Lions pack, AWJ criticism, and an alternative view...

First topic message reminder :

Vunipola 40
George 17 (0 starts)
Furong 16
AWJ 110
Kruis 20

Itoje 12

What is the obvious stat here capwise that without AWJ the lions don't have? jesus that kiwi tight5 average 70 plus each don't they?!?! How can anyone not view our tight 5 as massively inexperienced. Mako Vunipola I still classed as inexperienced and he'd have to lead!!! with this being Georges first ever test start also.

I think George starting is a massive call, one I understand, I personally would've gone for Owens but hey, off the bench he's a great option. George will need experience around him, he needs a cool head who's seen everything before, and I think Sinckler is a victim of Georges selection, had Owens started I think Sinckler would have also.

Very few people seem to rate AWJ, he has been lauded the best lock in the world recently, until Howley got his hands on the team and created another horror show, most people were considering AWJ, Itoje and Jonny Grey as test starters (Istill don'T understand Greys exclusion but hey).

The AWJ is a non issue, he's good enough, he's needed far more than any other player we have, let alone forward, let alone lock.

My worry is points left on the park, and Gatlands selection of players who are still in recovery from FULL 80 MINUTES!!!!!

There are too many question marks around starters for me to feel comfortable...

Georges lack of experience,
Front row combination looks unbalanced,
Back row combo looks unbalanced,
Inexperienced captain,
Farrells lack of game time at 10 on the highest stage, and injury
Teo's inability to do anything but act like Jamie Roberts
Davies's fitness
both wingers defencive capabilities (although Watsons less so)
Kicking options are limited
Liam Williams lack of gametime from 15
Inexperience of the squad as a whole

I think this is a risky selection, and I get it, Gatland has to take risks to win in NZ, but for me risks can be optimised and minimilsed in certain areas, whereas it almost feels like an 'everything on red 23' moment.

Sin é wrote:

BamBam wrote:Option A - A proven loser against NZ/Aus/SA more often than not, on this tour alone he's looked physically incapable compared to others on the field

Option B - Someone who has excelled at every level of rugby, played far better than Option A against the equivalent opposition, more often than not he's physically dominant

Most would go option B but EKSHPERIENSH

I think you should take into consideration the wisdom that a player learns more from their losses than they do from their victories.

Guess Wales are slow learners when it comes to SANZAR opposition

Sin é wrote:I think you should take into consideration the wisdom that a player learns more from their losses than they do from their victories.

But if that doesn't help you win it the future what good is it? If that doesn't convert to good performances what good is it?

If losing to SH opposition gave you great experience for improvement, Wales would be the standout team in World Rugby.

NZ almost never experience losing, hasn't hurt them too much?

Sin é wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Peter O'Mahony is not an inexperienced captain, for goodness sake. He has captained his team in every level he has played. He has been the undisputed Munster captain for 3 or 4 years.

Are you kidding me? Mahony has only just got back into the Ireland team, and has had the odd captaincy when Best and Heaslip were injured against the likes of Canada! Best is an experienced captain, and lions tourist, Heaslip is an experienced captain, Mahony is learning like every other debutant on tour! I don't argue against his inclusion, I'm not even arguing against his captaincy, but don't argue the lions debutant, who has captained his country in the absence of the long term leaders an experienced captain at this level...

Jesus, POM has been Munster captain for the last 4 years and has just been through the season of hell - not many captains would have to deal with what he has.

Joe Schmidt does not always get it right (in fact he has made a big mistake giving Heaslip another 3 year contract which effectively pushed Donnacha Ryan out the door.

For the record, you think captaining the lions is similar to captaining your club? Whether Schmidt had it wrong or right, Mahony isn't an experienced international captain, Best and Heaslip have dominated that until absent have they not? I havn't said anything contraversial about Mahony, deserved to tour, deserved the test, hell i'm not even saying he doesn't deserve the captaincy, I am saying he isn't an experienced tourist, let alone captain. Whats to disagree with?

