Lions Announcement - Round 2

First topic message reminder :

Forwards: Tadhg Beirne, Jack Conan, Luke Cowan Dickie, Tom Curry, Zander Fagerson, Taulupe Faletau, Tadhg Furlong, Jamie George, Iain Henderson, Jonny Hill, Maro Itoje, Alun Wyn Jones, Wyn Jones, Courtney Lawes, Ken Owens, Andrew Porter, Sam Simmonds, Rory Sutherland, Justin Tipuric, Mako Vunipola, Hamish Watson.

Backs: Josh Adams, Bundee Aki, Dan Biggar, Elliot Daly, Gareth Davies, Owen Farrell, Chris Harris, Robbie Henshaw, Stuart Hogg, Conor Murray, Ali Price, Louis Rees-Zammit, Finn Russell, Duhan van der Merwe, Anthony Watson, Liam Williams.

Being the best for your country, in a position, isn't enough.

Look at the squad - there are no back three players from Ireland, no centres from Wales, no scrum half from England and no 2nd Row from Scotland.

Sometimes a particular countries best in a position doesn't cut it at this level.

Yes, that’s why Alun Wyn Jones longevity is not the be all and end all that some seem to believe it is

Of course geoff. At the start of this I said I would love to know the true reasons players are chosen or ignored. Never likely to get to know most of that until years later as what is released tends to be contradictory. Forwards were chosen on pens conceded in the scrum....so we pick Vunipola. Clearly a line to say we answered now move on!

No 7&1/2 wrote:I suppose the debate on Sinckler being first choice for England counting is that he is experienced against coming up against what most would consider the best opposition scrummagers and play while everyone is fresh. In terms of clubs, no he's not second choice to Afoa but even if so Afoa isn't available for the Lions.

To clarify Sinckler has started 3 games this year, Afoa 11

Given Farrell is now confirmed to be taking on the Ireland games has anyone heard anything of the missing coach? There was 1 space left being saved for him according to Gatland. That coach potentially has to come in and work with players he deosnt rate.

geoff999rugby wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I suppose the debate on Sinckler being first choice for England counting is that he is experienced against coming up against what most would consider the best opposition scrummagers and play while everyone is fresh. In terms of clubs, no he's not second choice to Afoa but even if so Afoa isn't available for the Lions.

To clarify Sinckler has started 3 games this year, Afoa 11

And?

geoff999rugby wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I suppose the debate on Sinckler being first choice for England counting is that he is experienced against coming up against what most would consider the best opposition scrummagers and play while everyone is fresh. In terms of clubs, no he's not second choice to Afoa but even if so Afoa isn't available for the Lions.

To clarify Sinckler has started 3 games this year, Afoa 11

Not really a relevant stat when Sinckler has largely been unavailable due to England duty.

geoff999rugby wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I suppose the debate on Sinckler being first choice for England counting is that he is experienced against coming up against what most would consider the best opposition scrummagers and play while everyone is fresh. In terms of clubs, no he's not second choice to Afoa but even if so Afoa isn't available for the Lions.

To clarify Sinckler has started 3 games this year, Afoa 11

What about games when both players were available? At a rough count it was 5.

Can I just mention how utterly pointless this conversation is?

Afoa still plays like he's 10 years younger, what a machine he is.

lostinwales wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I suppose the debate on Sinckler being first choice for England counting is that he is experienced against coming up against what most would consider the best opposition scrummagers and play while everyone is fresh. In terms of clubs, no he's not second choice to Afoa but even if so Afoa isn't available for the Lions.

To clarify Sinckler has started 3 games this year, Afoa 11

What about games when both players were available? At a rough count it was 5.

Can I just mention how utterly pointless this conversation is?

I agree though Sinklers name keeps coming up as someone really unlucky to miss out. He really wouldnt be top of my list as his form hasnt been great and its debatable as to whether he is considered first choice for his club. I think May from England is much more unfortunate and some others from else where.

Was kind of surprised Nowell didnt get selected as he covers a few backline positions and flanker and is a quality operator. Id say he is on standby.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Of course geoff. At the start of this I said I would love to know the true reasons players are chosen or ignored. Never likely to get to know most of that until years later as what is released tends to be contradictory. Forwards were chosen on pens conceded in the scrum....so we pick Vunipola. Clearly a line to say we answered now move on!

