Lions Watch: Six Nations Report

First topic message reminder :

Well we're nearly done with the Six Nations so if the Lions goes ahead who do you like the look of and who do you think will be touring?

LordDowlais wrote:

123456789. wrote:The analysis of the Wales games are bizarre, somehow one cannot be taken into consideration because Wales were bad and the architecture. The other game a red card was entirely inconsequential to the analysis. Remember the same all conquering side Wales side that narrowly lost the grand slam beat a 'mince' Scotland side by one point. With a sketchy holding on call and a potential tackle off of the ball in the last minute. I'm not bitter (believe it or not), a Championship side would never have been in that position, Scotland were 14 points up and should never have placed themselves at the mercy of the referee but much the same applies to Wales in Paris. Taking objective measurements alone: results and statistics - Scotland are not the fourth best team currently in the British Isles.

I will probably get a warning or my post removed here, but I will do this anyway. No matter what Wales do, no matter how they play, it's always because of one thing or another. It's never the fact that perhaps they have better players. For years this has been the case, devalued this, lucky that. If we use your remit, then Wales left about 15 points on the field that day with missed kicks at goal, and butchered moves.

Look at the 6N over past decade, you can even include the world cups if you want. Scotland are by far a much weaker side than Wales, Ireland and England, consistent results have proven this.

Scotland have won their away games against decent opposition for the first time in years. Now all of a sudden they are like a pheonix rising from the ashes ? Sorry I will reserve judgement until they build on what they have achieved as of late.

Yes Scotland have good players, but unfortunately other countries have good players as well, and they have achieved more on the international stage, Wales and England have players that have go to finals and semi finals of the world cup, Wales, England and Ireland have players who have won the 6N, all things Scotland do not have.

Finn Russell, on his day is sublime, but also on his day is a nightmare, Hogg is always excellent as is Hamish Watson, and they are players that you can depend on. But the rest ??? I would not take any other player in the 6N over them.

Sorry for the rant, but I cannot agree with what has been said, and neither can I agree with BigGee that it is a great post.

My point wasn't that Wales didn't deserve the Championship or even to beat Scotland. Quite the opposite. Just that you cannot cherry pick the uncontrollables for one side and not the other. In fact my 'remit' is that these factors are a stupid thing to judge a team on as lots of things change in every game but they even themselves out over a season. Hence, Wales were deserving Champions.

The other point I was making was that even on an individual, not Lions based, argument the very best teams overcome whatever uncontrollables are thrown at them. Scotland are not there, if they were there then they would have held on to a 14 point lead they had over Wales. Equally, if this current Welsh team was as good as Grand Slam and World Cup winning teams they would have held on against France and, funnily enough, won the Grand Slam. Again, not anti-Welsh. Just that these things even themselves out. Make what you will of the end of the Scotland - Wales game but even if you do conclude that Scotland were hard done by, I am not exactly sure myself as I haven't watched it back, then you can happily conclude that that was balanced out in the France game when Dulin did not kick it off. Equally, Wales played the bulk of their first two fixtures against 14 men but finished the decider with 13, you can say that evens itself out. My issue was that the original post seemed to suggest when the uncontrollables favour Scotland it completely negates the value of the match in assessing the Scotland players and when the opposite applied it was an entirely true reflection of where Scotland are. I am of the opinion that the true reflection of where the teams and players are currently is their most recent results.

Results between Scotland, Ireland and Wales showed that there was a cigarette paper between them in this tournament. Equally that form over the last decade is not half as relevant to the here and now. Lions tours of the past have shown that the results in the World Cup have little bearing. Of course, England are better than their results have shown but the factors that determined those results will still apply come the summer.

I also don't think it's particularly debatable to say that a team that has previously not won away from home, that then wins away from home is making progress. I don't think any Scotland fan is arguing that we should provide the bulk of the touring party, if I'm honest I still expect us to provide the least of any national side. However, rather than basing it on 'one thing or another', it seems entirely logical to look at results and performances over the last season and it takes a significant degree of cerebral gymnastics to decide that translates to two Scotland players.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p09c6c9r

The BBC Rugby Pod cover the Lions and 6 Nations quite well regarding the recent debate on here.

