Lions 2017 - Name your team, captain and whatever else you want to harp on about

First topic message reminder :

My wishlist:

I hope AWJ is named captain to keep the Irish and English lads in check.
I hope Robshaw gets picked, he deserves to tour at least once at this point.
I hope the refereeing is strictly on a level playing field.
I hope NZ are made accountable for any incidents where they break anyone's collarbone and put them out of the game for 13 months.
The Lions to be at the very least competitive and win one of the first two tests.
I'd like to see Tadhg Furlong get a run out.
Would like to see an uncapped player in the squad.
No charity caps, Tom court, Shane Williams etc.
I hope Gatland comes up with a much more interesting and variable game plan than on the last Lions tour.
Dylan Hartley calls a ref the C word on the last day of the six nations and misses the tour.

Deal? Hmmm...

I don't think anybody knows what point you're trying to make to be honest, there's no point discussing it with you when all you get is essays of baseless guff.

A picture tells a thousand words.

You're getting it, miaow!

(just don't post ones like that)

Your posting really is meaningless drivel though. I know it's stream of consciousness warbling but can you not check it before posting? You seem to have plenty of time.

rodders wrote:Based on the weekend I'd go with:-

15 Kearney
14 Hogg
13 Ringrose
12 McLoskey
11 Zebo
10 Jackson
9 Murray
8 Heaslip (C)
7 VDF
6 Haskell
5 Gray
4 Henderson
3 Furlong
2 Best
1 Jenkins

Has Rodders answered yet about Jenkins the prop yet, and how he's made team of the week?!

Griff wrote:

rodders wrote:Based on the weekend I'd go with:-

15 Kearney
14 Hogg
13 Ringrose
12 McLoskey
11 Zebo
10 Jackson
9 Murray
8 Heaslip (C)
7 VDF
6 Haskell
5 Gray
4 Henderson
3 Furlong
2 Best
1 Jenkins

Has Rodders answered yet about Jenkins the prop yet, and how he's made team of the week?!  

Griff I'm pretty sure Rodders is taking the piss. You seemed to have fallen for it.

Griff wrote:

rodders wrote:Based on the weekend I'd go with:-


1 Jenkins

Has Rodders answered yet about Jenkins the prop yet, and how he's made team of the week?!  

It is Gethin, and he makes the team due to the CCTV footage he has comprising Warren Gatland, Dolly the Sheep and "Golden Showers"

cascough wrote:

Riskysports wrote:

cascough wrote:Still baffled by the Hogg/Russell hyperbole but I'll try be objective as I know it's not a popular view on here!

Hogg - pretty good game, can't remember him making an error. Hit the line pretty well and his second try was very nice in particular.

Russell - has got a really nice pass and was impressed with his tenacity in defence. Overall thought he was pretty average as he put his team in trouble a few times by shipping on crappy ball. I still have the same reservations about him and his ability to manage a game. He's a good runner and good passer, but neither of those things mean he is doing them at the right time. Contrast to Duncan Weir who came on for a short time and immediately pinned Ireland right back. Given how much Scotland were struggling for territory and possession I felt that Russell should have done much more of this.

Overall, I've nothing against either player but I do wish people would stop getting their match analysis from the scoresheet. Hogg was pretty good, but actually in a game Scotland hardly had any ball he didn't actually have that many chances to shine, yet people are nailing on a lions 15 jersey after just 80 mins! It's easy to look and think 2 tries, he must have been great, but anyone runs the first in. Compared to Sean Maitland (who I thought was the best back on the field - saved 2/3 tries and was everywhere in defence and support) he's probably affected the scoreboard less. Maitland is forgotten about because you can't record or celebrate what he did as easily as tries.

*please note, I am not saying Weir is a better player than Russell. And I'm certainly not, dear god, advocating Duncan Weir for the lions.

If you are baffled by the hyperbole of Hogg, then there really is no chance - the best attacking fullback probably in the world at this time (and for the last 12 months. )

Defensive errors of old not really happening now (As you even comment).