Vunapola is a Kiwi and Gatland loves selecting Kiwis.

Collapse2005 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I suppose the debate on Sinckler being first choice for England counting is that he is experienced against coming up against what most would consider the best opposition scrummagers and play while everyone is fresh. In terms of clubs, no he's not second choice to Afoa but even if so Afoa isn't available for the Lions.

To clarify Sinckler has started 3 games this year, Afoa 11

What about games when both players were available? At a rough count it was 5.

Can I just mention how utterly pointless this conversation is?

I agree though Sinklers name keeps coming up as someone really unlucky to miss out. He really wouldnt be top of my list as his form hasnt been great and its debatable as to whether he is considered first choice for his club. I think May from England is much more unfortunate and some others from else where.

Sinckler is most definitely first choice for Bristol when he's available but seems like an odd point to be making when Andrew Porter has been selected ahead of him. Second choice at club and international level.

Porters form is better, he covers both sides of the scrum and he is a very good player. There were definitely more questionable selections than Porter surely.

Collapse2005 wrote:Porters form is better, he covers both sides of the scrum and he is a very good player. There were definitely more questionable selections than Porter surely.

I'm just pointing out that your comment had no relevance to Lions selection.

Well we shall have to agree to disagree

geoff999rugby wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I suppose the debate on Sinckler being first choice for England counting is that he is experienced against coming up against what most would consider the best opposition scrummagers and play while everyone is fresh. In terms of clubs, no he's not second choice to Afoa but even if so Afoa isn't available for the Lions.

To clarify Sinckler has started 3 games this year, Afoa 11

That is because of the ANC, 6N, the required rest period after the 6N and the cancelled European fixtures. Before the end of the 6 nations Youngs and Ford had both played a game and a half for Tigers all season. You're not suggesting that Wigglesworth and Henry were Tigers first choice?

The England players have been pretty unavailable for their clubs before the end of the 6N this season and even then there's two mandatory rest weekends before the end of the season. That's a significant period of the season to miss out on. All fit and firing he starts for Bristol as at the weekend when he was man of the match.

A pedant writes:

Any chance we can spell Kyle Sinckler's name correctly? He's becoming this forum's new Joe Launchbury (not Launchberry) for instances of mispelling. I would have put good money on it being Sam Simmonds (Rugby World called him Simmons in one piece) but we are generally good on that score.

To summarise and knit together Sinckler missing out and the impact of that you'd imagine that the coaches viewed last weekend and were very impressed by him. Articulate in the interview, impressing on the pitch.

Let's just cut to the chase here and ask your opinions - who should be dropped from the Lions squad in favour of Sinckler (or is is Synckleur?!)?

Whoever gets injured.

No, no 7.5. That's not what I meant. There's an undercurrent here that the selectors got it wrong and he should have been selected in the initial squad. So the question is - instead of whom?

The Oracle wrote:Let's just cut to the chase here and ask your opinions - who should be dropped from the Lions squad in favour of Sinckler (or is is Synckleur?!)?

Nobody. IMO he wouldn't even get on the bench for Wales, Ireland or Scotland.

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Of course geoff. At the start of this I said I would love to know the true reasons players are chosen or ignored. Never likely to get to know most of that until years later as what is released tends to be contradictory. Forwards were chosen on pens conceded in the scrum....so we pick Vunipola. Clearly a line to say we answered now move on!

Vunapola is a Kiwi and Gatland loves selecting Kiwis.

Mako could claim to feel he's many nationalities but saying he's a Kiwi is hilarious. Born in NZ but by the time he was 3 they'd moved to Australia and by the time Billy was in pre-school the family were in Wales. Mako's primary schooling and the beginning of secondary schooling were all in Wales before they moved to England and he received scholarship due to his abundant talent. That's before discussing their Tongan heritage.

Suggesting Mako is a Kiwi due to place of birth just sums up the antiquated obsession with birthplace which the often maligned international qualification through parentage or residency is so vital to break past. By birthplace my brother and sister are German because my father was serving at an Armed Forces base in Germany when they popped out. They lived there a max of 18 months in the older brothers case, speak no German and to my knowledge each has been to Germany once since when they visited Berlin. They ain't German and Mako ain't a Kiwi.

The Oracle wrote:No, no 7.5.  That's not what I meant.  There's an undercurrent here that the selectors got it wrong and he should have been selected in the initial squad.  So the question is - instead of whom?