The Lions tour, in my view, is a pretty pompous and archaic entity in comparison to other tournaments on the world rugby calendar. I get far more excited for the Rugby World Cup because it is a wonderful tournament that brings large swathes of fans from different nationalities together. Uruguay beating Fiji, a side stacked with talented individuals, was the epitome of what international rugby is all about. Heart and determination. It isn't always being the best team because you have the best players from the highest paid clubs, no matter how exciting the prospect.

So Lions selection, I think a large part of what is wrong with the Lions tour is the selection policy or lack thereof. It's entirely dependant on the touring Head Coach and his team and like it or not, is also influenced by the size of each home nations union and their fan base. Keeping it short, the Lions needs a clear selection policy separate of the Head Coach and his assistants. Gatland said away form counted for a lot in 2017. That could mean absolutely nothing this tour given the circumstances. He could quite easily say that away form counts for little because there were no crowds, who could argue with that? A form based Lions side consisting of x amount of players from each home union would be a totally different side to the one we'll probably see in a few months time.

LordDowlais wrote:

123456789. wrote:The analysis of the Wales games are bizarre, somehow one cannot be taken into consideration because Wales were bad and the architecture. The other game a red card was entirely inconsequential to the analysis. Remember the same all conquering side Wales side that narrowly lost the grand slam beat a 'mince' Scotland side by one point. With a sketchy holding on call and a potential tackle off of the ball in the last minute. I'm not bitter (believe it or not), a Championship side would never have been in that position, Scotland were 14 points up and should never have placed themselves at the mercy of the referee but much the same applies to Wales in Paris. Taking objective measurements alone: results and statistics - Scotland are not the fourth best team currently in the British Isles.

I will probably get a warning or my post removed here, but I will do this anyway. No matter what Wales do, no matter how they play, it's always because of one thing or another. It's never the fact that perhaps they have better players. For years this has been the case, devalued this, lucky that. If we use your remit, then Wales left about 15 points on the field that day with missed kicks at goal, and butchered moves.

Look at the 6N over past decade, you can even include the world cups if you want. Scotland are by far a much weaker side than Wales, Ireland and England, consistent results have proven this.

Scotland have won their away games against decent opposition for the first time in years. Now all of a sudden they are like a pheonix rising from the ashes ? Sorry I will reserve judgement until they build on what they have achieved as of late.

Yes Scotland have good players, but unfortunately other countries have good players as well, and they have achieved more on the international stage, Wales and England have players that have go to finals and semi finals of the world cup, Wales, England and Ireland have players who have won the 6N, all things Scotland do not have.

Finn Russell, on his day is sublime, but also on his day is a nightmare, Hogg is always excellent as is Hamish Watson, and they are players that you can depend on. But the rest ??? I would not take any other player in the 6N over them.

Sorry for the rant, but I cannot agree with what has been said, and neither can I agree with BigGee that it is a great post.

Jesus, can see the chip from here. If Wales were 14 points up at home against a team struggling for form, you'd rightly be saying you should have won from that position?

For what it's worth, I think Welsh players should make up a very large proportion of the squad - a much higher proportion than Scotland, and that would be a fair representation of the continued success at international level. Wyn Jones, Ownes, AWJ, Faletau, Biggar and LRZ would all be in my starting team, for instance. All I am arguing for is that Scotland's improved form and results are rewarded with a representative selection in the squad.

LordDowlais wrote:

TJ wrote:Dowlais - I would actually say what won wales the tournament was not necessarily better skilled players but composure and discipline. the only game they lost is when they lost those two things

Wales have been consistently better than Scotland for the last decade, winning more and achieving more. It's this delusion that you have, that all your players are just as good as everyone else, that makes you so disappointed when things like the Lions come around and you only have your very best players picked, which unfortunately, for a Scotland fan, is only about 1 or two players.