You also say Scotland hardly got any ball - yet still manages to get 2 tries, tearing holes in the defence when he does - just look at how teams back away from him - they know he is dangerous - it sets defences and creates space for others too. He is currently in a rich vein of form

I would take every single pundit who now has him favourite for the 15 (Although not nailed on) as a fair indication - usually there is some debate


I would agree on Russell, and I think most Scots have been quite clear, they think he is pushing for a chance to tour (just to tour), but has weaknesses that he needs to show he can address during the 6 nations.

I do not think anyone has said he is nailed on for even touring yet -

I say I don't get the hype after a steady performance, and you go on to hype him.

Forget the first try, anyone runs that in. His second try was nice but given the way the game unfolded (not his fault) that's pretty much the only thing of note he did. He was pretty good, that's all. You use language like tearing holes. Many posts on here had him "nailed on" or starting "by some distance" after 1 game in the 6N before anyone else (Kearney aside) had even played this weekend. That is hyperbole.

Maitland far better on Saturday but hardly a column inch written because he's not as eye catching. All I'm calling for is objective analysis. Lions is dying. With each tour I see more and more national bias and or disdain, and less camaraderie.

I think 18 months of doing that might actually be the reason. He was player of last 6 nations remember? I suppose after 5 games in that he should also be discounted, as he just happened to be in the right place and have some speed - so lucky and does not ever make defense back track or hesitate.

What is are you getting about with the Lions is dying comment - makes zero sense - if I had national bias i would have argued for Russel and ignored his limitations - but did you miss me agreeing with you?? Such bias and one eyedness of me

I think most pundits have him in pole position as he is one of the best attacking players at this time. and his defense has improved (even though any error is blown out of all proportion compared to others)

cascough wrote:I say I don't get the hype after a steady performance, and you go on to hype him.

Forget the first try, anyone runs that in. His second try was nice but given the way the game unfolded (not his fault) that's pretty much the only thing of note he did. He was pretty good, that's all. You use language like tearing holes. Many posts on here had him "nailed on" or starting "by some distance" after 1 game in the 6N before anyone else (Kearney aside) had even played this weekend. That is hyperbole.

I'd say there are a few players fitness permitting that are nailed on regardless of what happens in this years 6N.

McGrath, Itoje and Hogg are in the majority of teams and you can be assured that Furlong, AWJ, Farrell and Murray will be in the 22.

Cyril wrote:A picture tells a thousand words.

You're getting it, miaow!

(just don't post ones like that)

Your posting really is meaningless drivel though. I know it's stream of consciousness warbling but can you not check it before posting? You seem to have plenty of time.

Deal's off. Nothing funny about that. You'll have to put up with the drivel.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't think anybody knows what point you're trying to make to be honest, there's no point discussing it with you when all you get is essays of baseless guff.

Joseph was written down along with Watson and Hogg as nailed on in the Test backline by several posters. I said all three of those were questionable at this stage due to the weighting and importance of defensive prowess within Gatland/Farrell's system.

You and several others took offence, primarily, it seems, because you can't read a few paragraphs before the red mist descends and Land of Hope and Glory starts playing in your brain.

Sorry for qualifying statements with explanations, 606. Looking forward to the Lions Tour proper when we can have "oh yes he is", "oh no he isn't" discussions about every player ad nauseam, page after page. Oh wait...

Please don't quote stuff I've never said miaow. You don't want to address points obviously just take snide digs.

miaow wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't think anybody knows what point you're trying to make to be honest, there's no point discussing it with you when all you get is essays of baseless guff.

Joseph was written down along with Watson and Hogg as nailed on in the Test backline by several posters. I said all three of those were questionable at this stage due to the weighting and importance of defensive prowess within Gatland/Farrell's system.

You and several others took offence, primarily, it seems, because you can't read a few paragraphs before the red mist descends and Land of Hope and Glory starts playing in your brain.

Sorry for qualifying statements with explanations, 606. Looking forward to the Lions Tour proper when we can have "oh yes he is", "oh no he isn't" discussions about every player ad nauseam, page after page. Oh wait...

You don't explain anything and that's your problem, it's paragraph after paragraph of nothing, talking about players you don't watch and going on perceived reputations instead.