There are 2 answers to that so I'll say my ideal then your specific one. I'd have had him as well. With covid it makes much less sense to me having a smaller squad than a larger one to prevent new people coming in. To yours, Fagerson.

king_carlos wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Of course geoff. At the start of this I said I would love to know the true reasons players are chosen or ignored. Never likely to get to know most of that until years later as what is released tends to be contradictory. Forwards were chosen on pens conceded in the scrum....so we pick Vunipola. Clearly a line to say we answered now move on!

Vunapola is a Kiwi and Gatland loves selecting Kiwis.

Mako could claim to feel he's many nationalities but saying he's a Kiwi is hilarious. Born in NZ but by the time he was 3 they'd moved to Australia and by the time Billy was in pre-school the family were in Wales. Mako's primary schooling and the beginning of secondary schooling were all in Wales before they moved to England and he received scholarship due to his abundant talent. That's before discussing their Tongan heritage.

Suggesting Mako is a Kiwi due to place of birth just sums up the antiquated obsession with birthplace which the often maligned international qualification through parentage or residency is so vital to break past. By birthplace my brother and sister are German because my father was serving at an Armed Forces base in Germany when they popped out. They lived there a max of 18 months in the older brothers case, speak no German and to my knowledge each has been to Germany once since when they visited Berlin. They ain't German and Mako ain't a Kiwi.

If Wales had the same opportunities as they offer in England, both of them would be Welsh.

LordDowlais wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Let's just cut to the chase here and ask your opinions - who should be dropped from the Lions squad in favour of Sinckler (or is is Synckleur?!)?

Nobody. IMO he wouldn't even get on the bench for Wales, Ireland or Scotland.

Soul Requiem wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Let's just cut to the chase here and ask your opinions - who should be dropped from the Lions squad in favour of Sinckler (or is is Synckleur?!)?

Nobody. IMO he wouldn't even get on the bench for Wales, Ireland or Scotland.

We have Thomos Francis and Leon Brown for Wales, both who I rate better, also, if Samson Lee gets his fitness back and his early form, he would be behind him as well. I bet the other national sides could say the same, also, I doubt they would want the added baggage that comes with Kyle Sinckler.

LordDowlais wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Let's just cut to the chase here and ask your opinions - who should be dropped from the Lions squad in favour of Sinckler (or is is Synckleur?!)?

Nobody. IMO he wouldn't even get on the bench for Wales, Ireland or Scotland.

We have Thomos Francis and Leon Brown for Wales, both who I rate better, also, if Samson Lee gets his fitness back and his early form, he would be behind him as well. I bet the other national sides could say the same, also, I doubt they would want the added baggage that comes with Kyle Sinckler.

Leon Brown you are one hell of a comedian.

What baggage would that be then? There weren't too many examples when discussed last week, but I'm sure you'll have plenty to hand LD

LordDowlais wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Of course geoff. At the start of this I said I would love to know the true reasons players are chosen or ignored. Never likely to get to know most of that until years later as what is released tends to be contradictory. Forwards were chosen on pens conceded in the scrum....so we pick Vunipola. Clearly a line to say we answered now move on!

Vunapola is a Kiwi and Gatland loves selecting Kiwis.

Mako could claim to feel he's many nationalities but saying he's a Kiwi is hilarious. Born in NZ but by the time he was 3 they'd moved to Australia and by the time Billy was in pre-school the family were in Wales. Mako's primary schooling and the beginning of secondary schooling were all in Wales before they moved to England and he received scholarship due to his abundant talent. That's before discussing their Tongan heritage.

Suggesting Mako is a Kiwi due to place of birth just sums up the antiquated obsession with birthplace which the often maligned international qualification through parentage or residency is so vital to break past. By birthplace my brother and sister are German because my father was serving at an Armed Forces base in Germany when they popped out. They lived there a max of 18 months in the older brothers case, speak no German and to my knowledge each has been to Germany once since when they visited Berlin. They ain't German and Mako ain't a Kiwi.

If Wales had the same opportunities as they offer in England, both of them would be Welsh.

And if my aunty had balls etc etc

The Oracle wrote:Let's just cut to the chase here and ask your opinions - who should be dropped from the Lions squad in favour of Sinckler (or is is Synckleur?!)?

AWJ Obvious innit. I am sure if we put Singler on a rack he'll stretch out to a similar height.

