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.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Kruis ran the line out well which is more than Jones did, both looked physically inferior but one offered something.

See!

Well I wouldn't criticise AWJ for not running the lineout, as I agree that was Kruis' job and he did it very well.

I guess Hammer's point is that Kruis ran the set piece very well, that was his primary function.

The other lock should then be making his impact felt in the loose, be that carrying/tackling/turnovers etc

As neither of them offered much in the loose, I guess its possible to say that Kruis did more than Jones, simply by ensuring the lineout performed as well as it did

Should be able to tell tomorrow what gatland plans are ie whether Kruis comes on early and whether Stander and Lawes last the whole match.

It's out of Kruis and Lawes who runs the best lineout, if it's Itoje and jones in the test team it'll be Itoje running it as I believe he's already called it in the warm ups

LordDowlais wrote:The moderating on this section of the forum needs some serious attention.

Volunteer your services?

I still believe Itoje needed to start with Kruis to help Kruis.

Rugby is a team game obviously and players help each other out. Itoje came on sure but Kruis needed him from the start.



If going by form Lawes-Itoje should probably be the 2nd row though. To be honest that won't happen.

As that won't happen, I'd drop AWJ, have Lawes on the bench, Kruis-Itoje starting - just as I would have in the first test.

Gatland will probably stick with AWJ though.

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:The moderating on this section of the forum needs some serious attention.

Volunteer your services?

Well if people like you and tighthead are allowed to constantly goad other members on here, I cannot see the point. I was just recently given a 3 day ban for complaining about a thread that was put up on here on Thursday. I was told I was banned for being annoying, yet I still see the same moronic goading going on here all the time, how tighthead has not yet gotten himself a ban, only the moderators can answer.

beshocked wrote:I still believe Itoje needed to start with Kruis to help Kruis.

nah, not for me, Kruis needs to be dropped.

beshocked wrote:If going by form Lawes-Itoje should probably be the 2nd row though. To be honest that won't happen.

That's what I would go for with AWJ on the bench.

Kruis and Itoje for me.

Kruis and Itoje but Kruis seriously needs to up his game. Worst I've seen him in the loose.

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:I still believe Itoje needed to start with Kruis to help Kruis.

nah, not for me, Kruis needs to be dropped.

beshocked wrote:If going by form Lawes-Itoje should probably be the 2nd row though. To be honest that won't happen.

That's what I would go for with AWJ on the bench.

Lorddowlais why AWJ when he's been the worst lock in the squad?

Well obviously it was tougher for Kruis having to start with AWJ.

Warburton is also not an effective bench option, obviously Stander should have been there.

If Lions has put the likes of Lawes and Stander on the bench as suggested then there might have been more impact.

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:The moderating on this section of the forum needs some serious attention.

Volunteer your services?

Well if people like you and tighthead are allowed to constantly goad other members on here, I cannot see the point. I was just recently given a 3 day ban for complaining about a thread that was put up on here on Thursday. I was told I was banned for being annoying, yet I still see the same moronic goading going on here all the time, how tighthead has not yet gotten himself a ban, only the moderators can answer.

I would have thought a successful carpet seller would have plenty of experience and skills that would be valued

i can't think of a single reason why anyone would find your bluster annoying LD, fight the power

beshocked wrote:Lorddowlais why AWJ when he's been the worst lock in the squad?

Because he is the most experienced lock we have, captain of his country, he is the man to bring on if we want to cool things down when we are defending a lead. If we get one.

beshocked wrote:Well obviously it was tougher for Kruis having to start with AWJ.

So what are you saying ? It was AWJ's fault why Kruis played bad ? Come on.

beshocked wrote:Warburton is also not an effective bench option, obviously Stander should have been there.

Tuperic should have started, with one of Stander or SOB on the bench.

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:The moderating on this section of the forum needs some serious attention.

Volunteer your services?

Well if people like you and tighthead are allowed to constantly goad other members on here, I cannot see the point. I was just recently given a 3 day ban for complaining about a thread that was put up on here on Thursday. I was told I was banned for being annoying, yet I still see the same moronic goading going on here all the time, how tighthead has not yet gotten himself a ban, only the moderators can answer.