POM had a potential career ending injury at the last world cup. He was out for over a year. That is why Best got the captaincy (and has done an excellent job). Heaslip is not a good captain - and sporadically captained Leinster. Lets not forget that Martin Johnson had not captained England before he captained the Lions either. Munster is a big club to be captain of. Because Munster (and all Irish Provinces) are part of the community, the supporters expectations are very high.

No need to explain Munster to me, I bought a brick when living in Ennis for the new rebuild of Thomond. I'm not slating Mahony (why you would beleive I am i'm not sure), i'm just saying he isn't an experienced captain or tourist at this level, hence why another older head is required to address the balance of how young a lot of players are up front.

Scottrf wrote:

Fanster wrote:noone will listen to reason, or concede my valid points when I concede valid points made to me...

8/10 wumming, I believed you were serious until this post.

The line " theres no valid argument against his inclussion" not withstanding ....

Fanster wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Simple questions: do you think Jones has played well so far on tour? Has he played better than any of the other locks? Did he play well in the 6N? Did he show particularly good leadership then?

Thanks for asking, at least this might aid discussion!!!

I don't think AWJ has performed at his best, he hasn't been bad, and has a specific role to play. Kruis and Itoje have both been very good, however lets be honest, AWJ knows Gatland, knows the gameplan, has been around 2 other lions tours, and Gatland for years now, he has less to prove on tour than the others, and probably more to lose by overtrying in warm up games.

Lawes and Henderson have been ok, I still think Grey and Launchbury deserved to tour, probably ahead of both but neither have been bad. Neither I'd want to see against NZ mind.

We have 3 standouts, unfortunately for Itoje he's been relegated to the bench due to great form from George, Furlong, Mahony etc.

You see, this is where I disagree. For me, AWJ has been bad (someone posted the stats the other day, they don't make good reading), he's coming back from an injury lay-off and for me has looked off the pace. Kruis was also coming off an injury lay-off but has shown he's back up to speed, whereas AWJ for me hasn't. If he was fit and firing, you could make a decent case for his experience giving him the edge, but he isn't, whereas Itoje and Kruis are, and Lawes has also been playing well. Arguably, Henderson played better on Tuesday than AWJ has so far on tour.

So you're basically taking a punt that he's going to "come good" in the Test. It's possible, but it's a risk, and IMO an unnecessary one given how well the alternative options are playing.

Sin é wrote:

BamBam wrote:Option A - A proven loser against NZ/Aus/SA more often than not, on this tour alone he's looked physically incapable compared to others on the field

Option B - Someone who has excelled at every level of rugby, played far better than Option A against the equivalent opposition, more often than not he's physically dominant

Most would go option B but EKSHPERIENSH

I think you should take into consideration the wisdom that a player learns more from their losses than they do from their victories.

I'd be happy to.

How many losses does he need to learn from? From a quick google - 41 games vs the big 3, 3 Welsh wins, 2 Lions wins

Doesn't look like he's a very quick learner

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:Simple questions: do you think Jones has played well so far on tour? Has he played better than any of the other locks? Did he play well in the 6N? Did he show particularly good leadership then?

Thanks for asking, at least this might aid discussion!!!

I don't think AWJ has performed at his best, he hasn't been bad, and has a specific role to play. Kruis and Itoje have both been very good, however lets be honest, AWJ knows Gatland, knows the gameplan, has been around 2 other lions tours, and Gatland for years now, he has less to prove on tour than the others, and probably more to lose by overtrying in warm up games.

Lawes and Henderson have been ok, I still think Grey and Launchbury deserved to tour, probably ahead of both but neither have been bad. Neither I'd want to see against NZ mind.

We have 3 standouts, unfortunately for Itoje he's been relegated to the bench due to great form from George, Furlong, Mahony etc.

You see, this is where I disagree. For me, AWJ has been bad (someone posted the stats the other day, they don't make good reading), he's coming back from an injury lay-off and for me has looked off the pace. Kruis was also coming off an injury lay-off but has shown he's back up to speed, whereas AWJ for me hasn't. If he was fit and firing, you could make a decent case for his experience giving him the edge, but he isn't, whereas Itoje and Kruis are, and Lawes has also been playing well. Arguably, Henderson played better on Tuesday than AWJ has so far on tour.

