actually quite like that team, however the midweek side, for whatever reason, hasn't fired at all.

They should have too much for a weakened Chiefs side, but I said that before the Highlanders game as well.

Slightly disappointing that Seymour looks to be considered at the bottom of the wing pecking order, none of the wings (other than maybe Watson) have been particularly good, and at least he has looked dangerous going forward.

Final word on Russell, he has been brilliant over the last two games for Scotland and I really hope he gets some decent game time.

So the Test 23 definitely looks to be taking shape. Expect it to be those sitting this one out plus AWJ (who I suspect will only come on in this game if absolutely necessary, hence the two locks on the bench). Can't really complain too much in all honesty, it's a decent enough squad, will be interesting to see who gets the nod to start at FH and in the front row. North might be the biggest question mark for me, hasn't really done much in the warm-ups, but hoping he can turn it on when needed.

For the Chiefs game, like EST I hope Russell gets some decent gametime from the bench to show what he can do. You're only ever one injury away from forcing your way into the Test 23, and IMO Russell is a much better option than Biggar.

The Sydney Morning Herald had nothing but praise for Russell after the Australia game and said that it demonstrated it was a straightforward mistake not to select him for the original Lions party in the first place.  The SMH also pointed out that this is the second game where the Lions back absolutely dominated but the backline didn't score any tries. They concluded by saying that this current lack of creativity at 10 is what will probably do for our chances in the series as a whole.

Comes down to what we said before Gatland made his selection - is it important to have different clubs in your bag? Do you bring players who can play a different way if your Plan A is not working? I think that you need to, which is why I hope that Tipuric makes the test bench at least. If you're getting massacred at the breakdown (and Barclay/Watson showed this can win you the game), then you need a specialist on the field.

This game has been devalued and is now pointless IMO.

Seeing as North looks nailed on as a Test starter Gatland might as well play him again to see if he can find at least 5% of what he used to have 4 years ago.

Never have I seen a player drop off so drastically and still be on most people's starting XV v the All Blacks come the first Test.

TightHEAD wrote:This game has been devalued and is now pointless IMO.

Seeing as North looks nailed on as a Test starter Gatland might as well play him again to see if he can find at least 5% of what he used to have 4 years ago.

Never have I seen a player drop off so drastically and still be on most people's starting XV v the All Blacks come the first Test.

True, but we need these world class players like Murray, Sexton, JJ, T'eo, et al., to actually get the ball out to the wings. I've seen the wings try to come in field looking for work but rarely have we worked to put our wings into space to use their speed, I.e. The whole point of having fast guys on the wings. They're the finishers yet we're giving them f*** all to finish!

I agree, but they need to do more and increase their workload, this is something Nowell is normally so good at but the guy is trying too hard on tour and to be truthful has let himself down so far.

I think that we are looking at this the wrong way.

Our gameplan is clear - we win matches through the forwards and halfbacks and our backline is there to defend. It's really the only reason why you would have Te'o and JD2 and why you would have Biggar over Ford or Russell (game management). I think that we need to stop fretting about being creative and scoring backline tries. Gatland never had any intention of doing that and Hogg being invalided out was the last nail in that coffin.

George Carlin wrote:I think that we are looking at this the wrong way.

Our gameplan is clear - we win matches through the forwards and halfbacks and our backline is there to defend. It's really the only reason why you would have Te'o and JD2 and why you would have Biggar over Ford or Russell (game management). I think that we need to stop fretting about being creative and scoring backline tries. Gatland never had any intention of doing that and Hogg being invalided out was the last nail in that coffin.

Was North picked for his defending?

George Carlin wrote:I think that we are looking at this the wrong way.

Our gameplan is clear - we win matches through the forwards and halfbacks and our backline is there to defend. It's really the only reason why you would have Te'o and JD2 and why you would have Biggar over Ford or Russell (game management). I think that we need to stop fretting about being creative and scoring backline tries. Gatland never had any intention of doing that and Hogg being invalided out was the last nail in that coffin.

I agree to a certain extent but North & Daly aren't noted for great defence.

Yeah but they aren't given much ball either.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

George Carlin wrote:I think that we are looking at this the wrong way.