BamBam wrote:What baggage would that be then? There weren't too many examples when discussed last week, but I'm sure you'll have plenty to hand LD

He was banned for an eye gouge. Ah no, that was Francis.

The Oracle wrote:No, no 7.5.  That's not what I meant.  There's an undercurrent here that the selectors got it wrong and he should have been selected in the initial squad.  So the question is - instead of whom?

Fagerson or Porter. Both very good players but Sinckler is a cut above

My view is that if building a game plan with a player like Furlong available, you should be scheming plays where he collects the ball at first receiver / second receiver, let him decide whether to carry as effectively as he does, or use his skills as a passer / offloader to get the ball out wide. In that case, having Sinckler who can do 90% of the same passing / offloading / carrying makes more sense as the bench tighthead or second starting option than having a more traditional tighthead skill set out there.

Fagerson is very good at the ruck, Porter is a strong carrier, but if we're planning to use Furlong's skills in that way, Sinckler can do a very good impression of the same. If we're not planning on using Furlong in that way, then the coaches are idiots

LordDowlais wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Of course geoff. At the start of this I said I would love to know the true reasons players are chosen or ignored. Never likely to get to know most of that until years later as what is released tends to be contradictory. Forwards were chosen on pens conceded in the scrum....so we pick Vunipola. Clearly a line to say we answered now move on!

Vunapola is a Kiwi and Gatland loves selecting Kiwis.

Mako could claim to feel he's many nationalities but saying he's a Kiwi is hilarious. Born in NZ but by the time he was 3 they'd moved to Australia and by the time Billy was in pre-school the family were in Wales. Mako's primary schooling and the beginning of secondary schooling were all in Wales before they moved to England and he received scholarship due to his abundant talent. That's before discussing their Tongan heritage.

Suggesting Mako is a Kiwi due to place of birth just sums up the antiquated obsession with birthplace which the often maligned international qualification through parentage or residency is so vital to break past. By birthplace my brother and sister are German because my father was serving at an Armed Forces base in Germany when they popped out. They lived there a max of 18 months in the older brothers case, speak no German and to my knowledge each has been to Germany once since when they visited Berlin. They ain't German and Mako ain't a Kiwi.

If Wales had the same opportunities as they offer in England, both of them would be Welsh.

Only Mako and Billy know that though. Which is sort of the point of my post. When it comes to players with genuine, deep rooted links to multiple countries which they could qualify to represent I believe the only ones who need to know why they opt for one nation are the players in question.

The strange and archaic obsession many have (not saying that you do yourself LD) with trying to reduce nationality to birth place or even something as trivial as a persons accent (sadly "listen to him!" is a common and entirely moronic argument made in these discussions) is ridiculous.

In the modern world many of us feel pride and attachment to more than one nation and nationality. A far smaller number of us are talented enough that they need to choose between those attachments to decide who they will represent on the world stage. The reasons that players make those decisions are often personal and completely unknown to those that try to simplify the situation to "he's a Kiwi".

Perhaps a massive can of worms but given the Itoje and Sinckler discussion on how race affects the views people take on players I think it's absolutely worth noting that nobody calls Sam Underhill, Alex Corbisiero or Tommy Semour American or John Barclay Hong Kongese as they were born in those nations due to their parents occupation and residence at the time of birth. However, the BAME player that was born in NZ due to his fathers occupation at the time but has lived in the UK since Primary School doesn't warrant being considered as from around these parts by some rugby fans.

king_carlos wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Of course geoff. At the start of this I said I would love to know the true reasons players are chosen or ignored. Never likely to get to know most of that until years later as what is released tends to be contradictory. Forwards were chosen on pens conceded in the scrum....so we pick Vunipola. Clearly a line to say we answered now move on!

Vunapola is a Kiwi and Gatland loves selecting Kiwis.

Mako could claim to feel he's many nationalities but saying he's a Kiwi is hilarious. Born in NZ but by the time he was 3 they'd moved to Australia and by the time Billy was in pre-school the family were in Wales. Mako's primary schooling and the beginning of secondary schooling were all in Wales before they moved to England and he received scholarship due to his abundant talent. That's before discussing their Tongan heritage.