So you're basically taking a punt that he's going to "come good" in the Test. It's possible, but it's a risk, and IMO an unnecessary one given how well the alternative options are playing.

You say he's been bad, however everyone in the first game looked bad, and jetlagged! The Crusaders gae he led and looked good, thats where I suspect he sealed test one, he's only come off the bench since then, and is being managed IMO. So you say he's off the pace, I say your basing that on game 1, and his sub appearance. Hence why my opinion is that he has had the test jersey to lose! The others have all had a fight out and had to throw their all in every appearance, and lets be honest the Crusaders were the best pack we've played by a mile. Theres a direct correlation between the pack we started v Crusaders, and test one selection don't you think? All other games the pack has been dominant (Bar match one, but you could've sent 10 players home based on that performance) against lesser opposition.

I don't think Gatland is taking a punt at all, I think he's selected based on what he's seen thus far, and what he knows of the players.

Does anyone truly believe they would put their job and reputation on the line fielding a pack with less than half the caps of the kiwi pack, and set piece so inexperienced?

Jones just isn't as good as the rest of the locks.

Fanster wrote:You say he's been bad, however everyone in the first game looked bad, and jetlagged! The Crusaders gae he led and looked good, thats where I suspect he sealed test one

Conceded a penalty, 3 turnovers conceded, 5 tackles with 2 missed tackles. Yes, spectacular.

Scottrf wrote:

Fanster wrote:You say he's been bad, however everyone in the first game looked bad, and jetlagged! The Crusaders gae he led and looked good, thats where I suspect he sealed test one

Conceded a penalty, 3 turnovers conceded, 5 tackles with 2 missed tackles. Yes, spectacular.

So you believe everyone from game one shouldn't start a test?

Turnovers conceded? How is that resulted in, from a ball carry?

Against the Crusaders, Jones made 7 carries for 5 metres (one offload), was 5/2 in tackles made/missed, and conceded three turnovers (no other forward conceded more than one). Yes, I know stats don't tell the whole story, but those are poor. And on watching the game I don't think he looked good either, so I'm basing my views on both games he started. For me, he's been poor.

I'm not sure Garland is putting his job and reputation on the line in this tour anyway, no one really expects the Lions to win, so he's almost in a no-lose situation IMO. I'm reasonably happy with the team selected for the first Test, given the initial squad, but for me him persisting with AWJ over locks who are playing better is a poor decision. If AWJ has a great game on Saturday and the Lions win I'll happily hold my hand up and admit he was right to back his man.

Fanster wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Fanster wrote:You say he's been bad, however everyone in the first game looked bad, and jetlagged! The Crusaders gae he led and looked good, thats where I suspect he sealed test one

Conceded a penalty, 3 turnovers conceded, 5 tackles with 2 missed tackles. Yes, spectacular.

So you believe everyone from game one shouldn't start a test?

Turnovers conceded? How is that resulted in, from a ball carry?

Those are the stats from the Crusaders game.

Could be from a carry and getting stripped, or a knock on etc yes.

For what it's worth, in the tour opener his tackle stats were much better (10/1), his carrying stats slightly worse (10 carries, 5 metres), and he conceded 3 penalties (most of the team) and 2 turnovers (most of the forwards).

Turnovers...

How are they calculated?

With regards t stats, I am very much a stat man, but i'd use decent ones.

One thing I will note about the tour thus far, the immensely underwhelming offload game we've played! I've probably seen 4/5 really usefull effective offloads all tour, some have been in front of the defencive, some in the wrong areas, but ultimately we've just avoided it in general and played a high ruck high ball in play game.

I hope that doesn't contribute to our downfall, and we are all left ruing chances missed like has been a theme this tour so far!

