LIONS STARTING TEST 13

Pick a lad there, Gary most in form, Joseph most English, Davies most credit in the bank, Jones most southern hemispherish.

Well im majorly biased, but I think Joseph is a class 13. Blistering attack, and normally, rock solid in defence.

I would have to go with Joseph, he has some of the quickest feet in rugby with speed to back it up. Too early for Ringrose but he has the makings to be a quality 13 and future Lion.

if this is the caliber of post we can expect on the run up to to the lions tests, it's going to be a long couple of months.

I'd go for Ringrose.

Joseph only had 1 good game in the 6 nations. I do like going for form players.

Still think Joseph will tour but he's like a sprinter who was well ahead but stumbling near the finishing line.

Seems like some have forgotten that for the last few years Ireland have had a guy doing a pretty decent job at 13

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:if this is the caliber of post we can expect on the run up to to the lions tests, it's going to be a long couple of months.

I wish PoT would post more often. His pi$$taking is brilliant. Better than the usual excrement coming from a few posters about.....well anything really.

marty2086 wrote:Seems like some have forgotten that for the last few years Ireland have had a guy doing a pretty decent job at 13

Payne has been solid at 13 but I would have him at 15. I would have 15 between Payne and Hogg...

eirebilly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Seems like some have forgotten that for the last few years Ireland have had a guy doing a pretty decent job at 13

Payne has been solid at 13 but I would have him at 15. I would have 15 between Payne and Hogg...

He's still an option at 13 and currently a better one than Ringrose in my opinion. Throughout the 6Ns Ringrose was too vulnerable and against the ABs would be torn apart

Payne is more of a threat from 15 but offers so much leadership at 13 and frees up players around him more than others

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:if this is the caliber of post we can expect on the run up to to the lions tests, it's going to be a long couple of months.

I wish PoT would post more often. His pi$$taking is brilliant. Better than the usual excrement coming from a few posters about.....well anything really.

He's clearly been smoking his name sake!

marty2086 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Seems like some have forgotten that for the last few years Ireland have had a guy doing a pretty decent job at 13

Payne has been solid at 13 but I would have him at 15. I would have 15 between Payne and Hogg...

He's still an option at 13 and currently a better one than Ringrose in my opinion. Throughout the 6Ns Ringrose was too vulnerable and against the ABs would be torn apart

Payne is more of a threat from 15 but offers so much leadership at 13 and frees up players around him more than others

Cant disagree with that except that I feel he frees up more players from 15 than 13.

09 : Webb
10 : Sexton
12 : Farrell
13 : Henshaw

That would not be a bad defensive/attacking quartet for the Lions against the AB's...

eirebilly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Seems like some have forgotten that for the last few years Ireland have had a guy doing a pretty decent job at 13

Payne has been solid at 13 but I would have him at 15. I would have 15 between Payne and Hogg...

He's still an option at 13 and currently a better one than Ringrose in my opinion. Throughout the 6Ns Ringrose was too vulnerable and against the ABs would be torn apart

Payne is more of a threat from 15 but offers so much leadership at 13 and frees up players around him more than others

Cant disagree with that except that I feel he frees up more players from 15 than 13.

I understand what you mean, his breaks can bring more players into the attack but I think his defensive shift at 13 lessens the burden on others especially those at 12. I think Henshaw wasn't as effective in the 6Ns because his defensive work increased and at Ulster you see a similar pattern occur

marty2086 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Seems like some have forgotten that for the last few years Ireland have had a guy doing a pretty decent job at 13

Payne has been solid at 13 but I would have him at 15. I would have 15 between Payne and Hogg...

He's still an option at 13 and currently a better one than Ringrose in my opinion. Throughout the 6Ns Ringrose was too vulnerable and against the ABs would be torn apart

Payne is more of a threat from 15 but offers so much leadership at 13 and frees up players around him more than others

Here listen McFly, Ringer played NZ out of position at 12 for 70 minutes and didn't look out out place. Your ignorance is telling, your probably the kind of guy that liked Mark Cueto, Dan Hipkiss or "dropgoal specialist" Jeremy Guscott.