Our gameplan is clear - we win matches through the forwards and halfbacks and our backline is there to defend. It's really the only reason why you would have Te'o and JD2 and why you would have Biggar over Ford or Russell (game management). I think that we need to stop fretting about being creative and scoring backline tries. Gatland never had any intention of doing that and Hogg being invalided out was the last nail in that coffin.

Was North picked for his defending?

Well, I suppose that there's just more of him for Savea to have to run around...

A note on the newbies called up - I think we need to not have too high an expectation from them tomorrow, especially Finn Russell. He put in an 80 minute shift in a tough test match against Australia two days ago - as well as being fantastic in attack he put in a big defensive shift with 13 tackles, some of them key tackles near the try line. He'll be pretty beaten up and has had to fly to New Zealand and immediately take part in more training with no rest.

I just don't want to see him getting pillared on here with 'well that's why he wasn't called up in the first place' comments if he does come on and make mistakes or doesn't quite turn the Lions into the Harlem Globetrotters!

RDW_Scotland wrote:I just don't want to see him getting pillared on here with 'well that's why he wasn't called up in the first place' comments if he does come on and make mistakes or doesn't quite turn the Lions into the Harlem Globetrotters!

I agree 100%.

Problem is it is the nature of forums that with some posters having suggested he should be drafted straight into the test team (and many more having pushed his claims to tour ahead of those selected) that if he does not come on and make an immediate impression the trolls will be out in force.

That Lions bench is laughably weak except for Russell and Seymour.

Gatland has made a laughing stock of the Lions, turning it into a development tour for Wales fringe players.

As for the team itself, just seems to lack some zip.

Care-Russell or Care-Ford would be genuinely exciting halfback combo.

Haskell isn't in form. Watson-Tipuric-Stander would be a much better balanced backrow IMO.

Lawes-Launchbury or Lawes-Gray.....

Team could be much stronger than it is.

Gatland is showing his clear bias by not picking players on merit.

LondonTiger wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:I just don't want to see him getting pillared on here with 'well that's why he wasn't called up in the first place' comments if he does come on and make mistakes or doesn't quite turn the Lions into the Harlem Globetrotters!

I agree 100%.

Problem is it is the nature of forums that with some posters having suggested he should be drafted straight into the test team (and many more having pushed his claims to tour ahead of those selected) that if he does not come on and make an immediate impression the trolls will be out in force.

Yeah that was me. I said that because he has been performing better than the 10s currently playing with the Lions.

As for the trolls being out in force, how is that different from any other day?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:I just don't want to see him getting pillared on here with 'well that's why he wasn't called up in the first place' comments if he does come on and make mistakes or doesn't quite turn the Lions into the Harlem Globetrotters!

I agree 100%.

Problem is it is the nature of forums that with some posters having suggested he should be drafted straight into the test team (and many more having pushed his claims to tour ahead of those selected) that if he does not come on and make an immediate impression the trolls will be out in force.

Yeah that was me. I said that because he has been performing better than the 10s currently playing with the Lions.

As for the trolls being out in force, how is that different from any other day?

Russell sadly wasn't consistent enough in the 6 nations to force Gatland's hand.

Farrell and Sexton were always going to get picked and Biggar is Welsh.....

I was willing Russell to be player of the 6 nations - I would have won a lot of money if he did. At 200-1.....

2 MOTM awards was not enough.

Part of me would almost enjoy the Lions front 5 getting a complete manshaming in the last 20 mins once the quality replacements that Gatland brought into the squad come onto the field

beshocked wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:I just don't want to see him getting pillared on here with 'well that's why he wasn't called up in the first place' comments if he does come on and make mistakes or doesn't quite turn the Lions into the Harlem Globetrotters!

I agree 100%.

Problem is it is the nature of forums that with some posters having suggested he should be drafted straight into the test team (and many more having pushed his claims to tour ahead of those selected) that if he does not come on and make an immediate impression the trolls will be out in force.

Yeah that was me. I said that because he has been performing better than the 10s currently playing with the Lions.

As for the trolls being out in force, how is that different from any other day?

Russell sadly wasn't consistent enough in the 6 nations to force Gatland's hand.

Farrell and Sexton were always going to get picked and Biggar is Welsh.....

I was willing Russell to be player of the 6 nations - I would have won a lot of money if he did. At 200-1.....