Scottrf wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Fanster wrote:You say he's been bad, however everyone in the first game looked bad, and jetlagged! The Crusaders gae he led and looked good, thats where I suspect he sealed test one

Conceded a penalty, 3 turnovers conceded, 5 tackles with 2 missed tackles. Yes, spectacular.

So you believe everyone from game one shouldn't start a test?

Turnovers conceded? How is that resulted in, from a ball carry?

Those are the stats from the Crusaders game.

Could be from a carry and getting stripped, or a knock on etc yes.

So turnovers directly from a mistake, and not having the ball turned over from ruck/maul he's carried into?

Fanster wrote:Turnovers...

How are they calculated?

Just a guess but probably:

Number of times you had the ball - number of times a teammate was the next person to have the ball, except in case where you score points.

They are his stats from the Crusaders game.

I have to say, this is the most entertaining thread I've read in ages.

AWJ does not deserve to start on form in NZ. His experience is worth a place on the bench. And if Warburton really is carrying an injury, he shouldn't even be in the XXIII. There's loyalty, there's giving weight to experience, and there's taking things too far.

I emplore anyone to rewatch the first half of the crusaders game, AWJ is Gatland on the pitch and directing everything defensively and offensively. Calling the lineouts, organising forward pods...

Very good first half from both locks!!!

1 min, Kruis wins lineout AWJ back lifter
2 mins in carries first time, no gain and absolutley no support despite having a pod with him.
3 minutes in assisted Mako with a turnover.
5 mins Kruis offside
6 mins AWJ finds CRU target jumper, lineout lost
8 minutes, ball bobbles around knocked on br BIL, CRU turnover try to go wide AWJ intercepts, scrum CRU (Try saver)
9 mins Kruis wins lineout, AWJ backlifter
14 mins kick high and deep, ball dropped by CRU AWJ first man lead charge
17 Kruis big hit midfield stopped attack dead
17 AWJ Big hit in midfield, massively line speed gained 3m
19 Kruis wins lineout
22 under postes counter ruck AWJ slows ball
23 Kruis tackle neutral
25 restart AWJ first chaser, turnover
26 Kruis tackle neutral
28 Kruis wins lineout, AWJ decoy at front
30 Kruis lineout win
33 9 pass along floor AWJ knock on
33 AWJ offside
33 AWJ big tackle into touch
35 AWJ brings down maul (Try saver)
38 AWJ lineout win
39 AWJ lineout win

You're right we're all commenting without having seen the game.

Kruis called the lineout in that game.

These are the key actions from the first half, lineout impeccable, not even challenged by CRU, Kruis well taken AWJ marshalled.

AWJ mistake is from the poor pass by Murray, lazy CRU defender in line passed to, AWJ should mop up better tho, and knocks on, ball kicked 30 yards, where it bobbles around and knocked on again by Hogg. AWJ lazy runner makes a tackle offside, then gets back onside to make big hit that kills attack into touch.

1 minute later he drops a maul 2 metres out single handedly and saves a try!

I'll give the second half a watch, and do similar, but based of the first half AWJ has essentially saved 2 tries, run a superb set peice, and made a mistake.

AWJ doesn't run the line out, every man and his dog knows that is down to Kruis.

I have now learned that Superman wears Alun Wyn Jones pyjamas and accept that I'm wrong, many thanks Fanster

AWJ has lost 10 times to NZ, far more than anyone else in the 23. Golden experience that, he can advise like no other on how to lose to NZ

40 AWJ takes restart in air
41 AWJ tackle neutral
41 AWJ tackle dominant
41 Kruis tackle neutral
42 lineout lost, Mahony gets no lift from Kruis at back
43 AWJ takes ball flat from 9, plays pass behind forward to backs, ball to deck
44 AWJ penalised, assist tackler not releasing...
Obvious rearrangement of pod system second half, Kruis and AWJ join same pod
2nd half AWJ and Mahony have swapped lineout roles, Mahony now disruption jumper
Kruis has moved into AWJ attack lineout support lifter
AWJ and Kruis swap, Kruis lineout calling now
54 Kruis wins lineout
59 AWJ tackle dominant
60 Kruis tackle neutral
61 Kruis off for Itoje (Kruis visibly tiring)
AWJ takes lineout back
64 AWJ tackle neutral
64 Itoje tackle dominant
65 AWJ call read, stolen by Whitelock
66 AWJ wins lineout, AWJ gone to receiver
68 AWJ carry dominant, brought down short of try line
70 IToje big chase and tackle dominant
72 Itoje wins lineout
74 Itoje tackle neutral