BOD could still do the job of picking and dropping a blade of grass to accept the challenge laid down by the all blacks

PredictorofTeams wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Seems like some have forgotten that for the last few years Ireland have had a guy doing a pretty decent job at 13

Payne has been solid at 13 but I would have him at 15. I would have 15 between Payne and Hogg...

He's still an option at 13 and currently a better one than Ringrose in my opinion. Throughout the 6Ns Ringrose was too vulnerable and against the ABs would be torn apart

Payne is more of a threat from 15 but offers so much leadership at 13 and frees up players around him more than others

Here listen McFly, Ringer played NZ out of position at 12 for 70 minutes and didn't look out out place. Your ignorance is telling, your probably the kind of guy that liked Mark Cueto, Dan Hipkiss or "dropgoal specialist" Jeremy Guscott.

I'm the kind of guy that knows the difference between your and you're and that one good performance doesn't mean he's ready especially when you see that those playing in the centre with him tend to miss more tackles when he plays and he's constantly out of position defensively

marty2086 wrote:

PredictorofTeams wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Seems like some have forgotten that for the last few years Ireland have had a guy doing a pretty decent job at 13

Payne has been solid at 13 but I would have him at 15. I would have 15 between Payne and Hogg...

He's still an option at 13 and currently a better one than Ringrose in my opinion. Throughout the 6Ns Ringrose was too vulnerable and against the ABs would be torn apart

Payne is more of a threat from 15 but offers so much leadership at 13 and frees up players around him more than others

Here listen McFly, Ringer played NZ out of position at 12 for 70 minutes and didn't look out out place. Your ignorance is telling, your probably the kind of guy that liked Mark Cueto, Dan Hipkiss or "dropgoal specialist" Jeremy Guscott.

I'm the kind of guy that knows the difference between your and you're and that one good performance doesn't mean he's ready especially when you see that those playing in the centre with him tend to miss more tackles when he plays and he's constantly out of position defensively

Ah here, don't be such a Biff, pointing out grammar mistakes while failing to use a comma or a full stop is a bit rich. In reference to one good game I had to think about which good game you were talking about - Wasps? England? Italy? France? Or were you talking about Joseph? Because yes then I'd have to agree one good performance against Scotland and he's suddenly the karate kid. I actually think we're on the same page after all, fair play McFly - tell Doc I said hi.

What's Jamie Roberts got to do with this?

PredictorofTeams wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PredictorofTeams wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Seems like some have forgotten that for the last few years Ireland have had a guy doing a pretty decent job at 13

Payne has been solid at 13 but I would have him at 15. I would have 15 between Payne and Hogg...

He's still an option at 13 and currently a better one than Ringrose in my opinion. Throughout the 6Ns Ringrose was too vulnerable and against the ABs would be torn apart

Payne is more of a threat from 15 but offers so much leadership at 13 and frees up players around him more than others

Here listen McFly, Ringer played NZ out of position at 12 for 70 minutes and didn't look out out place. Your ignorance is telling, your probably the kind of guy that liked Mark Cueto, Dan Hipkiss or "dropgoal specialist" Jeremy Guscott.

I'm the kind of guy that knows the difference between your and you're and that one good performance doesn't mean he's ready especially when you see that those playing in the centre with him tend to miss more tackles when he plays and he's constantly out of position defensively

Ah here, don't be such a Biff, pointing out grammar mistakes while failing to use a comma or a full stop is a bit rich. In reference to one good game I had to think about which good game you were talking about - Wasps? England? Italy? France? Or were you talking about Joseph? Because yes then I'd have to agree one good performance against Scotland and he's suddenly the karate kid. I actually think we're on the same page after all, fair play McFly - tell Doc I said hi.

Sorry Garry I didn't realise you were on 606, if you think you played well in the 6Ns sorry but Joes blowing smoke up your jacksie. You were repeatedly out of position in defence and kept missing tackles but I suppose some think quick feet in attack are pretty to watch and forget that the game has more to it especially at the highest level

marty2086 wrote:

PredictorofTeams wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PredictorofTeams wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Seems like some have forgotten that for the last few years Ireland have had a guy doing a pretty decent job at 13

Payne has been solid at 13 but I would have him at 15. I would have 15 between Payne and Hogg...

