British & Irish Lions Squad 2017

First topic message reminder :

Scottrf wrote:Lawes was better than AWJ every week in the 6 Nations and isn't injured yet he's the strange call

AWJ is a leader and well respected by his peers as well as being a former winning Lions test captain.

Lions players aren't just based on how well they did in the six nations, they are picked on how well the coaches think they will gel into the squad.

You need leaders on and off the pitch.

Which point have I ignored honestly don't like doing that. Like I said I appreciate your current argument about the head to head.

Oh, and it's not bullying or trolling to pick you up on inconsistency in argument.

I wouldn't start George North on the wing, but would start Liam Williams.

McGrath, Owens, Furlong
Itoje, Kruis
Stander, Tipuric, Vunipola
Murray Sexton
Henshaw Joseph
Williams Seymour
Hogg

Vunipola, George, Cole, Henderson, Warburton/SOB, Webb, Farrell, Daly

But I freely admit I'm not alive to all the considerations that have to be taken into account!

I'd go

McGrath, Owens, Furlong
Itoje, Kruis
Stander, Warburton, Vunipola
Murray* Sexton
Farrell Henshaw/Joseph (decided by form on tour)
Williams Seymour/North (decided by form on tour)
Hogg

Vunipola, George, Sinkler, Henderson, Tipuric, Webb, Teo, Daly

* assuming Murray is fit


I expect Gatland to go with

McGrath, Owens, Furlong
Itoje, AWJ
Stander, Warburton, Vunipola
Murray Sexton
Henshaw Davies
Williams North
Halfpenny

Vunipola, George, Cole, Henderson, Tipuric, Webb, Farrell, Daly

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which point have I ignored honestly don't like doing that. Like I said I appreciate your current argument about the head to head.

Sure... no 7 & 1/2, whatever.

You ignored Hartley's poor 6 nations form.

H2Hs matter when they genuinely matter. In this particular game, the H2H didn't matter. It was not decisive in any way.

It didn't lead to a Saints victory, didn't lead to a call up for Hartley. It was was not in an important game.

The significance has been elevated by Hartley fans as a way to build up Hartley.

H2Hs matter but in this case, the H2H has been exaggerated.

Plus you can use it to WUM. It's a good tool.


We'll see what happens on the Lions tour. Could well be last player standing plays.

Your friend might well still tour and play as a starter.

Yeah I don't think Hartley was poor in the 6 nations. Head to heads matter except when they don't suit you...ok. can you see why people may find that a little bit inconsistent? Hartley ain't a mate but I rate him a lot and would have preferred him and George in those Match day test squads.

"Sgt Pooly and yet it's George who captained his side to victory over Hartley's side. It's George's team who are in a HC final. It's George whose been picked for the Lions.

George is a proven winner."

Missing the point BS, When Harley was on the field, especially when George was on, Sarries were losing and deservedly so. Only when George went off did Sarries start to better their performance and only when Hartley went off did they take the lead.

George has not proven he can last a full game at international level, playing flat out for 20 minutes is a very different thing to playing for 60 minutes. Very easy to look very good in the carrying and tackle department when you have a very limited time on the pitch.

Hartley, steadily improved throughout the 6N and is only now getting back to the form he showed last year. When he is on form, he is a better player than George in all departments except carrying.

And scrum I'd say well past.

All in all there wasn't much in it between the top 5 candidates available to Gatland at hooker. None of them were terrible, none of them gave Dane Coles any reason to pause. Owens probably had the best 6N, followed by Best. George's value as a bench player combined with Owens' form probably pushed Hartley out.

Of course, as far as bench impact goes, this is likely what whoever is Lions #16 is up against: (at 1min 30) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APPuLJuv2igv=TjLEV4gMWLQ ...

A winger? (it's a 45 second clip)

Scottrf wrote:A winger? (it's a 45 second clip)

Oops!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APPuLJuv2ig

no 7 & 1/2 this is what I mean, hyping up Hartley..