I find it a little odd that his mum calls him AWJ rather than Alun. Still fair play, she's done her 'research' #family

Sounds like he played well to be fair from the delayed text updates.

Based on that rewatch, although a little brief, AWJ had a very good first half as did Kruis. Kruis is more dynamic, and gets through more work, but also wastes far more energy chasing and returning from kicks etc, where AWJ knows when to return quick and when not to.

On 60 mins it's obvious both have considerably slowed, and when Itoje comes on he's a full on bundle of energy, but extremely wild, running across his own players in the defensive line on occasion, neglecting the scramble technique once, and got caughtin a maul set up poorly.

There were mistakes from AWJ, one awkward penalty, one cynical, 2 try savers, although he got away with one.

New worry with AWJ, if he and Kruis start they are both going to be bust after 60, AWJ walked a lot that last 15 mins, but he was the only one of the tight 5 not replaced, so he probably looks off the pace to anyone not allowing for him being 60 minutes deeper into the game than every other tight 5.

Result, nowhere near a bad game, whatsoever, a few mistakes I missed on first watching, he wasn't perfect, but worthy of a test place based on his quality of action.

Who ran the line out Fanster?

I actually wonder if AWJ needs a second row partner, I reckon he can take on Retallick and Whitelock all by himself. Keep both Kruis and Itoje on the bench for impact

Com on now your all forgetting he's there for his leadership, his experience, his ability to help the young pups raise their game.

Just remember how he helped Wales overcome 13 man Australia

I've worked out what AWJ stands for: Another Willing Jumper. Nice one Gats!

It's amazing that you guys havn't contacted Gatland, I mean the guy clearly knows nothing, I mean, it' not as if this little echo chamber could effect opinion, no bias's here, all big fans of the lions concept

Still waiting for one valid argument against AWJ...

Fanster wrote:It's amazing that you guys havn't contacted Gatland, I mean the guy clearly knows nothing, I mean, it' not as if this little echo chamber could effect opinion, no bias's here, all big fans of the lions concept

Still waiting for one valid argument against AWJ...

You've had one perfectly valid argument, and from several posters: he's not playing well enough.

No lots have been given fanster you just don't agree with them

Still waiting for one valid argument for AWJ...

And its the laziest argument in the world to say a professional coach says so so he must be right. Lazy and stupid argument.

Well he's included, theres no need to argue for him.

I just rewatched the Crusaders game and highlighted action points, he and Kruis were superb together, in what was being called the fourth test.

He's been selected based on that performance, and managed since for test 1 clearly.

Now the argument that he isn't playing well enough doesn't stand, I just analysed his last full performance, it was good enough, and he forged a good relationship with Kruis, and ran the pack,(I'm sure he'll lead the pack again on saturday just as well).

Validity of not playing well enough = 0 (Don't make me pull out my SPSS and check officially hahaha)

Fanster wrote:Well he's included, theres no need to argue for him.

I just rewatched the Crusaders game and highlighted action points, he and Kruis were superb together, in what was being called the fourth test.

He's been selected based on that performance, and managed since for test 1 clearly.

Now the argument that he isn't playing well enough doesn't stand, I just analysed his last full performance, it was good enough, and he forged a good relationship with Kruis, and ran the pack,(I'm sure he'll lead the pack again on saturday just as well).

Validity of not playing well enough = 0 (Don't make me pull out my SPSS and check officially hahaha)

SPSS? You poor unlucky sod.

Ha ha. I was thinking the same thing. Didn't SPSS get junked years ago!