Suggesting Mako is a Kiwi due to place of birth just sums up the antiquated obsession with birthplace which the often maligned international qualification through parentage or residency is so vital to break past. By birthplace my brother and sister are German because my father was serving at an Armed Forces base in Germany when they popped out. They lived there a max of 18 months in the older brothers case, speak no German and to my knowledge each has been to Germany once since when they visited Berlin. They ain't German and Mako ain't a Kiwi.

If Wales had the same opportunities as they offer in England, both of them would be Welsh.

Only Mako and Billy know that though. Which is sort of the point of my post. When it comes to players with genuine, deep rooted links to multiple countries which they could qualify to represent I believe the only ones who need to know why they opt for one nation are the players in question.

The strange and archaic obsession many have (not saying that you do yourself LD) with trying to reduce nationality to birth place or even something as trivial as a persons accent (sadly "listen to him!" is a common and entirely moronic argument made in these discussions) is ridiculous.

In the modern world many of us feel pride and attachment to more than one nation and nationality. A far smaller number of us are talented enough that they need to choose between those attachments to decide who they will represent on the world stage. The reasons that players make those decisions are often personal and completely unknown to those that try to simplify the situation to "he's a Kiwi".

Perhaps a massive can of worms but given the Itoje and Sinckler discussion on how race affects the views people take on players I think it's absolutely worth noting that nobody calls Sam Underhill, Alex Corbisiero or Tommy Semour American or John Barclay Hong Kongese as they were born in those nations due to their parents occupation and residence at the time of birth. However, the BAME player that was born in NZ due to his fathers occupation at the time but has lived in the UK since Primary School doesn't warrant being considered as from around these parts by some rugby fans.

And then you get Tom Heathcote.

We have been down the rabidhole of nationality too many times.

BamBam wrote:

The Oracle wrote:No, no 7.5.  That's not what I meant.  There's an undercurrent here that the selectors got it wrong and he should have been selected in the initial squad.  So the question is - instead of whom?

Fagerson or Porter. Both very good players but Sinckler is a cut above

My view is that if building a game plan with a player like Furlong available, you should be scheming plays where he collects the ball at first receiver / second receiver, let him decide whether to carry as effectively as he does, or use his skills as a passer / offloader to get the ball out wide. In that case, having Sinckler who can do 90% of the same passing / offloading / carrying makes more sense as the bench tighthead or second starting option than having a more traditional tighthead skill set out there.

Fagerson is very good at the ruck, Porter is a strong carrier, but if we're planning to use Furlong's skills in that way, Sinckler can do a very good impression of the same. If we're not planning on using Furlong in that way, then the coaches are idiots

Well its clear that Sinkler is the England fans biggest grievance on here. One here anyway.

However, you must at the very least realise that the selectors are picking from four nations three of which are performing better than England at the moment. Fagerson and Porter had very good tournaments and are very talented so are there on merit. I would probably have picked Healy and Marler ahead of Sinkler too. If anything England were very fortunate to get as many players as they did, I really dont think there can be any complaints.

king_carlos wrote:The strange and archaic obsession many have (not saying that you do yourself LD) with trying to reduce nationality to birth place or even something as trivial as a persons accent (sadly "listen to him!" is a common and entirely moronic argument made in these discussions) is ridiculous.

I am definitely not tied up with place of birth, especially when they have lived in said country from a very young age, George North and Jonathan Davies were both born in England, but have been growing up in Wales since before they were 1 year old.

No, when a person identifies with his nationality of choice, and becomes part of the heritage then thats enough for me. It's the ones that come over looking for opportunities and then bugger off back to their country of origin that irks me.

king_carlos wrote:Perhaps a massive can of worms but given the Itoje and Sinckler discussion on how race affects the views people take on players I think it's absolutely worth noting that nobody calls Sam Underhill, Alex Corbisiero or Tommy Semour American or John Barclay Hong Kongese as they were born in those nations due to their parents occupation and residence at the time of birth. However, the ethnic minority that was born in NZ due to his fathers occupation at the time but has lived in the UK since Primary School doesn't warrant being considered as from around these parts.

Talking about that, I am sure Justin Tipuric has Croatian heritage that he is very proud of. I agree with what you have said above as well.

It's also worth noting, that we are a very unique bunch in the UK. We are all British, and we all share the same affinities to the the UK, but we all also have our own borders, which are very transparent as we can travel between them all as and when we like. This causes things like place of birth in the UK to become very diluted, we can work in each others countries we can live in each other countries, we can socialise and go shopping in each others countries, we can get educated in each others countries ect....