That is why you never win the 6N.

Wales as a team have of course performed much better. This does not mean there are not better individual players playing for Scotland.

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:When did Wales go to the final of a World Cup?

They havent, and I have never said they have either.

LordDowlais wrote:Wales and England have players that have go to finals and semi finals of the world cup

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:When did Wales go to the final of a World Cup?

They havent, and I have never said they have either.

LordDowlais wrote:Wales and England have players that have go to finals and semi finals of the world cup

.

And Semi finals, you miss that bit. England have got to finals, Wales have got to semi finals.

EST wrote:Jesus, can see the chip from here. If Wales were 14 points up at home against a team struggling for form, you'd rightly be saying you should have won from that position?

No chip. thanks.

I'm just saying it as it is. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

The issue with these discussions is that everyone will be looking for slightly different things. Form from the 6 nations? Form from the last game? Form for the last 12 months? And how much is that dependant on the team over player?

There's countless combinations you could pick, I think as long as you're consistent and open with how you want your selections chosen fair enough.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The issue with these discussions is that everyone will be looking for slightly different things. Form from the 6 nations? Form from the last game? Form for the last 12 months? And how much is that dependant on the team over player?

There's countless combinations you could pick, I think as long as you're consistent and open with how you want your selections chosen fair enough.

Absolutely agree with this.

The Saracens players are the case in point: Mako, George, Itoje, Billy, Farrell and Daly form the spine of a Saracens team that dominated English and European rugby, and an England team that dominated the All Blacks and made the World Cup final. Of course, they are better than the results suggest this season. Ultimately whether they should tour as Lions depends on personal opinions. If you are of the opinion that they played poorly because they have lost whatever they had previously then of course they won't tour in your book. If you are of the opinion that they played poorly because they have not played enough top class rugby recently, as I am, then it is hard to see how that changes in time for all to tour with the Lions. If you are of the opinion that they played poorly because of the environment or tactics at England then perhaps you'll feel that Gatland can get them back to the standards they set in 2017 and 2019. That is all conjecture.

I happen to be very much of the opinion that the Lions is really about the here and now. If it were one of the individual national sides touring South Africa, we wouldn't be saying that one player should tour because he played well two or three years ago, I don't think the Lions should be any different. As such, I do think that the Irish and Welsh should form the bulk of the Lions squad with a significant number of Scottish and English players there also. That will be to the detriment of the Lions from a long term view, because the England players are very, very good ordinarily and if they were playing well the Lions would be in a better place.

Certainly, if this were a development tour with a view to another tour in the future I would very much advocate picking England players who are off the boil currently. However, I make no bones about it being better for the Lions as a concept if all four teams have a decent degree of representation and test representation (on merit not on quota).

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/rugby-morning-headlines-george-norths-20282474

Wonder if there is truth to this. Seems a bit illogical to me. If we're really considering bits and pieces players massively out of form like Daly I really fear we're going to get tonked.

Completely agree with that last point 123. The test side should have that representation.

LordDowlais wrote:

TJ wrote:Dowlais - I would actually say what won wales the tournament was not necessarily better skilled players but composure and discipline. the only game they lost is when they lost those two things

Wales have been consistently better than Scotland for the 9 years of the last decade, winning more and achieving more. It's this delusion that you have, that all your players are just as good as everyone else, that makes you so disappointed when things like the Lions come around and you only have your very best players picked, which unfortunately, for a Scotland fan, is only about 1 or two players.

That is why you never win the 6N.

Ok, tried to stay out of this, :-)

I do not think it is delusional to say that currently the form of a several of the Scottish players is as good as, or not better than others this year. Not talking history, but in this 6 nations and the last year.

yes, Wales have had the measure of Scotland over the last few years, but that has closed and now would say not much in it. Wales had a poor Autumn cup, while Scotland had a better one.