I would have thought a successful carpet seller would have plenty of experience and skills that would be valued

i can't think of a single reason why anyone would find your bluster annoying LD, fight the power

And here is proof if it was ever needed.

I thought Itoje had a good impact when he came on beshocked. Certainly a step up from the starting locks. Put himself about made his tackles was putting pressure on at the breakdown and stole a lineout!

Lorddowlais

Problem is most of AWJ's experience is in failure vs the tri nations.

Defending a lead? Optimistic vs the best side in the world on their turf.


I am saying it's obvious that Itoje should have started with Kruis.

Putting players who are familiar with each other from the start should help.

Faletau wasn't good enough. Hence why I'd go for an all Irish backrow for familiarity.

no 7 & 1/2 well obviously he should have started.

I agree he should have started just thought you were saying there was no impact. Though you're making a rod for your own back to suggest that the bench needs to make impact but if they do they should have started!

beshocked wrote:Lorddowlais

Problem is most of AWJ's experience is in failure vs the tri nations.

Defending a lead?   Optimistic vs the best side in the world on their turf.


I am saying it's obvious that Itoje should have started with Kruis.

Putting players who are familiar with each other from the start should help.

Faletau wasn't good enough. Hence why I'd go for an all Irish backrow for familiarity.

no 7 & 1/2 well obviously he should have started.

Faletau put in a good defensive shift. Outplayed by Read, but frankly that was down to Read being back in imperious pre-2015 form. Real issue in the back row was a lack of jackaling where Sam Cane had things all his own way

I am saying there would be more impact with Lawes and Stander. If you start Itoje as well you have a more effective starter and bench combined.

AWJ shouldn't have started. To be honest if Gatland dropped both Kruis and AWJ, I'd be okay with that.

Where the Lions need improvement is clearly 2nd row and backrow. So that means changes needed there.

Pete C the problem is that the team should be on the attack, not defending.

Won't beat the ABs if you lose the breakdown agreed. Lions do need to look to tweak the backrow.

Faletau has probably been the best Lions forward on tour so far, and one of our better players at the weekend.

LondonTiger wrote:Faletau has probably been the best Lions forward on tour so far, and one of our better players at the weekend.

How would you tweak the backrow then?

I only suggest dropping him to try and get irish backrow familiarity. I don't know if it's the best but changes in backrow definitely needed.

Loose head if we want to improve the scrum. I'd leave the back row as I think it'll be more structured with a different ref which will benefit us. The lineout was very good. Would like to see Murray or Webb getting the faletau and sob to carry more close in though.

TightHEAD wrote:As I know it gets to you.

And it's Mr Wyn Jones to you.

No it isn't, it's Mr Jones.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:As I know it gets to you.

And it's Mr Wyn Jones to you.

No it isn't, it's Mr Jones.

As his wife had to explain, to Stuart Barnes, quite abruptly the other day. His name is Alun, not Alun-wyn. Also, it is Jones, not Wyn-jones. Wyn is Alun's middle name.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/stuart-barnes-keeps-getting-things-13166526

Well why does he put his whole bloody name on team sheets?

I look forward to Oghenemaro Miles Itoje being on every team sheet going forwards, its only fair

LordDowlais wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:As I know it gets to you.

And it's Mr Wyn Jones to you.

No it isn't, it's Mr Jones.

As his wife had to explain, to Stuart Barnes, quite abruptly the other day. His name is Alun, not Alun-wyn. Also, it is Jones, not Wyn-jones. Wyn is Alun's middle name.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/stuart-barnes-keeps-getting-things-13166526

Stuart Barnes does seem to have difficulty with names, sure he was calling Greig Laidlaw, Gregor Laidlaw

Its not as bad as Mario Toejay

I expect AWJ to retire from international rugby after this tour... He's getting on and I think he really wanted to tour 3 times for the Lions, ie do each of the Lions Tours to SA, Aus, NZ. He's done that now, I think he'll now retire before being dropped.

Jolly good of Blockhead to give him a ceremonial farewell tour

Kruis should retire too if last Saturday's performance is going to become the norm.