You really show yourself up with all the nationalistic crap and it's clear half of what you say is purely intended to rile English fans, you're a WUM who tries to cover it up with nonsense.

You do write too much to be fair Miaow, try bullet points

I dont agree JJ is the best defensive 13 in NH anyway, although he is the best 13.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Griff wrote:

rodders wrote:Based on the weekend I'd go with:-

1 Jenkins

Has Rodders answered yet about Jenkins the prop yet, and how he's made team of the week?!  

Griff I'm pretty sure Rodders is taking the piss. You seemed to have fallen for it.

Really?! Whoops! Maybe I've just come to expect it from Rodders!

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So it just comes down to blah blah blah blah

World's worst lawyer. Stop trying to reductively mutate my opinion into something that fits your mind because clearly you seem incapable of understanding what I say on a range of topics.

You're simply stealing his air, he likes to think he is the king of waxing lyrical and you seem to be edging that one.

Who is Ireland's defence coach?

is there any way to sweep this thread for bugs?

miaow wrote:

cascough wrote:Still baffled by the Hogg hyperbole but I'll try be objective [...] Hogg was pretty good, but actually in a game Scotland hardly had any ball he didn't actually have that many chances to shine, yet people are nailing on a lions 15 jersey after just 80 mins!

With limited attacking ball, against an opposition that was in the most part in the ascendancy, he scored two tries and looked dangerous, and that's a negative for him? Haha, how?!

Who said it was a negative!? Are you part of the Sky sports generation per chance? Everything is extreme and is the best it's ever been or it's utter crap?

I'm just saying calm down, people are getting carried away and you take my comments to the extreme in the other direction. Jesus christ!

miaow wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't think anybody knows what point you're trying to make to be honest, there's no point discussing it with you when all you get is essays of baseless guff.

Joseph was written down along with Watson and Hogg as nailed on in the Test backline by several posters. I said all three of those were questionable at this stage due to the weighting and importance of defensive prowess within Gatland/Farrell's system.

You and several others took offence, primarily, it seems, because you can't read a few paragraphs before the red mist descends and Land of Hope and Glory starts playing in your brain.

Sorry for qualifying statements with explanations, 606. Looking forward to the Lions Tour proper when we can have "oh yes he is", "oh no he isn't" discussions about every player ad nauseam, page after page. Oh wait...

If Scotland could unpick Farrells defensive system NZ will too.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

If Scotland could unpick Farrells defensive system NZ will too.

Then again Hogg plays for the Lions ( as sub behind the Welsh chap obviously). The all Blacks dont even have Maitland to call on in attack. Sub par team.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You don't explain anything and that's your problem, it's paragraph after paragraph of nothing, talking about players you don't watch and going on perceived reputations instead.

Haha. Wait, so I post an opinion on a player which- admittedly uncommon and perhaps a little contentious- is still an opinion that I've supported with fairly reasonable explanation (which you must no have bothered to read), i.e. specific defensive system which relies on a 13 with disciplined positioning, size, strength etc. and can expose that 13 if they're not quite up to the defensive task (last time I repeat this point now). You can criticise that, come back, as you and many others have. The force with which people responded to me made me question whether I'd been unfair, and I said I'd give him another specific look this 6Ns in the big games, i.e. Wales & Ireland away, particularly the latter. As it stands, I still think Joseph is far from nailed on as a Test starter due to this facet of the game. It may well change.

Your response to that is "YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED HIM AND YOU'RE GOING ON REPUTATION". Tell me which one is more reasonable? Your statement of purported fact that you could never possibly know to be true, or an opinion?

I don't know if it's the 6Ns, and tensions are high, but none of this would happen if we were face to face with one another, so why let it happen online? Why is your fuse so short in relation to criticism of an English player? Why can't you respond to the point, rather than attacking the messenger? Why are you spouting nonsensical accusations as if it's fact?