H2Hs matter when they matter. Do you seriously think Saints-Sarries was seen as that important for Saracens when a significant portion of their best players were rested for the week after?

Serious question: which do you think Saracens wanted to win more - Saints-Sarries or Munster-Sarries?

Well-past-it when the tactic is clearly to finish off the opposition in the last 10 is it that surprising?

Defensively, George is streets ahead of Hartley. Makes more tackles and misses less.

Hartley doesn't have the workrate to do what George did vs Munster.

They showed the stats before the Saints-Sarries game, George won in every category bar number of carries (still George made more metres per carry).

Statistically George has better lineout stats too and he generally does tougher throws,

beshocked wrote:Well-past-it when the tactic is clearly to finish off the opposition in the last 10 is it that surprising?

Oh come off it. It wasn't a tactic, Saints just melted like hot butter. If we were clever enough to fall over for 3 minutes we'd have won.

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Well-past-it when the tactic is clearly to finish off the opposition in the last 10 is it that surprising?

Oh come off it. It wasn't a tactic, Saints just melted like hot butter. If we were clever enough to fall over for 3 minutes we'd have won.

Yes sure....stacking the bench with the likes of Brits,Vunipola,Rhodes and Ashton wasn't part of the strategy.

The strong finishes by Saracens in the last 4-5 games have all been coincidences....

And another bit of inconsistency. Weren't you criticising england for that very thing?

Of course benching players that you wanted to rest but would have an impact if needed was a choice but even a poor rather than abysmal last 20 from Saints would have won the game.

It's not like you were in control and staying close, to win it late. Got outplayed and we collapsed.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And another bit of inconsistency. Weren't you criticising england for that very thing?

Don't think I criticised England for it. I was just admitting when players didn't play well enough unlike yourself... some players for you can do no wrong.

I can admit that George and Itoje weren't at their best vs Ireland. Partially managed to exorcise some demons with victory in the Aviva Stadium on Saturday.

I am not even claiming either are the finished article but I believe both are in contention to start for the Lions.

You need to be able to win away in tough scenarios.

Sadly Scottish players don't have much experience of that and that's perhaps partly why Gatland might have overlooked most Scotsman.

Even though I think some Welsh players are fortunate, some like AWJ and Jonathan Davies have at least been successful Lions tourists.

Scottrf you had the opportunity to push Saracens out of reach but Saracens were able to win because you didn't put enough points on the board.

Saracens weren't in control but they exerted enough pressure when it mattered.

beshocked wrote:Sadly Scottish players don't have much experience of that and that's perhaps partly why Gatland might have overlooked most Scotsman.

For the Welsh with an abundance of tough away wins.

I will hold my hands up as you asked for and say I was wrong in how I understood your point then. I did think you criticised england for the use of the bench saying all those subs should have been starters.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I will hold my hands up as you asked for and say I was wrong in how I understood your point then. I did think you criticised england for the use of the bench saying all those subs should have been starters.

Bit different in a game where Saracens are resting players.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Im far from a Hartley fan, ive been a huge critic of his over the years. Credit where credit is due though, he was an inspired choice as captain and is deserving of his starting spot.

George needs to fight for the jersey and getting outplayed by your competition is not great.

I would tend to agree. As a player I think Hartley is a better option for the Lions than George as he is a better player and a leader.

Hartley has however, been overlooked because of his disciplinary record and at the end of the day he only has himself to blame for that. It is a tough pill to swallow because as a player in many ways he has earned his Lions place but you cant ignore the fact that he literally has the worst disciplinary record in International rugby.

He has said saracens are.strong finishers and even said 4 or 5 games in the quote above mine. Just thought this was at odds with what he was saying in regard to England's use of their starters and bench but it's not the same apparently.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Im far from a Hartley fan, ive been a huge critic of his over the years. Credit where credit is due though, he was an inspired choice as captain and is deserving of his starting spot.