He's still an option at 13 and currently a better one than Ringrose in my opinion. Throughout the 6Ns Ringrose was too vulnerable and against the ABs would be torn apart

Payne is more of a threat from 15 but offers so much leadership at 13 and frees up players around him more than others

Here listen McFly, Ringer played NZ out of position at 12 for 70 minutes and didn't look out out place. Your ignorance is telling, your probably the kind of guy that liked Mark Cueto, Dan Hipkiss or "dropgoal specialist" Jeremy Guscott.

I'm the kind of guy that knows the difference between your and you're and that one good performance doesn't mean he's ready especially when you see that those playing in the centre with him tend to miss more tackles when he plays and he's constantly out of position defensively

Ah here, don't be such a Biff, pointing out grammar mistakes while failing to use a comma or a full stop is a bit rich. In reference to one good game I had to think about which good game you were talking about - Wasps? England? Italy? France? Or were you talking about Joseph? Because yes then I'd have to agree one good performance against Scotland and he's suddenly the karate kid. I actually think we're on the same page after all, fair play McFly - tell Doc I said hi.

Sorry Garry I didn't realise you were on 606, if you think you played well in the 6Ns sorry but Joes blowing smoke up your jacksie. You were repeatedly out of position in defence and kept missing tackles but I suppose some think quick feet in attack are pretty to watch and forget that the game has more to it especially at the highest level

You need to get off that hover board Marty, Gary is not cool enough to be amongst the great posters here at 606.
So would you disagree that baby BOD played well in the games I mentioned? If so, I see, interesting yes, I may know who you are...Darren. Darren Cave disguising himself as an 80s teenage movie star, indeed you are definitely cool enough to fit the bill.

Are you saying Ringrose defended well in those games? That he wasn't out of position in defence? That he didn't miss multiple tackles in every game? That he didn't expose his team mates and increase their burden and errors?

marty2086 wrote:Are you saying Ringrose defended well in those games? That he wasn't out of position in defence? That he didn't miss multiple tackles in every game? That he didn't expose his team mates and increase their burden and errors?

Yes look Dazzer, I know it's a bit of a case of how can you compare the untrained eye of yourself, to an established journalist like myself. But yes I believe you are indeed a fool, I would actually say he is, along with Sexton, the best defender in terms of reading the play. I believe the stats say he missed 2 tackles against France and 1 against England, however his reading of the game probably cannot be appreciated by a little rugby mind but your loss, no sweat Darren, sorry, I mean Marty

PredictorofTeams wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Are you saying Ringrose defended well in those games? That he wasn't out of position in defence? That he didn't miss multiple tackles in every game? That he didn't expose his team mates and increase their burden and errors?

Yes look Dazzer, I know it's a bit of a case of how can you compare the untrained eye of yourself, to an establish journalist like myself. But yes I believe you are indeed a fool, I would actually say he is, along with Sexton, the best defender in terms of reading the play. I believe the stats say he missed 2 tackles against France and 1 against England, however his reading of the game probably cannot be appreciated by a little rugby mind but your loss, no sweat Darren, sorry, I mean Marty

An establish journalist?

sorry I didn't realise it was trolls day out

Maybe you'd like to rewatch the first Hogg try and tell me how well he read that play, then again if you watch any of the 5 matches you'll see numerous incidents of the poor child not knowing where he should be and others having to try covering for him

marty2086 wrote:

PredictorofTeams wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Are you saying Ringrose defended well in those games? That he wasn't out of position in defence? That he didn't miss multiple tackles in every game? That he didn't expose his team mates and increase their burden and errors?