AWJ is Gatland's man, not a bad thing, as he clearly trust who he is and what he can do.

For me that has always made an AWJ test start a premeditated decision, injury aside he was on the test team sheet before they got on the plane (his selection as Welsh Captain for 6 nations was a dress rehearsal for lions tour Captain IMO and only poor on field decision making and overall poor Welsh performances banjaxed that plan). Gatland has just been doubly unlucky that all of the locks he has select have out performed AWJ.

Gatland however clearly rates him and there has to be some credit for this for backing his man and moreso if the series win comes he will have ample excuse to say I told you so, however it does appear to fly in the face of current form - even BBC have AWJ as the image on there HYS article for 'do you agree with Gatland's selection'.

AWJ is a great player, definitely has experience and 4 years ago was one of the first picks on the lions team sheet. Now though, while AWJ is still good (perhaps just not quite as good and not on the best of form), there are a number of better locks and on better form (both selected and not selected for this tour).

Cyril wrote:Ha ha. I was thinking the same thing. Didn't SPSS get junked years ago!

Probably around the same time AWJ was last in form, makes a lot of sense

So your opinion is he is playing well. I state 3 other locks are playing better.
You say experience. I say that's not a valid reason.
Gats picked him, and he kept picking Cuthbert

Fanster wrote:Well he's included, theres no need to argue for him.

I just rewatched the Crusaders game and highlighted action points, he and Kruis were superb together, in what was being called the fourth test.

He's been selected based on that performance, and managed since for test 1 clearly.

Now the argument that he isn't playing well enough doesn't stand, I just analysed his last full performance, it was good enough, and he forged a good relationship with Kruis, and ran the pack,(I'm sure he'll lead the pack again on saturday just as well).

Validity of not playing well enough = 0 (Don't make me pull out my SPSS and check officially hahaha)

I'm seeing rose tinted bias but I'm not seeing any valid argument there and to suggest he played well against the Crusaders is simply wrong.

Fanster wrote:It's amazing that you guys havn't contacted Gatland, I mean the guy clearly knows nothing, I mean, it' not as if this little echo chamber could effect opinion, no bias's here, all big fans of the lions concept

Still waiting for one valid argument against AWJ...

There are arguments for both Ijoje and AWJ.

For Itoje:
- Young
- Exceptionally fit - keeps up intensity for eighty minutes
- Athletic.
- Fast
- Acts like a third flanker putting pressure on opposing fly half
- Can jump in lineout without a lifter giving an extra option and putting pressure on opposition
- Lots of experience partnering Kruis

For AWJ
- Was excellent four years ago
- Is Welsh
- Err...
- That's it

Rose tinted bias?

Is that why I am pretty comfortable with a lot of the non rose selections such as North, Warburton, Owens etc...

So if I agree with non selections of welsh players I'm just being honest, when I prove a welsh player worthy of selection i'm biased?

How does that work?

Exiledinborders wrote:

Fanster wrote:It's amazing that you guys havn't contacted Gatland, I mean the guy clearly knows nothing, I mean, it' not as if this little echo chamber could effect opinion, no bias's here, all big fans of the lions concept

Still waiting for one valid argument against AWJ...

There are arguments for both Ijoje and AWJ.

For Itoje:
- Young
- Exceptionally fit - keeps up intensity for eighty minutes
- Athletic.
- Fast
- Acts like a third flanker putting pressure on opposing fly half
- Can jump in lineout without a lifter giving an extra option and putting pressure on opposition
- Lots of experience partnering Kruis

For AWJ
- Was excellent four years ago
- Is Welsh
- Err...
- That's it

Young? hahahahaha so the lions tight 5 is far younger than the kiwi's, they must be terrified of such a young team lol

These reasons against AWJ are getting hilarious!

If I didn't support the Lions completely, I'd be hoping that AWJ got physically shamed by the likes of Retallick and Kaino, to prove just how much of a decrepit has been he is

Alas, I have to hope he somehow isn't completely shoite and can put in a performance worthy of the shirt