George needs to fight for the jersey and getting outplayed by your competition is not great.

I would tend to agree. As a player I think Hartley is a better option for the Lions than George as he is a better player and a leader.  

Hartley has however, been overlooked because of his disciplinary record and at the end of the day he only has himself to blame for that. It is a tough pill to swallow because as a player in many ways he has earned his Lions place but you cant ignore the fact that he literally has the worst disciplinary record in International rugby.

One of the worst in club rugby, yes. In international rugby he's practically an angel. If you count the Lions as being the pinnacle then maybe Dylan would be in danger of being too nice.

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Sadly Scottish players don't have much experience of that and that's perhaps partly why Gatland might have overlooked most Scotsman.

For the Welsh with an abundance of tough away wins.

Not claiming the Welsh have abundance of tough away wins.

To be fair whilst I am no fan of many of the players, Biggar was instrumental in the away victory of England in the RWC, yes it's one game but it was a big one.

Plus the Welsh success in the 2013 tour to Australia which was away from home.

Sure not many but more than Scotland.

Just trying to see it from a Welsh point of view even though I'd personally have more Scottish players.

Cyril wrote:One of the worst in club rugby, yes. In international rugby he's practically an angel. If you count the Lions as being the pinnacle then maybe Dylan would be in danger of being too nice.

Even in club rugby only one of them was bad. And it's funny now to read the quote: "We believe the appropriate entry point for this was 30 weeks, which we reduced to 26 after taking into account his good character, youth and inexperience"

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Im far from a Hartley fan, ive been a huge critic of his over the years. Credit where credit is due though, he was an inspired choice as captain and is deserving of his starting spot.

George needs to fight for the jersey and getting outplayed by your competition is not great.

I would tend to agree. As a player I think Hartley is a better option for the Lions than George as he is a better player and a leader.  

Hartley has however, been overlooked because of his disciplinary record and at the end of the day he only has himself to blame for that. It is a tough pill to swallow because as a player in many ways he has earned his Lions place but you cant ignore the fact that he literally has the worst disciplinary record in International rugby.

Edit, beaten to it by Cyril

Technically that's not true. Hartley has 3 yellow cards & 0 reds in 87 tests, with 8 weeks out banned. Schalk Burger and Sergio Parisse both have worse international rap sheets.

It's club rugby he's got the worst disciplinary record in (52 weeks of bans). I blame Northampton - look what's happened to Calum Clark there

beshocked wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Sadly Scottish players don't have much experience of that and that's perhaps partly why Gatland might have overlooked most Scotsman.

For the Welsh with an abundance of tough away wins.

Not claiming the Welsh have abundance of tough away wins.

To be fair whilst I am no fan of many of the players, Biggar was instrumental in the away victory of England in the RWC, yes it's one game but it was a big one.

Plus the Welsh success in the 2013 tour to Australia which was away from home.

Sure not many but more than Scotland.

Just trying to see it from a Welsh point of view even though I'd personally have more Scottish players.

In the ERC this year Glasgow when at full strength had the following away victories:

Racing 92 14-23 Glasgow (Racing were still firmly in the hunt at this stage)
Leicester Tigers 0-43 Glasgow (the first time the Tigers had been beaten at home in 10 years I think?)

I appreciate that Glasgow and Scotland are not the same, but considering 11 of the Glasgow 1st XV are essentially the Scotland 1st XV a comparison isn't too far away.

Sure Sarries taught Glasgow a harsh lesson but Glasgow aren't the first and won't be the last.

I digress but to say Scotland players aren't used to winning away is a bit of a stretch.

Cyril wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Im far from a Hartley fan, ive been a huge critic of his over the years. Credit where credit is due though, he was an inspired choice as captain and is deserving of his starting spot.

George needs to fight for the jersey and getting outplayed by your competition is not great.

I would tend to agree. As a player I think Hartley is a better option for the Lions than George as he is a better player and a leader.  