Yes look Dazzer, I know it's a bit of a case of how can you compare the untrained eye of yourself, to an establish journalist like myself. But yes I believe you are indeed a fool, I would actually say he is, along with Sexton, the best defender in terms of reading the play. I believe the stats say he missed 2 tackles against France and 1 against England, however his reading of the game probably cannot be appreciated by a little rugby mind but your loss, no sweat Darren, sorry, I mean Marty

An establish journalist?

sorry I didn't realise it was trolls day out

Maybe you'd like to rewatch the first Hogg try and tell me how well he read that play, then again if you watch any of the 5 matches you'll see numerous incidents of the poor child not knowing where he should be and others having to try covering for him

It was his job to keep width in the defence given he was the last man , he did well in reading the play, it was Kearney and Zebo who numbered up on the wrong side, sure Ringer should have called them over but he was on the opposite side of the pitch, keeping the width, while the experienced heads had a lapse in concentration. It was a 3 on 1, he can't be blamed for that try.
UK Telegraph seems to agree with me, anyway, us establish journalists know what we talkin' abou'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/04/03/garry-ringrose-underlines-potential-follow-brian-odriscoll-lions/

I'll stick my neck on the line and say, if fit, Jon Davies will start at 13 in at least one of the first 2 tests.

As wonderful a player as Jonathan Joseph is, frankly he cannot bring the defensive qualities and sheer physicality that Davies does to the 13 channel, and I don't think it's a position in Farrell and Gatland's defensive system that can afford defensive weakness. As I've said, the 'luxury' player(s) will be on the wing, if at all, where non attacking weakness (defensive, positional, whatever) is mitigated by brilliant attacking prowess or potential. George North, for example. Perhaps Stuart Hogg, though I think 15 is a different prospect again.

However, if this is the case, I will be extremely disappointed. Joseph is incredible going forward, a proper three quarter in the midfield who- coming onto the ball from depth and at pace- is a nightmare for literally any defensive system or player. He has all the attacking attributes you could want from a winger, and he doesn't even play there. Outside a proper second five eighth, the Lions could field a 12-13 combination to match NZ's.

Yet I do think Joseph's positioning and size could let him down, and so- though I hope I'm wrong- if Joseph fails to convince the coaches he's good enough defensively, or that his attacking abilities are so emphatic that they're willing to give him some leeway in other aspects of the game (I cannot see this happening at 13, as I said, only on the wing), then I suspect Gatland will opt for Jon Davies, who adds solidity and experience and is a decent all rounder, but obviously cannot do what Joseph does best.

Davies at his best- outside a distributing 12- is a fantastic player in his own right, which we rarely seefor Wales unfortunately, and I'd like to see what he could do outside Farrell/a more footballing 10-12 combo than Biggar-Roberts; however, if he doesn't find some blistering form but does start ahead of Joseph, it will be a sign that the Lions have unfortunately failed to work in one of their most exciting attacking talents for the Tests, and that will be disappointing.

What a load of crap.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:What a load of crap.

Good point well made.

miaow wrote:I'll stick my neck on the line and say, if fit, Jon Davies will start at 13 in at least one of the first 2 tests.

As wonderful a player as Jonathan Joseph is, frankly he cannot bring the defensive qualities and sheer physicality that Davies does to the 13 channel, and I don't think it's a position in Farrell and Gatland's defensive system that can afford defensive weakness. As I've said, the 'luxury' player(s) will be on the wing, if at all, where non attacking weakness (defensive, positional, whatever) is mitigated by brilliant attacking prowess or potential. George North, for example. Perhaps Stuart Hogg, though I think 15 is a different prospect again.

However, if this is the case, I will be extremely disappointed. Joseph is incredible going forward, a proper three quarter in the midfield who- coming onto the ball from depth and at pace- is a nightmare for literally any defensive system or player. He has all the attacking attributes you could want from a winger, and he doesn't even play there. Outside a proper second five eighth, the Lions could field a 12-13 combination to match NZ's.

Yet I do think Joseph's positioning and size could let him down, and so- though I hope I'm wrong- if Joseph fails to convince the coaches he's good enough defensively, or that his attacking abilities are so emphatic that they're willing to give him some leeway in other aspects of the game (I cannot see this happening at 13, as I said, only on the wing), then I suspect Gatland will opt for Jon Davies, who adds solidity and experience and is a decent all rounder, but obviously cannot do what Joseph does best.