2 MOTM awards was not enough.

Nah apparently it wasn't, he was MOTM for me anyway against Oz. I dunno who the official MOTM was, could have been Barclay, Watson or Taylor for that matter who were all outstanding.

I'm certainly hoping Russell can feature in the tests. We are only technically half way through the tour, there is a lot of rugby to come. He'll have a chance of the bench to prove something tomorrow, I just hope he isn't too bashed to make an impact.

His real chance will be against the Canes where he might get a chance to start.

Hasn't Gatland already said that these new arrivals are not being considered in any way for Test rugby (and are there to rest the key players)?

Cyril wrote:Hasn't Gatland already said that these new arrivals are not being considered in any way for Test rugby (and are there to rest the key players)?

That whole comment was quite vague, did he mean that whole bunch of 6? Or just his Welsh contingent? Or The Welsh contingent + Dell?

The lions history is littered with players who were called up because of injuries and made huge contributions to test matches. Croft, Ryan Jones & Corbisiero to name 3 ones from recent memory.

I hope these call ups are given a fair chance.

I'm sure I heard them say that some/all of them will leave after the Hurricanes game but I've not been able to find that anywhere.

RDW_Scotland wrote:I'm sure I heard them say that some/all of them will leave after the Hurricanes game but I've not been able to find that anywhere.

He said that in the pre match interview against the Maori I think. However his comment was pretty vague.

I'd expect some of that group to start the Canes game.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Cyril wrote:Hasn't Gatland already said that these new arrivals are not being considered in any way for Test rugby (and are there to rest the key players)?

That whole comment was quite vague, did he mean that whole bunch of 6? Or just his Welsh contingent? Or The Welsh contingent + Dell?

The lions history is littered with players who were called up because of injuries and made huge contributions to test matches. Croft, Ryan Jones & Corbisiero to name 3 ones from recent memory.

I hope these call ups are given a fair chance.

Croft was called up before the squad left in 2009 due to Quinlan's gouging ban.

The thing with guys like Jones, Corbs and Corry in 2001 is they were called up with appreciably more time to spare before the first test than these latest additions.

LondonTiger wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Cyril wrote:Hasn't Gatland already said that these new arrivals are not being considered in any way for Test rugby (and are there to rest the key players)?

That whole comment was quite vague, did he mean that whole bunch of 6? Or just his Welsh contingent? Or The Welsh contingent + Dell?

The lions history is littered with players who were called up because of injuries and made huge contributions to test matches. Croft, Ryan Jones & Corbisiero to name 3 ones from recent memory.

I hope these call ups are given a fair chance.

Croft was called up before the squad left in 2009 due to Quinlan's gouging ban.

The thing with guys like Jones, Corbs and Corry in 2001 is they were called up with appreciably more time to spare before the first test than these latest additions.

The call-ups are proof that Gats is in on the conspiracy to ensure the Crusaders are the only Super franchise to lose to the Lions mutter mutter mutter

The Home Unions were reputed to be paid £70k per player on the Lions tour, so how much will Wales be paid for Gatland calling up the latest batch from the Welsh 2nd team.
Sorry that's horribly cynical is it not, I am sure he looks at it as purely a pension investment

Call ups are bizarre, they did such a big push before the tour about how special it was to get a Lions shirt and then are dishing out to players that aren't even first team Welsh players. Lost a lot of respect on Lions tour management over this - the Scots were playing 2-3 hours away, surely Nel, both Grays, Watson and the young prop they have are far more deserving call ups and won't even start with comments on Care, Brown, Launchbury and Hartley.

But still got to support the guys, Gatland clearly only cares about the Test series and not so much on the tradition of what a Lions tour is.

SamTheQuin wrote:But still got to support the guys, Gatland clearly only cares about the Test series and not so much on the tradition of what a Lions tour is.

Thing is really that is all he will be judged on. Should the test series be won, the tour (and thus Gats) will be deemed a success. If lost then it would be deemed a failure (certainly on Gats CV) irrespective of how well the other games went.

Of course lose the test series 3-0 and the 2021 series will again (like 2009) be a time when the "ethos" of the Lions needs to be rebuilt.