Even the 6 nation win this year, people seen to gloss over that Wales were quite poor and scrapped a win over 14 men Ireland (for 90% of the game), and scrapped a win over 14 man Scotland - winning by a point when the opposition is down to 14 men, is not a comprehensively better team

To discount that by saying that Wales across the board are still massively better is a bit arrogant.

even against England, the ref was so instrumental in that game, effectively giving Wales a whole half head start. Wales still allowed England back in it, but eventually managed to pull away at the end.

The only game that they were under pressure, Wales catastrophically folded at the end to let France back in it-  should that not be counted, or just ignored as it does not follow the commentary

The fact is, we still expect to have the least players in tour and understand that history justifies this, but recent form also justifies more than 1 or 2 players are good enough and should tour.

The Lions selectors pick the squad based on their own professional opinions, available data and the way they want to play. All other discussions are moot.

The only way to stop the arguments is to move to quotas, but that would be anti-rugby in my opinion. And not many head coaches would agree to be involved in something like that.

Scotland absolutely have players good enough to tour, only the most blinkered would say otherwise. Unfortunately their best players are in positions where Blockhead can give the "benefit of the doubt" to others, as has occurred over the past couple of tours

BamBam wrote:Scotland absolutely have players good enough to tour, only the most blinkered would say otherwise. Unfortunately their best players are in positions where Blockhead can give the "benefit of the doubt" to others, as has occurred over the past couple of tours

That’s what he’s paid to do, along with Farrell et al. It’s really not worth losing sleep about. Imagine if you were in that job and were told who you had to pick. You’d tell them to f*** off!

My issue with that has always been that Gatland has had a good 6 months, maybe more, in prep. To turn around and say well I didn't know x y or z about a player is quite shocking. He has all the time to talk to team mates, coaches pop down to training sessions and games.

The Oracle wrote:

BamBam wrote:Scotland absolutely have players good enough to tour, only the most blinkered would say otherwise. Unfortunately their best players are in positions where Blockhead can give the "benefit of the doubt" to others, as has occurred over the past couple of tours

That’s what he’s paid to do, along with Farrell et al. It’s really not worth losing sleep about. Imagine if you were in that job and were told who you had to pick. You’d tell them to f*** off!

Definitely not losing any sleep, I think we're going to end up with more England players than deserve it if purely based on the 6N! If we lose against the Boks as a result of Gatland picking his favourites rather than form players, his selection will be rightly criticised.

Dowlais

You missed my point a bit. Its clear that overall the top 4 teams performed pretty similarly and IMO the critical factor was wales composure and discipline

I wouldn't be disappointed to see 8 Scottish players go on tour, I really wouldn't, and this is just my opinion, but two should go, the others, there are players just as good or better from other nations, who have more in their locker than the Scottish players have, like actually knowing what it is like, and what it takes to win competitions.

TJ wrote:Dowlais

You missed my point a bit.  Its clear that overall the top 4 teams performed pretty similarly and IMO the critical factor was wales composure and discipline

Until the last game, where they imploded

Remember when England were going for the grand slam in 2013 and lost the final game, which resulted in a load of average players from the opposition suddenly being worthy for the squad?

Given we can't select from France, we should fill the squad with players from the sides who managed to beat France. If a certain team can't beat a French side beaten by lowly England and Scotland, then their players just don't know what it is like to be able to close out a tournament, so shouldn't be in the Lions squad.

Anyway, there is an interesting article about the Lions in the Mail today:-

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-9415857/Warren-Gatland-hunt-versatility-Lions-set-travel-light-South-Africa-tour.html

Looks as though it will just be a 36 man squad.

Several posts too late though LD.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Several posts too late though LD.

I havent seen it on here.

LordDowlais wrote:I wouldn't be disappointed to see 8 Scottish players go on tour, I really wouldn't, and this is just my opinion, but two should go, the others, there are players just as good or better from other nations, who have more in their locker than the Scottish players have, like actually knowing what it is like, and what it takes to win competitions.