Hartley has however, been overlooked because of his disciplinary record and at the end of the day he only has himself to blame for that. It is a tough pill to swallow because as a player in many ways he has earned his Lions place but you cant ignore the fact that he literally has the worst disciplinary record in International rugby.

One of the worst in club rugby, yes. In international rugby he's practically an angel. If you count the Lions as being the pinnacle then maybe Dylan would be in danger of being too nice.

He isnt an angel at all in international rugby. He has been cited for biting. Club rugby suspensions impact on international games too so your point is fairly irrelevant especially given that he missed the last Lions tour due to a club rugby suspension. I dont blame the management for not trusting him.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:He isnt an angel at all in international rugby. He has been cited for biting. Club rugby suspensions impact on international games too so your point is fairly irrelevant especially given that he missed the last Lions tour due to a club rugby suspension. I dont blame the management for not trusting him.

I'd probably bit if getting fishhooked.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Sadly Scottish players don't have much experience of that and that's perhaps partly why Gatland might have overlooked most Scotsman.

For the Welsh with an abundance of tough away wins.

Not claiming the Welsh have abundance of tough away wins.

To be fair whilst I am no fan of many of the players, Biggar was instrumental in the away victory of England in the RWC, yes it's one game but it was a big one.

Plus the Welsh success in the 2013 tour to Australia which was away from home.

Sure not many but more than Scotland.

Just trying to see it from a Welsh point of view even though I'd personally have more Scottish players.

In the ERC this year Glasgow when at full strength had the following away victories:

Racing 92 14-23 Glasgow (Racing were still firmly in the hunt at this stage)
Leicester Tigers 0-43 Glasgow (the first time the Tigers had been beaten at home in 10 years I think?)

I appreciate that Glasgow and Scotland are not the same, but considering 11 of the Glasgow 1st XV are essentially the Scotland 1st XV a comparison isn't too far away.

Sure Sarries taught Glasgow a harsh lesson but Glasgow aren't the first and won't be the last.

I digress but to say Scotland players aren't used to winning away is a bit of a stretch.

I said Scotland haven't got much experience winning away - they lost convincingly to England and France.

Glasgow have some, but firstly they are not Scotland, 2ndly they are still a work in progress, a 1st quarter final is great but still some work to do.

When facing the stiffest opposition they were beaten convincingly with all due respect - Leicester are well off the top 3 in the AP this season. Racing Metro are 5th in the top 14.

When facing the best side in the world (NZ of course) you need to be made of sterner stuff.

I'd say Scotland are a work in progress too. 2 big home wins in the 6 nations, now need to build on it and pick up some big away wins.

It's about changing perceptions.

beshocked wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Sadly Scottish players don't have much experience of that and that's perhaps partly why Gatland might have overlooked most Scotsman.

For the Welsh with an abundance of tough away wins.

Not claiming the Welsh have abundance of tough away wins.

To be fair whilst I am no fan of many of the players, Biggar was instrumental in the away victory of England in the RWC, yes it's one game but it was a big one.

Plus the Welsh success in the 2013 tour to Australia which was away from home.

Sure not many but more than Scotland.

Just trying to see it from a Welsh point of view even though I'd personally have more Scottish players.

In the ERC this year Glasgow when at full strength had the following away victories:

Racing 92 14-23 Glasgow (Racing were still firmly in the hunt at this stage)
Leicester Tigers 0-43 Glasgow (the first time the Tigers had been beaten at home in 10 years I think?)

I appreciate that Glasgow and Scotland are not the same, but considering 11 of the Glasgow 1st XV are essentially the Scotland 1st XV a comparison isn't too far away.

Sure Sarries taught Glasgow a harsh lesson but Glasgow aren't the first and won't be the last.

I digress but to say Scotland players aren't used to winning away is a bit of a stretch.

I said Scotland haven't got much experience winning away - they lost convincingly to England and France.

Glasgow have some, but firstly they are not Scotland, 2ndly they are still a work in progress, a 1st quarter final is great but still some work to do.