SamTheQuin wrote:Call ups are bizarre, they did such a big push before the tour about how special it was to get a Lions shirt and then are dishing out to players that aren't even first team Welsh players. Lost a lot of respect on Lions tour management over this - the Scots were playing 2-3 hours away, surely Nel, both Grays, Watson and the young prop they have are far more deserving call ups and won't even start with comments on Care, Brown, Launchbury and Hartley.

But still got to support the guys, Gatland clearly only cares about the Test series and not so much on the tradition of what a Lions tour is.

Launchbury IMO should have been called before the 2nd Argentina game. If Gatland knew he needed a lock he should have been selected, since he has a chance to actually make an impact and force his way into test reckoning. Johnny Gray would have been my second choice.

Johnny is obviously out there with the Scotland squad in Fiji now, but Richie is injured. As for Nel and the "young prop" Fagerson, they are both tightheads, Dell is a loosehead so presumably that's why he got the call.

Mike Brown IMO is a bit surplus to requirements, there are plenty of Full Backs in the squad despite Hogg being sent home in the form of Williams, Payne, Daly and the outstanding Watson who should be the nailed on starter for the tests.

Has there been a flanker called up? If so both John Barcly and Hamish Watson should be a bit miffed.

As for Hartley, I'd have picked Fraser Brown or Ross Ford over him. Mainly because of his poor disciplinary record and the fact that I irrationally let my dislike of the man overtake any reasonable suggestion that he might be a good player.

The Lions to me is so much more than the Test series though and the call ups have left a sour taste, should be players who deserve it and not one of those players does imo.

Still think we have a chance of winning the first test if he picks a back row of POM, O'Brien and TF - especially if AWJ doesnt make the starting line up as Itoje and Kruis have looked excellent.

LondonTiger wrote:

SamTheQuin wrote:But still got to support the guys, Gatland clearly only cares about the Test series and not so much on the tradition of what a Lions tour is.

Thing is really that is all he will be judged on. Should the test series be won, the tour (and thus Gats) will be deemed a success. If lost then it would be deemed a failure (certainly on Gats CV) irrespective of how well the other games went.

Of course lose the test series 3-0 and the 2021 series will again (like 2009) be a time when the "ethos" of the Lions needs to be rebuilt.

Very early days yet but I wonder what odds you could get on Townsend being the next Lions coach? He's a Lions legend and is all about culture, playing philosophy and an attacking mindset.

Launchbury/Gray weren't called up just in case they showed how much of a drop in quality AWJ is in comparison

Nel should have gone over Francis, arguably so should Fagerson

Dell is pretty much the last loosehead realistically available

As for hooker, any of Hartley/Ford/Brown/any of the ladies in Amsterdam windows should have been picked over Dacey

LondonTiger wrote:

SamTheQuin wrote:But still got to support the guys, Gatland clearly only cares about the Test series and not so much on the tradition of what a Lions tour is.

Thing is really that is all he will be judged on. Should the test series be won, the tour (and thus Gats) will be deemed a success. If lost then it would be deemed a failure (certainly on Gats CV) irrespective of how well the other games went.

Of course lose the test series 3-0 and the 2021 series will again (like 2009) be a time when the "ethos" of the Lions needs to be rebuilt.

I'm not sure that's entirely right. Generally the 2009 tour was considered to be pretty successful despite a loss in the Test series, while 2013 seems to be a bit marmite with fans. Of course, you could argue the 09 SA side was much stronger than the 13 Aus one, and having a current national team head coach be responsible for the Lions in 2013 (and this tour) may also have exacerbated tribalism among fans, which didn't help. There's also the fact that the 09 tour came off the back of an unmitigated disaster in 05 when the future of the Lions was being questioned, while 13 came off the back of a pretty decent 09 tour. But overall, I think the success of a Lions tour shouldn't be reduced to whether the Test series is won. For me it's a whole host of factors including things like "ethos" and picking a bunch of club players in a pre-planned move as cannon fodder for the mid-week side doesn't help.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

SamTheQuin wrote:But still got to support the guys, Gatland clearly only cares about the Test series and not so much on the tradition of what a Lions tour is.

Thing is really that is all he will be judged on. Should the test series be won, the tour (and thus Gats) will be deemed a success. If lost then it would be deemed a failure (certainly on Gats CV) irrespective of how well the other games went.

Of course lose the test series 3-0 and the 2021 series will again (like 2009) be a time when the "ethos" of the Lions needs to be rebuilt.