I do understand the point you're trying to make here, I really do. All selection is a case of balancing form and perceived ability. It is entirely possible to get that wrong. The best team in the history of the Northern Hemisphere never formed the basis of a Lions winning side though. In fact, in 2005 if more Welsh players had been involved in the test sides then they probably would have done better. Equally, there's a very, very good reason that Louis Rees-Zammit is being put ahead of Leigh Halfpenny in everyone's book. Halfpenny is a three time tourist, multiple Six Nations winner and world cup semi-finalist. He's not playing half as well as Rees-Zammit. You do need experience in any squad but there are plenty of players (Owens, Furlong, AWJ, Faletau, Murray, Sexton, Davies, Watson, Hogg) who are bang on form and have experience of touring, leading and winning that the Lions don't really, in my opinion, need to pick anybody on experience alone. I think Sutherland (injury dependent), Watson, DVDM and Hogg go on form. Russell potentially brings something different to the other 10s, that might count against him admittedly. Gray, Ritchie and Maitland should feature in conversations but will probably miss out. Price might sneak on as part of the bizarre scrum-half race to the bottom that seems to be going on. Five Scots should tour in my book.

If the tour were picked after the 2019 world cup I'd have picked: Vunipola, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Ryan, Wainwright, Curry, Vunipola, Youngs, Farrell, May, Tuilagi, Davies, Stockdale, Wiliams. That side would get pumped now.

Posted the story above along with my fear of jack of all trade players.

There we go, an interesting game we can all get along with, best out of position Lions XV - simple rule - players must have played their internationally but not as their principle position:

1. Porter
2.
3.
4. Beirne
5.
6. Itoje
7. Jonny May
8. Curry

9.
10. Robson
11. Care
12. Daly
13.
14.
15. Henshaw (I think?)

These are the ones I can remember lining up at the wrong position for England at some point in a game, plus a few others

123456789. wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I wouldn't be disappointed to see 8 Scottish players go on tour, I really wouldn't, and this is just my opinion, but two should go, the others, there are players just as good or better from other nations, who have more in their locker than the Scottish players have, like actually knowing what it is like, and what it takes to win competitions.

I do understand the point you're trying to make here, I really do. All selection is a case of balancing form and perceived ability. It is entirely possible to get that wrong. The best team in the history of the Northern Hemisphere never formed the basis of a Lions winning side though. In fact, in 2005 if more Welsh players had been involved in the test sides then they probably would have done better. Equally, there's a very, very good reason that Louis Rees-Zammit is being put ahead of Leigh Halfpenny in everyone's book. Halfpenny is a three time tourist, multiple Six Nations winner and world cup semi-finalist. He's not playing half as well as Rees-Zammit. You do need experience in any squad but there are plenty of players (Owens, Furlong, AWJ, Faletau, Murray, Sexton, Davies, Watson, Hogg) who are bang on form and have experience of touring, leading and winning that the Lions don't really, in my opinion, need to pick anybody on experience alone. I think Sutherland (injury dependent), Watson, DVDM and Hogg go on form. Russell potentially brings something different to the other 10s, that might count against him admittedly. Gray, Ritchie and Maitland should feature in conversations but will probably miss out. Price might sneak on as part of the bizarre scrum-half race to the bottom that seems to be going on. Five Scots should tour in my book.

If the tour were picked after the 2019 world cup I'd have picked: Vunipola, George, Sinckler, Itoje, Ryan, Wainwright, Curry, Vunipola, Youngs, Farrell, May, Tuilagi, Davies, Stockdale, Wiliams. That side would get pumped now.

Yes I agree, although I would not be surprised if LRZ did not go. I have said on here on earlier posts, that if we were talking about this 6 months ago, he would not even be on anyone's radar, but now everybody thinks he should go, but not at the expense of a player from their nation.

In my honest opinion, LRZ should be nowhere near the test side, his potential is through the roof, but I still stick with Adams and May. If LRZ tours, then he is the token "bolter". He should be mid-week starter and sub for the tests.

BamBam wrote:1. Porter
2.
3.
4. Beirne
5.
6. Itoje
7. Jonny May
8. Curry

9.
10. Robson
11. Care
12. Daly
13.
14.
15. Henshaw (I think?)