When facing the stiffest opposition they were beaten convincingly with all due respect - Leicester are well off the top 3 in the AP this season. Racing Metro are 5th in the top 14.

When facing the best side in the world (NZ of course) you need to be made of sterner stuff.

I'd say Scotland are a work in progress too. 2 big home wins in the 6 nations, now need to build on it and pick up some big away wins.

It's about changing perceptions.

I agree, however you also must take into account how many players we lost in both of our away games. It is my firm belief that a fully fit Scotland team have enough talent and ability to be a serious challenge to any team in world rugby. However we cannot cope with injuries well because our player pool is significantly less than other nations.

The France game for example, Laidlaw off after 26 minutes never to return. The fact Josh Strauss played on with a bruised kidney for 30 minutes shows how badly we were struggling with injuries. Brown, Barclay and Hardie all went off with concussions (that's 2 of our backrow players) and our Hooker. Dunbar was off for a large part of the game with another concussion.

Lets not even go into the England game because that was horrific for Scotland that 2 of our star players went off in the first quarter and another of our potent attackers went off just after half time.

I don't know what that means about Scottish rugby, and how badly we have been affected by injuries in away fixtures, but both of our losses in our away fixtures, can be partly attributed to horrendous luck with injuries.

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:He isnt an angel at all in international rugby. He has been cited for biting. Club rugby suspensions impact on international games too so your point is fairly irrelevant especially given that he missed the last Lions tour due to a club rugby suspension. I dont blame the management for not trusting him.

I'd probably bit if getting fishhooked.

If you believe that Hartley was being "fish hooked" by a player with one of the cleanest records in rugby you will believe anything. Very gullible.

Should have just denied it and he wouldn't have received any ban. Too honest.

I think the hookers selected are too soft to win in NZ.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Should have just denied it and he wouldn't have received any ban. Too honest.

Or maybe he shouldn't have done it in the first place? I think that would have been the more intelligent option.

And don't fish hook. One had the sense to deny it.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:He isnt an angel at all in international rugby. He has been cited for biting. Club rugby suspensions impact on international games too so your point is fairly irrelevant especially given that he missed the last Lions tour due to a club rugby suspension. I dont blame the management for not trusting him.

I'd probably bit if getting fishhooked.

If you believe that Hartley was being "fish hooked" by a player with one of the cleanest records in rugby you will believe anything. Very gullible.

The Irish tend to have good legal teams and it helps that most rugby administration is in Dublin.

They're not afraid to grease the wheel of justice either.

If you bite players and leave bite marks on their hands it makes the job quite easy for the "good legal teams" regardless of where rugby is administrated from. By contrast its a lot harder to defend guys like Hartley who time and time again are their own worst enemy.

I presume you have lots of evidence of the instances where "the Irish"..."greased the wheels of justice"?

Pointless going back anyway. I'm surprised if gatland did take it into account certainly wouldn't be bothered about the bite anyway. You favour best for the starting hooker gun's?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Pointless going back anyway. I'm surprised if gatland did take it into account certainly wouldn't be bothered about the bite anyway. You favour best for the starting hooker gun's?

Id be surprised if he didnt. He put his faith in Hartley the last time and he ended up getting suspended and missing the tour. Lancaster also took suspensions into account when he dropped Hartley for George in 2015 after an incident in a club match.

Best will be captain of the first test. Warburton is only a media/sponsor liaison.

Lancaster didn't drop hartley for George unless you're talking about the WC which hartley carried a suspension into. Could hardly pick him the. Surely gatland wouldn't hold a ban from 4 years ago.against him? Then again considering he's considering form from then....

Let's hope best doesn't have a warm up like last time!

TightHEAD wrote:I think the hookers selected are too soft to win in NZ.

Fact. I cannot believe that my online petition to get Danny Grewcock and Chuck Norris into the Lions squad came to nothing.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Squad is chosen now.

The ire is at the selectors for not doing their job.