Very early days yet but I wonder what odds you could get on Townsend being the next Lions coach? He's a Lions legend and is all about culture, playing philosophy and an attacking mindset.

Steve Hansen will likely have retired from the ABs job & might be temptable. Which would mean a decent shot at getting Wayne Smith on board as assistant

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

SamTheQuin wrote:But still got to support the guys, Gatland clearly only cares about the Test series and not so much on the tradition of what a Lions tour is.

Thing is really that is all he will be judged on. Should the test series be won, the tour (and thus Gats) will be deemed a success. If lost then it would be deemed a failure (certainly on Gats CV) irrespective of how well the other games went.

Of course lose the test series 3-0 and the 2021 series will again (like 2009) be a time when the "ethos" of the Lions needs to be rebuilt.

I'm not sure that's entirely right. Generally the 2009 tour was considered to be pretty successful despite a loss in the Test series, while 2013 seems to be a bit marmite with fans. Of course, you could argue the 09 SA side was much stronger than the 13 Aus one, and having a current national team head coach be responsible for the Lions in 2013 (and this tour) may also have exacerbated tribalism among fans, which didn't help. There's also the fact that the 09 tour came off the back of an unmitigated disaster in 05 when the future of the Lions was being questioned, while 13 came off the back of a pretty decent 09 tour. But overall, I think the success of a Lions tour shouldn't be reduced to whether the Test series is won. For me it's a whole host of factors including things like "ethos" and picking a bunch of club players in a pre-planned move as cannon fodder for the mid-week side doesn't help.

If we lose the test series 3-0 (with 1 thrashing), then this tour will have been worse than 2005.

It's not that test success is the only measure of success for a Lions tour (although it is the strongest), but this year a test triumph is the only way Gatland can vindicate what's gone before: initially selecting injured/out of form players; stoneage tactics; splitting the squad and losing first 2 midweek games and the call-ups on convenience not merit.

None of the decisions have sat well with the majority of the fans. If he can win a test series off the back of it, he can stick his finger up as his decisions will be vindicated. If he can't, then he has nothing to point to as a success. Unless you count an (at best) 5/2 record in the warm-ups as a successful tour.

Allan Dell - Prop - Have we lost a prop - Er No
Kristian Dacey - Hooker - Have we lost a hooker - Er No
Cory Hill - Lock - Have we lost a lock - Well No
Gareth Davies - Have we lost a scrum half - Well No

Have we lost a full back - Er Yes actually
Have we lost a back row - YES
Now I spent most of my career as a simple back, so could someone please explain why we are replacing where we have no injuries, yet, not replacing injured players.
Both our 1st choice 10s are vulnerable through old & current injuries who is next on the Gatland idiot list, Sean Edwards?????????

10to15 wrote:Allan Dell - Prop - Have we lost a prop - Er No
Kristian Dacey - Hooker - Have we lost a hooker - Er No
Cory Hill - Lock - Have we lost a lock - Well No
Gareth Davies - Have we lost a scrum half - Well No

Have we lost a full back - Er Yes actually
Have we lost a back row - YES
Now I spent most of my career as a simple back, so could someone please explain why we are replacing where we have no injuries, yet, not replacing injured players.
Both our 1st choice 10s are vulnerable through old & current injuries who is next on the Gatland idiot list, Sean Edwards?????????

If we hadn't called up a replacement front row then players in the test squad would have needed to bench for this game. Similarly if a 10 hadn't been called up then Sexton would have needed to bench too (assuming Farrell won't be fit in time for this game).

The whole debate here is that Gatland has known this would happen - he has supposedly planned this to happen - yet he only called up local based players just before Chiefs game when they've had next to no preparation time.

I wonder if anyone will change their mind about this if we actually beat the Chiefs.

George Carlin wrote:I wonder if anyone will change their mind about this if we actually beat the Chiefs.

FWIW I won't.

George Carlin wrote:I wonder if anyone will change their mind about this if we actually beat the Chiefs.

I still think we should have enough to beat the Chiefs, and a number of these players will be absolutely desperate to get a win as they haven't won in a Lions jersey yet.

Ultimately if we win the first test then Gatland's decision will have been vindicated, but that doesn't mean people will still like it.