These are the ones I can remember lining up at the wrong position for England at some point in a game, plus a few others

I think Rob Harley could go in at second row. Hogg potentially at 13.

LordDowlais wrote:Yes, that is the crux of it for me as well. Lets lock at it pragmatically, and the Scottish players who you could argue for:-

Jonny Grey - Itoje, AWJ, Ryan, Henderson Beirne.

You just know he is going to pick Itoje, so that leaves one spot, does anyone think AWJ will not start ? So now already he is down to backup, do you reckon he will get picked ahead of any of the Irish players ?

Duhan Van De Merwe - LRZ, Adams, May, Earles, Watson North.

This one is a little more complex. I would expect Gatland to go with May and Adams. He might even pick North, so where does that leave him ? Backup ? Ahead of LRZ, Watson, or Earles ? Again, a tough call.

Finn Russell - Biggar, Sexton, Ford, Farrell.

Again, complex, I would love to see him on tour, but for who ? Sexton has to start for me, and Biggar is the better to have as backup, Finn Russell needed a massive 6N to get in, he gave us an up and down one, but as has been highlighted in other posts, if Townsend goes, so could Finn Russell.

Hamish Watson - Tupiric, Wilson, Curry, Josh van der Flier, POM.

This is one of the easier shouts, I would start him, definite tourist, arguably better than all mentioned.

Stuart Hogg - Liam Williams, Leigh Halfpenny, Hugo Keenan, Elliot Daly.

No brainer, Hogg starts.

So that is one more or less nailed on, one in a very strong position. So sorry guys, I can only see two going, going on past squads.

I would love to be wrong though, but I just cannot see it.

So 5 lions positions, and 2 Scottish starters. What you attempted to do didnt work out as planned!

its so funny when someone cherry picks a few positions, and tries and fails to mask thier inability to be balanced. Hilarious

"LRZ should be nowhere near the test side"

"He should be mid-week starter and sub for the tests"

Make your mind up LD!

1. Porter
2.
3.
4. Beirne
5. Harley
6. Itoje
7. Jonny May
8. Curry

9.
10. Robson
11. Care
12. Daly
13. Hogg
14.
15. Henshaw (I think?)

Could also move Hogg to 10 and Robson to the wing if anyone can think of an alternative 13

123456789. wrote:There we go, an interesting game we can all get along with, best out of position Lions XV - simple rule - players must have played their internationally but not as their principle position:

Scot Steele the newb scotland 9 came on at flanker in one match this series

Sgt_Pooly wrote:"LRZ should be nowhere near the test side"

"He should be mid-week starter and sub for the tests"

Make your mind up LD!

LRZ has been the pick of the wingers for me, he's obviously absolutely rapid but it's his all round game that has impressed too - i'd start him alongside Watson.

Duhan is a physical beast, and I can see him being in the wider squad, but his D isn't what it should be to make the test team.

Jim Hamilton and Andy Goodes Lions 15 , where they both picked the same starter

1. Wyn Jones
2.
3. Furlong
4. Itoje
5.
6. Beirne
7. Watson
8. Faletau
9.
10.
11 DVM
12 Henshaw
13
14
15 Hogg

3 Scots starters. Ill take that .

alive555 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Yes, that is the crux of it for me as well. Lets lock at it pragmatically, and the Scottish players who you could argue for:-

Jonny Grey - Itoje, AWJ, Ryan, Henderson Beirne.

You just know he is going to pick Itoje, so that leaves one spot, does anyone think AWJ will not start ? So now already he is down to backup, do you reckon he will get picked ahead of any of the Irish players ?

Duhan Van De Merwe - LRZ, Adams, May, Earles, Watson North.

This one is a little more complex. I would expect Gatland to go with May and Adams. He might even pick North, so where does that leave him ? Backup ? Ahead of LRZ, Watson, or Earles ? Again, a tough call.

Finn Russell - Biggar, Sexton, Ford, Farrell.