Davies at his best- outside a distributing 12- is a fantastic player in his own right, which we rarely seefor Wales unfortunately, and I'd like to see what he could do outside Farrell/a more footballing 10-12 combo than Biggar-Roberts; however, if he doesn't find some blistering form but does start ahead of Joseph, it will be a sign that the Lions have unfortunately failed to work in one of their most exciting attacking talents for the Tests, and that will be disappointing.

Unlikely, JD2 is a nightmare passer of the ball.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/heres-what-happened-basic-skills-12842317

Whatever he brings in defense and the occasional glimpse of brilliance in attack, he has squandered more passes outside than anyone I've ever seen including myself. Doc made JD2 look good because she could stand up the 10/12 and 13 channels leaving JD2 space. Not any more you'll notice.

Joseph is not a poor defender and I dont think Gatland will try and win by attrition, though he might have to, i think he will go full on attack first and coach defensive structure with Farrell as defensive captain.

I think Farrell and Joseph will start and just wish Manu was fit and on form as he'd be my bolter.

You didn't really read it all though did you HH?

Whilst Miaow might be exaggerating Joseph's frailty it's hard to fault the general argument. Joseph is the outstanding attacking center in European rugby.
If Gatlands is serious about his intention to play attacking rugby and look to score rather than contain then he is the standard out choice. Not having played much recently doesn't change that. In a position that maybe lacks a real in form standout with many years at the top he's the obvious choice as an attacking threat.

That doesn't make JD2 or Ringrose or bad players, and doesn't mean Joseph is superior in every facet.

Any outside back is going to rely to some extent on the midfields creativity and the quality of possession the forwards are securing for them. If you assume that Gatlands will select Sexton and Farrell then that playmaking shouldn't be an issue, and the 13 will be more than just a defender and occasional crash ball option. Again assuming Gatlands and the Lions have some positive intent and faith that their forwards will at least have parity with the all blacks ( and if they don't believe and plan for that they might as well give up now anyway) then the backs should see some good possession to use. It would be nice to have the best attacking tools on the pitch to exploit that, rather than a 3/4's picked to nullify the opposition with big hits in defence and attack (Martin Johnson era England springs to mind).

Of course it would be great to have everything in the perfect all round player but unfortunately BOD isn't a thing anymore , and Gatlands would drop him anyway.

Honestly barring some significant shift in form and performances in warm ups I think JJ would be one of the first names on the team sheet and least controversial selections. JD2 has the potential to be a great bench option.

There could be an argument for treating JJ as "finisher" off then bench to exploit his pace late in the game but I'm not going to make it.

I had JJ had a strange tournament (by tournament I mean the 6N) he was electric in some games and anonymous in others. Hence being dropped by Jones.

Ringrose IMO has been far more consistent. Ringrose is a spectacular athlete but to be honest I wouldn't be splitting hairs if either started over the other.

JD2 has looked largely ineffectual in this 6N. Why that is I have no idea, but it's not JD's fault on his own. With the exception of Webb and Williams the whole welsh backline have looked mediocre.

Ringrose looked out of his depth against Wales, in my opinion.

miaow wrote:Ringrose looked out of his depth against Wales, in my opinion.

And JD looked out of his depth against Scotland, England and France! None of the centres played consistently well, apart from Huw Jones and I suppose Gael Fickou or Campagnaro, one of which is injured and the other 2 are ineligible.

The picks should be Ringrose, JJ and JD in that order IMO. There are no right or wrong answers though, only opinions.

Personally I disagree. Jon Davies played pretty well in every game, and that kick against England aside, wasn't shown up in any sense. Ringrose genuinely looked like the inexperienced player that he is against Wales. It'll come in time, but Jon Davies and Scott Williams looked head and shoulders above Ringrose and Henshaw in that game, they made them look pretty ordinary, which is a worry for the Lions.