[quote="BamBam"]Launchbury/Gray weren't called up just in case they showed how much of a drop in quality AWJ is in comparison

Nel should have gone over Francis, arguably so should Fagerson

Dell is pretty much the last loosehead realistically available

As for hooker, any of Hartley/Ford/Brown/any of the ladies in Amsterdam windows should have been picked over Dacey[/quote]

Completely agree. Can understand call ups to ensure that the Test team have enough rest and are good to go and glad to see Russell get called up but the others...the Scots have better players in all positions, but understand Davies as he's actually ok. Just a shame that this has come into the tour as focus should be on the players and Lions management and Gatland have handled this appallingly.

[quote="George Carlin"]I wonder if anyone will change their mind about this if we actually beat the Chiefs.[/quote]

Chiefs game is irrelevant now in all honesty, Gatland is just focusing upon the Test series, only guy in that match day 23 playing for a Test place would be Elliot Daly as if he has a good game then he could nudge out North. The Chiefs have actually lost a lot of players too, so if the Lions don't win then it is an issue, even with our new 'impact' from the bench

RDW_Scotland wrote:

10to15 wrote:Allan Dell - Prop - Have we lost a prop - Er No
Kristian Dacey - Hooker - Have we lost a hooker - Er No
Cory Hill - Lock - Have we lost a lock - Well No
Gareth Davies - Have we lost a scrum half - Well No

Have we lost a full back - Er Yes actually
Have we lost a back row - YES
Now I spent most of my career as a simple back, so could someone please explain why we are replacing where we have no injuries, yet, not replacing injured players.
Both our 1st choice 10s are vulnerable through old & current injuries who is next on the Gatland idiot list, Sean Edwards?????????

If we hadn't called up a replacement front row then players in the test squad would have needed to bench for this game. Similarly if a 10 hadn't been called up then Sexton would have needed to bench too (assuming Farrell won't be fit in time for this game).

The whole debate here is that Gatland has known this would happen - he has supposedly planned this to happen - yet he only called up local based players just before Chiefs game when they've had next to no preparation time.

So you start the mid-week game with your mid-week props and have the Test subs on the bench. If your test sub props don't get a decent run out you play them to start the next mid-week. It's called Team Management. What Gatland seems to be doing is filling the mid-week team/bench with players who are not up to standard instead of actually MANAGING his existing players. So I again ask my original point - Who gets how much.

I get the proximity excuse but why was Cory Hill called up in place of Jonny Gray? Makes no sense.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I get the proximity excuse but why was Cory Hill called up in place of Jonny Gray? Makes no sense.

Smacks strongly of Toonie just saying 'no'.

George Carlin wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I get the proximity excuse but why was Cory Hill called up in place of Jonny Gray? Makes no sense.

Smacks strongly of Toonie just saying 'no'.

I was wondering if there was more than a hint of that. Russell has had 2 games and Toonie might always have went for Horne against Fiji.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I get the proximity excuse but why was Cory Hill called up in place of Jonny Gray? Makes no sense.

Smacks strongly of Toonie just saying 'no'.

I was wondering if there was more than a hint of that. Russell has had 2 games and Toonie might always have went for Horne against Fiji.

I also get the sense that Toonie knows Russell (and to a much lesser extent, Dell) is one injury away from featuring in a test match and I suspect (having been a test Lion himself) Townsend will not want to deny them the chance at this.

There is a huge queue of locks ahead of Jonny Gray. None are really better but the pecking order looks well established now. So why hand over one of your prize assets for no upside and a test match against Fiji still to come? If that is true, then I couldn't blame him.

robbo277 wrote:

George Carlin wrote:I wonder if anyone will change their mind about this if we actually beat the Chiefs.

FWIW I won't.

Actually, Dave Rennie has won the first battle ahead of tomorrows game. The BBC has a link to a Kiwi paper where the Chiefs team was read out by a 10 year old fan who had e-mailed his selection to Rennie a few weeks ago. Seem s Rennie got back to him, they discussed it and agreed the 23. The lad was then invited in to meet the squad and tell them who was playing. Excellent PR.

From a Glasgow perspective, this bodes well for the next couple of seasons.

Also Stephen Jones, on Twitter, seems to be suggestiong that one Scotland player said "stuff it" to Gatland at the weekend. My money is on Little Jonny.