Again, complex, I would love to see him on tour, but for who ? Sexton has to start for me, and Biggar is the better to have as backup, Finn Russell needed a massive 6N to get in, he gave us an up and down one, but as has been highlighted in other posts, if Townsend goes, so could Finn Russell.

Hamish Watson - Tupiric, Wilson, Curry, Josh van der Flier, POM.

This is one of the easier shouts, I would start him, definite tourist, arguably better than all mentioned.

Stuart Hogg - Liam Williams, Leigh Halfpenny, Hugo Keenan, Elliot Daly.

No brainer, Hogg starts.

So that is one more or less nailed on, one in a very strong position. So sorry guys, I can only see two going, going on past squads.

I would love to be wrong though, but I just cannot see it.

So 5 lions positions, and 2 Scottish starters. What you attempted to do didnt work out as planned!

its so funny when someone cherry picks a few positions, and tries and fails to mask thier inability to be balanced.  Hilarious

I know,

I suppose test sides don't have front rows

Zander and Sutherland in the conversation (Zander I think should tour and Sutherland 50/50)
Turner played very well - so worth talking about him?
2nd row. Gray until injured was one of the standout second rows and has been very good at one of the best clubs sides in Europe....... Hmmmmmmm. Skinner played well so maybe a consideration, but an outside bet (versatile)
Back Row - Hamish up with player of the 6 nations.....so a maybe there. Richie also in great form - worth talking about- again a maybe
Price - as good and as bad as the rest..... who knows?
Russel - everyone said he had a poor 6nations - not sure I agree, made similar number of mistakes as others (But they are ignored) and seemed to direct traffic better than others
Huw Jones - An outside bet and one of the most dangerous centres this 6 nations
van der Merwe - top stats in 6 nations and lethal going forward - certainly worth considering
Hogg - 100% to go

So if you just look at the Scottish squad (ignoring out of form and injured players), there is certinly lots to consider and most above on this 6 nations have played as well as, if not better than the others

BamBam wrote:1. Porter
2.
3.
4. Beirne
5.
6. Itoje
7. Jonny May
8. Curry

9.
10. Robson
11. Care
12. Daly
13.
14.
15. Henshaw (I think?)

These are the ones I can remember lining up at the wrong position for England at some point in a game, plus a few others

Farrell at 10 or 12?

alive555 wrote:Jim Hamilton and Andy Goodes Lions 15 , where they both picked the same starter

1. Wyn Jones
2.
3. Furlong
4. Itoje
5.
6. Beirne
7. Watson
8. Faletau
9.
10.
11 DVM
12 Henshaw
13
14
15 Hogg

3 Scots starters. Ill take that .

I'd be delighted with three starters but suspect two is more likely.

What a backrow that is, by the way.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:"LRZ should be nowhere near the test side"

"He should be mid-week starter and sub for the tests"

Make your mind up LD!

Sorry I meant test starter. But I think you knew that.

I love big Hamish, but it has to be Curry at 7 for me. The guy has everything and he will just grow even further when put on the Lions stage.

I am a bit surprised that no-one is mentioning Harris as a dark horse. He has had an incredibly solid 6N and was a standout in the last game for Scotland. He can play on the wing as well.

A few of the pundits have mentioned him, but for whatever reason, he does not seem to excite the fans.

3 nailed on starters for me and they're Furlong, Itoje and Curry (either 6 or 7). Can't imagine any of their form is going to dip enough to result in a bench spot or mid week team. The rest is open.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I love big Hamish, but it has to be Curry at 7 for me. The guy has everything and he will just grow even further when put on the Lions stage.

I felt Curry was too much of a headless chicken this series but perhaps thats because of him trying too hard to make up for the mince around him

Curry was by far our best player, not that its saying much from the current set of performances. He's an absolute star, we've seen him play all 3 back row positions to a high standard and he has to be up there

I'd love to see
Itoje, Beirne
Curry, Watson, Faletau

That would balance out the line out but I don't know if its got enough sheer mass to play SA.