I think it's easy to dismiss Davies as he's one of those players whose contribution you tend to notice more when they're absent than when they're playing. He's not tearing up trees, and though he does actually have an excellent running game, we've never really seen it in a Welsh shirt.

But he has his uses. And Gatland likes him. I wouldn't be surprised to see him make the Test team, as I've said, and as it stands I think it's Joseph in the driving seat as long as he performs within the Lions' system, otherwise the shirt goes to Jon Davies.

PredictorofTeams wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

PredictorofTeams wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Are you saying Ringrose defended well in those games? That he wasn't out of position in defence? That he didn't miss multiple tackles in every game? That he didn't expose his team mates and increase their burden and errors?

Yes look Dazzer, I know it's a bit of a case of how can you compare the untrained eye of yourself, to an establish journalist like myself. But yes I believe you are indeed a fool, I would actually say he is, along with Sexton, the best defender in terms of reading the play. I believe the stats say he missed 2 tackles against France and 1 against England, however his reading of the game probably cannot be appreciated by a little rugby mind but your loss, no sweat Darren, sorry, I mean Marty

An establish journalist?

sorry I didn't realise it was trolls day out

Maybe you'd like to rewatch the first Hogg try and tell me how well he read that play, then again if you watch any of the 5 matches you'll see numerous incidents of the poor child not knowing where he should be and others having to try covering for him

It was his job to keep width in the defence given he was the last man , he did well in reading the play, it was Kearney and Zebo who numbered up on the wrong side, sure Ringer should have called them over but he was on the opposite side of the pitch, keeping the width, while the experienced heads had a lapse in concentration. It was a 3 on 1, he can't be blamed for that try.
UK Telegraph seems to agree with me, anyway, us establish journalists know what we talkin' abou'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/04/03/garry-ringrose-underlines-potential-follow-brian-odriscoll-lions/

He kept width by staying narrow?

Try watching the first try

miaow wrote:Personally I disagree. Jon Davies played pretty well in every game, and that kick against England aside, wasn't shown up in any sense. Ringrose genuinely looked like the inexperienced player that he is against Wales. It'll come in time, but Jon Davies and Scott Williams looked head and shoulders above Ringrose and Henshaw in that game, they made them look pretty ordinary, which is a worry for the Lions.

I think it's easy to dismiss Davies as he's one of those players whose contribution you tend to notice more when they're absent than when they're playing. He's not tearing up trees, and though he does actually have an excellent running game, we've never really seen it in a Welsh shirt.

But he has his uses. And Gatland likes him. I wouldn't be surprised to see him make the Test team, as I've said, and as it stands I think it's Joseph in the driving seat as long as he performs within the Lions' system, otherwise the shirt goes to Jon Davies.

Please pick JD. A centre who can't pass will be perfect against NZ.

Regards,
S Hansen

miaow wrote:Personally I disagree. Jon Davies played pretty well in every game, and that kick against England aside, wasn't shown up in any sense. Ringrose genuinely looked like the inexperienced player that he is against Wales. It'll come in time, but Jon Davies and Scott Williams looked head and shoulders above Ringrose and Henshaw in that game, they made them look pretty ordinary, which is a worry for the Lions.

I think it's easy to dismiss Davies as he's one of those players whose contribution you tend to notice more when they're absent than when they're playing. He's not tearing up trees, and though he does actually have an excellent running game, we've never really seen it in a Welsh shirt.

But he has his uses. And Gatland likes him. I wouldn't be surprised to see him make the Test team, as I've said, and as it stands I think it's Joseph in the driving seat as long as he performs within the Lions' system, otherwise the shirt goes to Jon Davies.

Gatland liking someone and someone being the best person to start a Lions test in NZ are 2 entirely different things. Of all the comments that wind me up on these bloody lions threads, that is one one that really boils my urine.