My daughter broke my heart the other day, she is living in Bristol at the moment, as she is being educated in Bristol Uni, and she told me she might never come back to Merthyr as she loves Bristol so much, what can I do, she is 20 years old.

If she decides to stay in Bristol forever, if ever she has children, and if they were good enough to represent a nation in a sport, they could be Welsh or English. Such is the situation we find ourselves in within the UK.

king_carlos wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Of course geoff. At the start of this I said I would love to know the true reasons players are chosen or ignored. Never likely to get to know most of that until years later as what is released tends to be contradictory. Forwards were chosen on pens conceded in the scrum....so we pick Vunipola. Clearly a line to say we answered now move on!

Vunapola is a Kiwi and Gatland loves selecting Kiwis.

Mako could claim to feel he's many nationalities but saying he's a Kiwi is hilarious. Born in NZ but by the time he was 3 they'd moved to Australia and by the time Billy was in pre-school the family were in Wales. Mako's primary schooling and the beginning of secondary schooling were all in Wales before they moved to England and he received scholarship due to his abundant talent. That's before discussing their Tongan heritage.

Suggesting Mako is a Kiwi due to place of birth just sums up the antiquated obsession with birthplace which the often maligned international qualification through parentage or residency is so vital to break past. By birthplace my brother and sister are German because my father was serving at an Armed Forces base in Germany when they popped out. They lived there a max of 18 months in the older brothers case, speak no German and to my knowledge each has been to Germany once since when they visited Berlin. They ain't German and Mako ain't a Kiwi.

If Wales had the same opportunities as they offer in England, both of them would be Welsh.

Only Mako and Billy know that though. Which is sort of the point of my post. When it comes to players with genuine, deep rooted links to multiple countries which they could qualify to represent I believe the only ones who need to know why they opt for one nation are the players in question.

The strange and archaic obsession many have (not saying that you do yourself LD) with trying to reduce nationality to birth place or even something as trivial as a persons accent (sadly "listen to him!" is a common and entirely moronic argument made in these discussions) is ridiculous.

In the modern world many of us feel pride and attachment to more than one nation and nationality. A far smaller number of us are talented enough that they need to choose between those attachments to decide who they will represent on the world stage. The reasons that players make those decisions are often personal and completely unknown to those that try to simplify the situation to "he's a Kiwi".

Perhaps a massive can of worms but given the Itoje and Sinckler discussion on how race affects the views people take on players I think it's absolutely worth noting that nobody calls Sam Underhill, Alex Corbisiero or Tommy Semour American or John Barclay Hong Kongese as they were born in those nations due to their parents occupation and residence at the time of birth. However, the BAME player that was born in NZ due to his fathers occupation at the time but has lived in the UK since Primary School doesn't warrant being considered as from around these parts by some rugby fans.

I agree with this. From my own experiences supporting the Welsh team, I’ve felt that opposition fans and media get a lot more rabid about the likes of Willis Halaholo and Taulupe Faletau representing Wales than they ever did about players such as Gareth Anscombe or Hadleigh Parkes. The only difference, it would seem, is their names not being anglicised and their skin not being white...... making them stand out as ‘more different’ than the white foreigners and therefore more open to criticism (as in, criticism of their selection). Madness.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Well its clear that Sinkler is the England fans biggest grievance on here. One here anyway.

However, you must at the very least realise that the selectors are picking from four nations three of which are performing better than England at the moment. Fagerson and Porter had very good tournaments and are very talented so are there on merit. I would probably have picked Healy and Marler ahead of Sinkler too. If anything England were very fortunate to get as many players as they did, I really dont think there can be any complaints.

Selection for the Lions is about individual performance and how the coaches want to play, it is not based solely on the most recent six nations especially one that took place under such strange circumstances.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Well its clear that Sinkler is the England fans biggest grievance on here. One here anyway.

However, you must at the very least realise that the selectors are picking from four nations three of which are performing better than England at the moment. Fagerson and Porter had very good tournaments and are very talented so are there on merit. I would probably have picked Healy and Marler ahead of Sinkler too. If anything England were very fortunate to get as many players as they did, I really dont think there can be any complaints.

Selection for the Lions is about individual performance and how the coaches want to play, it is not based solely on the most recent six nations especially one that took place under such strange circumstances.