Welcome to the age of the internet, where everyone's an expert with no culpability.

Not doing their job? That's literally what they've done.

Incredible.

Cyril wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:He isnt an angel at all in international rugby. He has been cited for biting. Club rugby suspensions impact on international games too so your point is fairly irrelevant especially given that he missed the last Lions tour due to a club rugby suspension. I dont blame the management for not trusting him.

I'd probably bit if getting fishhooked.

If you believe that Hartley was being "fish hooked" by a player with one of the cleanest records in rugby you will believe anything. Very gullible.

The Irish tend to have good legal teams and it helps that most rugby administration is in Dublin.

They're not afraid to grease the wheel of justice either.

 Its a wonder the Irish dont go  for a sport like yachting more, the process in yachting is that you hold the competition then you go and have a court case to see who won, the Irish would love it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Lancaster didn't drop hartley for George unless you're talking about the WC which hartley carried a suspension into. Could hardly pick him the. Surely gatland wouldn't hold a ban from 4 years ago.against him? Then again considering he's considering form from then....

Let's hope best doesn't have a warm up like last time!

Yes he did

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11638104/Dylan-Hartley-dropped-from-England-World-Cup-training-squad-by-Stuart-Lancaster-following-ban-for-headbutt.html

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Cyril wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:He isnt an angel at all in international rugby. He has been cited for biting. Club rugby suspensions impact on international games too so your point is fairly irrelevant especially given that he missed the last Lions tour due to a club rugby suspension. I dont blame the management for not trusting him.

I'd probably bit if getting fishhooked.

If you believe that Hartley was being "fish hooked" by a player with one of the cleanest records in rugby you will believe anything. Very gullible.

The Irish tend to have good legal teams and it helps that most rugby administration is in Dublin.

They're not afraid to grease the wheel of justice either.

 Its a wonder the Irish dont go  for a sport like yachting more, the process in yachting is that you hold the competition then you go and have a court case to see who won, the Irish would love it.

Coming from a Kiwi whose rugby team lawyer up and deny everything as a default stance on literally everything. Wonderful irony.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:If you bite players and leave bite marks on their hands it makes the job quite easy for the "good legal teams" regardless of where rugby is administrated from. By contrast its a lot harder to defend guys like Hartley who time and time again are their own worst enemy.

I presume you have lots of evidence of the instances where "the Irish"..."greased the wheels of justice"?

This really is quite hilarious. You have one example where there is clear evidence of bite marks, which is then examined by the citing commission leading to Hartley's ban for 8 weeks. On the other hand you have Hartley's word, Dylan Hartley, that he was "fish-hooked" by one of the cleanest players in the game. Zero evidence up against clear evidence. You couldn't make it up.

Apparently the English posters on 606 know the troof, though.

Hartley didn't bite someone did he? Thats a shock.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Cyril wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:He isnt an angel at all in international rugby. He has been cited for biting. Club rugby suspensions impact on international games too so your point is fairly irrelevant especially given that he missed the last Lions tour due to a club rugby suspension. I dont blame the management for not trusting him.

I'd probably bit if getting fishhooked.

If you believe that Hartley was being "fish hooked" by a player with one of the cleanest records in rugby you will believe anything. Very gullible.

The Irish tend to have good legal teams and it helps that most rugby administration is in Dublin.

They're not afraid to grease the wheel of justice either.

 Its a wonder the Irish dont go  for a sport like yachting more, the process in yachting is that you hold the competition then you go and have a court case to see who won, the Irish would love it.

Coming from a Kiwi whose rugby team lawyer up and deny everything as a default stance on literally everything. Wonderful irony.

Aucklandlaurie is still recovering from his humiliation after one of his players were cited after the Ireland game. This is after his total assurance that no citing would come, with a nice sprinkle of ad hominem attacks, which made him look utterly ridiculous.

Gwlad wrote:Hartley didn't bite someone did he? Thats a shock.

It was justified, apparently.