Finally, don't try to play the reasonable figure of censorship. You can't respond like you have and not expect to be mocked for being a thin skinned, arrogant, and biased Englishman when it's so clearly in evidence

cascough wrote:

miaow wrote:

cascough wrote:Still baffled by the Hogg hyperbole but I'll try be objective [...] Hogg was pretty good, but actually in a game Scotland hardly had any ball he didn't actually have that many chances to shine, yet people are nailing on a lions 15 jersey after just 80 mins!

With limited attacking ball, against an opposition that was in the most part in the ascendancy, he scored two tries and looked dangerous, and that's a negative for him? Haha, how?!

Who said it was a negative!? Are you part of the Sky sports generation per chance? Everything is extreme and is the best it's ever been or it's utter crap?

I'm just saying calm down, people are getting carried away and you take my comments to the extreme in the other direction. Jesus christ!

And I'm the one who's accused of trying to wriggle my way out of my own statements!  

You've been a member of this board for a couple of months. Probably best to leave the pompous conjecture about my age and television subscriptions well alone, and focus on why you think you're the 'objective' voice of reason instead? He didn't have many chances to shine, and yet he shone. Let it go, and stop pretending like you've been unfairly called out here.

Your point wasn't a bad one, but it was badly made. Let people- particularly the Scottish- get carried away about Hogg after the weekend just gone. He looked great.

miaow - reasonable to say that there's a defensive system he can't play due to some facet of his style. Where I have issue is that you don't give any reason for the belief, aren't willing to accept the last 12 months for England because England have been too good and say you don't watch him for Bath. When you reinstate the opinion he's not up to it while simultaneous saying you didn't really look at his defensive work it starts to look a bit silly.

On a side note, I do actually like your posts, and the snide digs at the length of them is pretty tiresome.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

miaow wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I don't think anybody knows what point you're trying to make to be honest, there's no point discussing it with you when all you get is essays of baseless guff.

Joseph was written down along with Watson and Hogg as nailed on in the Test backline by several posters. I said all three of those were questionable at this stage due to the weighting and importance of defensive prowess within Gatland/Farrell's system.

You and several others took offence, primarily, it seems, because you can't read a few paragraphs before the red mist descends and Land of Hope and Glory starts playing in your brain.

Sorry for qualifying statements with explanations, 606. Looking forward to the Lions Tour proper when we can have "oh yes he is", "oh no he isn't" discussions about every player ad nauseam, page after page. Oh wait...

If Scotland could unpick Farrells defensive system NZ will too.

I sort of see your point.

It is a big worry if you don't get the right players for the system. You need the best players and unwavering discipline for that league style defence (and attack a lot of the time) to work.

It's not about putting the most talented 15 players on the field. It's about trying to win. The Lions went with Gatland: you know what you're getting with him, for good and for bad!

So many posters seem to be in denial about that one, crucial element.

The denial being some believe Gatland can play more than one style or system when he has a broader and better set of players to choose from and a different coaching team.

Griff wrote:

rodders wrote:Based on the weekend I'd go with:-

15 Kearney
14 Hogg
13 Ringrose
12 McLoskey
11 Zebo
10 Jackson
9 Murray
8 Heaslip (C)
7 VDF
6 Haskell
5 Gray
4 Henderson
3 Furlong
2 Best
1 Jenkins

Has Rodders answered yet about Jenkins the prop yet, and how he's made team of the week?!  

I didn't want to get accused of bias against Wales... I was close to selecting Adam Jones too.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The denial being some believe Gatland can play more than one style or system when he has a broader and better set of players to choose from and a different coaching team.

What do you mean "style or system"? You really do appear to have this computer game understanding of sport. It's either "Gatlandball" or "Champagne Rugby", and whatever other recognised styles or systems you think you know coming in between.

His tactics will adapt to the Lions. Both their own players, the circumstances, and the opposition. There is a basic framework you're always going to get with Warren Gatland, and that's just emphasised by the fact that he's picked Andy Farrell again. However, you have a really inadequate comprehension of what Warren Gatland's tactics can lead to in terms of results and attacking/points scoring rugby, and how much his coaching has changed over the years. Prioritising defence over attack doesn't mean you don't attack: it means you plug the holes in the ship before you go into treacherous waters.