No one was taking that remit when the last Lions were picked. Funny that isn't it ?

Collapse2005 wrote:

BamBam wrote:

The Oracle wrote:No, no 7.5.  That's not what I meant.  There's an undercurrent here that the selectors got it wrong and he should have been selected in the initial squad.  So the question is - instead of whom?

Fagerson or Porter. Both very good players but Sinckler is a cut above

My view is that if building a game plan with a player like Furlong available, you should be scheming plays where he collects the ball at first receiver / second receiver, let him decide whether to carry as effectively as he does, or use his skills as a passer / offloader to get the ball out wide. In that case, having Sinckler who can do 90% of the same passing / offloading / carrying makes more sense as the bench tighthead or second starting option than having a more traditional tighthead skill set out there.

Fagerson is very good at the ruck, Porter is a strong carrier, but if we're planning to use Furlong's skills in that way, Sinckler can do a very good impression of the same. If we're not planning on using Furlong in that way, then the coaches are idiots

Well its clear that Sinkler is the England fans biggest grievance on here. One here anyway.

However, you must at the very least realise that the selectors are picking from four nations three of which are performing better than England at the moment. Fagerson and Porter had very good tournaments and are very talented so are there on merit. I would probably have picked Healy and Marler ahead of Sinkler too. If anything England were very fortunate to get as many players as they did, I really dont think there can be any complaints.

I think Sinckler is a very fine player with real Lions pedigree but personally I am not upset about it. There are multiple reasons why the selectors will go one way or another and the only thing I can say for sure is that most of the reasons pushed here are going to be wrong.

May missing out is the one that I find harder, personally. People's reactions to him seem very marmite but I never quite get why. He's a very complete player these days and capable of occasionally scoring tries that nobody else can. He's also a real weapon when used properly for kick chase.

LordDowlais wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Well its clear that Sinkler is the England fans biggest grievance on here. One here anyway.

However, you must at the very least realise that the selectors are picking from four nations three of which are performing better than England at the moment. Fagerson and Porter had very good tournaments and are very talented so are there on merit. I would probably have picked Healy and Marler ahead of Sinkler too. If anything England were very fortunate to get as many players as they did, I really dont think there can be any complaints.

Selection for the Lions is about individual performance and how the coaches want to play, it is not based solely on the most recent six nations especially one that took place under such strange circumstances.

No one was taking that remit when the last Lions were picked. Funny that isn't it ?

You really are an intolerable bore. I don't give a damn what other posters remit from four years ago was, i'm talking about the 2021 Lions.

Yeah I dont disagree at all LostinWales, Sinkler could yet called up and I dont think anyone would be two worried about a drop in quality.

I also find it strange that May isnt a bigger talking point as he and Itoje have been England's best players for a few years now and possibly Curry more recently.

Soul Requiem wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Well its clear that Sinkler is the England fans biggest grievance on here. One here anyway.

However, you must at the very least realise that the selectors are picking from four nations three of which are performing better than England at the moment. Fagerson and Porter had very good tournaments and are very talented so are there on merit. I would probably have picked Healy and Marler ahead of Sinkler too. If anything England were very fortunate to get as many players as they did, I really dont think there can be any complaints.

Selection for the Lions is about individual performance and how the coaches want to play, it is not based solely on the most recent six nations especially one that took place under such strange circumstances.

No one was taking that remit when the last Lions were picked. Funny that isn't it ?

You really are an intolerable bore. I don't give a damn what other posters remit from four years ago was, i'm talking about the 2021 Lions.

Just saying, thats all.

Some people just do not like it when they are reminded of double standards.

Collapse2005 wrote:Yeah I dont disagree at all LostinWales, Sinkler could yet called up and I dont think anyone would be two worried about a drop in quality.

I also find it strange that May isnt a bigger talking point as he and Itoje have been England's best players for a few years now and possibly Curry more recently.

Itoje and Curry definitely, I am not sold on May, he is good, but there are wingers from other countries who offer more. But I would have picked May ahead of Anthony Watson.

If Im being honest I would have selected May over Adams.

Collapse2005 wrote:If Im being honest I would have selected May over Adams.

Watson and May are far more dangerous and likely to scare the Boks than Adams. They're also more likely to obey COVID rules, if "baggage" is part of the selection criteria

Collapse2005 wrote:Well its clear that Sinkler...

Sinckler