JD is a good player and I'm not saying he shouldn't tour, because IMO he is amongst the best 3 players we have available (in that position). Being one of Gat's faves is the sort of insular thinking that might get us massacred in the games out there.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

miaow wrote:Personally I disagree. Jon Davies played pretty well in every game, and that kick against England aside, wasn't shown up in any sense. Ringrose genuinely looked like the inexperienced player that he is against Wales. It'll come in time, but Jon Davies and Scott Williams looked head and shoulders above Ringrose and Henshaw in that game, they made them look pretty ordinary, which is a worry for the Lions.

I think it's easy to dismiss Davies as he's one of those players whose contribution you tend to notice more when they're absent than when they're playing. He's not tearing up trees, and though he does actually have an excellent running game, we've never really seen it in a Welsh shirt.

But he has his uses. And Gatland likes him. I wouldn't be surprised to see him make the Test team, as I've said, and as it stands I think it's Joseph in the driving seat as long as he performs within the Lions' system, otherwise the shirt goes to Jon Davies.

Please pick JD. A centre who can't pass will be perfect against NZ.

Regards,
S Hansen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmx7TDRtM-w

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Gatland liking someone and someone being the best person to start a Lions test in NZ are 2 entirely different things. Of all the comments that wind me up on these bloody lions threads, that is one one that really boils my urine.

JD is a good player and I'm not saying he shouldn't tour, because IMO he is amongst the best 3 players we have available. Being one of Gat's faves is the sort of insular thinking that might get us massacred in the games out there.

I know what you mean, but it's wholly appropriate to consider the actual coach of the Lions, what he'll want from a player, and the tactics he'll employ, when considering the team he'll put out. In which case- as annoying as it may be- it's a very relevant thing.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:What a load of crap.

Great point, and very well made.

I think taking JD2 would be a mistake and he's a player on standby at best. JJ, Payne and perhaps Henshaw as 12/13 for me. Why do people keep making the case for Ringrose, I didn't think he was good except for against Italy. Is it just me?

mikey_dragon wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:What a load of crap.

Great point, and very well made.

I think taking JD2 would be a mistake and he's a player on standby at best. JJ, Payne and perhaps Henshaw as 12/13 for me. Why do people keep making the case for Ringrose, I didn't think he was good except for against Italy. Is it just me?

I thought Ringrose had a good tournament overall, in a tournament where none of the 13s really shone apart from Huw Jones. Ringrose isn't all that flashy, but he defends well and tends to have a lot of time on the ball. The fact when he gets the ball and he has so much time is a testament to his great decision making.

I dunno, the centres are a bit meh, compared to all the other positions this is a distinct area of weakness for the lions. I would still say the centre question could rest with Scotland, even in the form of 2 potential bolters Matt Scott and Duncan Taylor. it is hugely disapointing that Mark Bennett and Huw Jones are crocked because both of them would have something significant to offer Gatland in terms of a selection dilemma.

I don't even think Jones was that good, scoring two tries in the England game somewhat paints over how poor he was in that game.

This is a slam dunk for me. Joseph is comfortably the best option at 13 (and was, in fact, my dark horse back for the last Lions tour (Toner was my dark horse forward)).

It's either Farrell/Joseph or Henshaw/Joseph.

I'd put JJ in at 13 and I wouldn't be surprised to see this set of backs.

9. Webb
10. Sexton
11. Williams
12. Farrell
13. Joseph
14. North
15. Hogg

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't even think Jones was that good, scoring two tries in the England game somewhat paints over how poor he was in that game.

He played well in all 4 of his games, He set up Hoggs try against Ireland and his other against France, he also linked both of the tries against Wales and Scored a brace against England. What more do you want from an outside centre?

It's between Ringose and JJ for me, both had good overall tournaments, whereas Ringrose was more consistent JJ was more devestating in a peaky/troughy kind of way.

I would have Farrell at 12 and Henshaw at 13 personally.

Cyril wrote:I'd put JJ in at 13 and I wouldn't be surprised to see this set of backs.

9. Webb
10. Sexton
11. Williams
12. Farrell
13. Joseph
14. North
15. Hogg

With Murray/Henshaw/Daly or Seymour on the bench

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't even think Jones was that good, scoring two tries in the England game somewhat paints over how poor he was in that game.