No 7&1/2 wrote:3 nailed on starters for me and they're Furlong, Itoje and Curry (either 6 or 7). Can't imagine any of their form is going to dip enough to result in a bench spot or mid week team. The rest is open.

Henshaw is also pretty nailed on for me, just a question of whether it's at 12 or 13, preferably 13 but there are fewer options at 12 so expect to see him there.

Curry I feel is being judged based on the England collective rather than his individual form, he was without much doubt the finest breakdown operator of show throughout the six nations. Watson is a very fine player himself and could line up alongside him but Tom has the slight edge in every facet apart from carrying.

R!skysports wrote:Zander and Sutherland in the conversation (Zander I think should tour and Sutherland 50/50)

Nowhere near 50/50. There are better props from all the other nations.

R!skysports wrote:Turner played very well - so worth talking about him?

George Turner is not as good as hookers from other nations.

R!skysports wrote:2nd row. Gray until injured was one of the standout second rows and has been very good at one of the best clubs sides in Europe....... Hmmmmmmm. Skinner played well so maybe a consideration, but an outside bet (versatile)

Sorry, second rows would be Itoje and AWJ. But you could put the Irish ones in there.

R!skysports wrote:Back Row - Hamish up with player of the 6 nations.....so a maybe there. Richie also in great form - worth talking about- again a maybe

I agree, Hamish Watson is a test starter. Richie has better players from other nations infront of him.

R!skysports wrote:Price - as good and as bad as the rest..... who knows?

If he goes, God help.

R!skysports wrote:Russel - everyone said he had a poor 6nations - not sure I agree, made similar number of mistakes as others (But they are ignored) and seemed to direct traffic better than others

I wouldn't be disappointed if he went, but faces stiff competition.

R!skysports wrote:Huw Jones - An outside bet and one of the most dangerous centres this 6 nations

There are better players from other nations. Sorry.

R!skysports wrote:van der Merwe - top stats in 6 nations and lethal going forward - certainly worth considering

Falls into the Finn Russell category for me, I would not be disappointed to see him on tour, but he faces stiff competition.

R!skysports wrote:Hogg - 100% to go

Agree, and test starter.


So there you go. Just my opinions.

bsando wrote:...the Lions needs a clear selection policy separate of the Head Coach and his assistants....

It was precisely the lack of control over selection that McGeechan felt had hamstrung the Lions. After the squad friction in 1993, he insisted on final say over his 1997 selection, and it has stayed that way for every tour since.

mountain man wrote:

I still think Ford is going on tour and stands a great chance of starting the first test match.

Then a mere 13 minutes later :

Ford is hit and miss now he may be a casualty of England's defeats.

Hmmm confused or confused.com?

What are you confused about?

I still think he'll tour and if he performs he will probably start in the test team as he's ideal for the way the Lions will want to play and has a skillset Biggar and Farrell do not (with Sexton being over the hill). However it might not happen as England's results may factor in to the equation. It's hard to tell, a player like Ford could be the test 10 or he might not tour. It's very hard to predict with fine margins. There are always players who miss out or get picked against expectations.

Wyn Jones - there are better players from other nations
Ken Owens - there are better players from other nations
Tomas Francis - there are better players from other nations
Alun Wyn Jones - there are better players from the local park
Cory Hill - there are better players from the other nations
Josh Navidi - see above
Justin Tipuric - see above
Taulupe Faletau - see above
Repeat for all Welsh backs

I have nothing to back this up but it’s just my opinions. So there you go

BamBam wrote:Wyn Jones - there are better players from other nations
Ken Owens - there are better players from other nations
Tomas Francis - there are better players from other nations
Alun Wyn Jones - there are better players from the local park
Cory Hill - there are better players from the other nations
Josh Navidi - see above
Justin Tipuric - see above
Taulupe Faletau - see above
Repeat for all Welsh backs

I have nothing to back this up but it’s just my opinions. So there you go

Exactly this, so what’s the point of this whole thread. May as well just shut it down. It’s completely pointless as we’re not actually picking the squad. Your opinion, and mine, and everyone else’s means sweet FA.