He played well in all 4 of his games, He set up Hoggs try against Ireland and his other against France, he also linked both of the tries against Wales and Scored a brace against England. What more do you want from an outside centre?

It's between Ringose and JJ for me, both had good overall tournaments, whereas Ringrose was more consistent JJ was more devestating in a peaky/troughy kind of way.

I want more than just isolated moments of quality, he was terrible against England and scoring two meaningless consolation tries doesn't make his performance any better.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't even think Jones was that good, scoring two tries in the England game somewhat paints over how poor he was in that game.

He played well in all 4 of his games, He set up Hoggs try against Ireland and his other against France, he also linked both of the tries against Wales and Scored a brace against England. What more do you want from an outside centre?

It's between Ringose and JJ for me, both had good overall tournaments, whereas Ringrose was more consistent JJ was more devestating in a peaky/troughy kind of way.

I want more than just isolated moments of quality, he was terrible against England and scoring two meaningless consolation tries doesn't make his performance any better.

I think you are doing England a terrible disservice.

England were the best they have ever been under Jones when Scotland played England at Twickenham in terms of their accuracy and execution of first phase ball that specifically targeted the midfield of Scotland. I have said on other threads too much is being made of the missed tackles in the midfield in that game as opposed to the sensational English attack that gave the Scottish midfield too many players to defend against.

Look at the Liam Williams try for a great comparrison against England. He went through first phase un touched by the English defence via a masterfully crafted set piece move. That doesn't mean that Farrell can't defend or played terrible.

The Scottish midfield missed very few tackles in that game and were left trying to defend 5 men in a channel with only 2 defenders. This move worked twice, however that doesn't mean Huw Jones was terrible. He never gave up and was rewarded with 2 tries, consolation or otherwise Scotland scored more tries against England than anyone else.

It's moot anyway since he is injured.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't even think Jones was that good, scoring two tries in the England game somewhat paints over how poor he was in that game.

He played well in all 4 of his games, He set up Hoggs try against Ireland and his other against France, he also linked both of the tries against Wales and Scored a brace against England. What more do you want from an outside centre?

It's between Ringose and JJ for me, both had good overall tournaments, whereas Ringrose was more consistent JJ was more devestating in a peaky/troughy kind of way.

I want more than just isolated moments of quality, he was terrible against England and scoring two meaningless consolation tries doesn't make his performance any better.

What a load of crap.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't even think Jones was that good, scoring two tries in the England game somewhat paints over how poor he was in that game.

He played well in all 4 of his games, He set up Hoggs try against Ireland and his other against France, he also linked both of the tries against Wales and Scored a brace against England. What more do you want from an outside centre?

It's between Ringose and JJ for me, both had good overall tournaments, whereas Ringrose was more consistent JJ was more devestating in a peaky/troughy kind of way.

I want more than just isolated moments of quality, he was terrible against England and scoring two meaningless consolation tries doesn't make his performance any better.

I think you are doing England a terrible disservice.

England were the best they have ever been under Jones when Scotland played England at Twickenham in terms of their accuracy and execution of first phase ball that specifically targeted the midfield of Scotland. I have said on other threads too much is being made of the missed tackles in the midfield in that game as opposed to the sensational English attack that gave the Scottish midfield too many players to defend against.

Look at the Liam Williams try for a great comparrison against England. He went through first phase un touched by the English defence via a masterfully crafted set piece move. That doesn't mean that Farrell can't defend or played terrible.

The Scottish midfield missed very few tackles in that game and were left trying to defend 5 men in a channel with only 2 defenders. This move worked twice, however that doesn't mean Huw Jones was terrible. He never gave up and was rewarded with 2 tries, consolation or otherwise Scotland scored more tries against England than anyone else.

It's moot anyway since he is injured.

The Wales try against us was one moment, we cut straight through your midfield at least four times, as a collective defensive unit you need to adapt and your centres are pivotal in that.

I understand trying to cling to anything glimmer of positivity but Jones was terrible in that game and it's the game that Gatland will be judging the majority of the Scottish players on.