Why would you select Gatland as coach and then ask him to coach the team to tactics that aren't his own? If that's the case, then yes, you, beshocked, whoever else may as well just lead the tour.

As I said, denial. I'm going to start another thread for you and whoever else who wants to discuss the Lions Tour to NZ in the hypothetical scenario where Gatland isn't coach. You're welcome.

Round and round you go. Not really settling on a point. So which parts of Gatland system will definitely not change.

miaow wrote:

cascough wrote:

miaow wrote:

cascough wrote:Still baffled by the Hogg hyperbole but I'll try be objective [...] Hogg was pretty good, but actually in a game Scotland hardly had any ball he didn't actually have that many chances to shine, yet people are nailing on a lions 15 jersey after just 80 mins!

With limited attacking ball, against an opposition that was in the most part in the ascendancy, he scored two tries and looked dangerous, and that's a negative for him? Haha, how?!

Who said it was a negative!? Are you part of the Sky sports generation per chance? Everything is extreme and is the best it's ever been or it's utter crap?

I'm just saying calm down, people are getting carried away and you take my comments to the extreme in the other direction. Jesus christ!

And I'm the one who's accused of trying to wriggle my way out of my own statements!  

You've been a member of this board for a couple of months. Probably best to leave the pompous conjecture about my age and television subscriptions well alone, and focus on why you think you're the 'objective' voice of reason instead? He didn't have many chances to shine, and yet he shone. Let it go, and stop pretending like you've been unfairly called out here.

Your point wasn't a bad one, but it was badly made. Let people- particularly the Scottish- get carried away about Hogg after the weekend just gone. He looked great.

You are literally trying to make out I said something I didn't.

He was fine, i don't think he did shine. I also don't think he was bad (which is what you're doing your best to make out I'm saying. I dislike the hype, that's all and I rather we talk about how good Maitland was but people seem more interested in hyping their favourites rather than giving praise where it's actually due.

You talk about pomposity? Perhaps you'd like to point out why your being on a board longer makes what you have to say any more valid? Old boys club is it?

And my point was okay but badly made? Care to explain why? Or are you just going for condescension?

Just so you know, I've been reading these boards since their inception (and 606 before it for about 5 years), but it makes absolutely no difference. If you think it does, I think that says more about you than me.

IMO NZ will score tries against any combination of players the Lions put out there. Wether its 6ft5 lumps or smaller elusive pacey guys. NZ will score tries. It's what they do.

I think the Lions need to throw caution to the wind and play a high tempo, fast recycling, hammer the breakdown type game. Similar to what Scotland did to Ireland at the weekend in the 1st half or what Glasgow have been doing on all season long.

Lancaster's England did the same when they turned them over at Twickenham, with Robshaw absolutely hammering every ruck to win quick ball to get Tuilagi hitting the line before they could reset.

Ireland did something very similar in Chicago.

High tempo rugby is how you beat NZ, and I think we should try and get our attacking game right before delving into complex defensive systems we don't have time to implement, practice or familiarize the players with. We aren't even sure any defensive system will stop the all blacks from scoring.

So for me that's a secondary consideration. Get a team together that can recycle quickly and attack the line. My team:

1. McGrath
2. Owens
3. Furlong
4. J Gray
5. AWJ (C)
6. Warburton
7. Watson
8. CJ Stander

9. Murray
10. Farrell
11. North
12. Henshaw
13. JJ
14. Maitland
15. Hogg

16.Hartley 17.Cole 18.Marler 19.Itoje 20.Haskell 21.Webb 22.Davis 23.Nowell

Tell the entire front row they have 50 minutes. No holding back, tackle yourselves silly and smash every single ruck. Burn yourselves out because we are making changes at 50 mins. Same for Watson, it's a tactic Scotland did at the weekend where Watson burst himself over 50 minutes knowing Barclay was coming on to see the game out. Except this time Haskell coming on to increase the physicality and boss the breakdown even more. Webb Davis and Nowell brought on in the last 20 to try and up the tempo even more.

This is just my opinion. It's not right or wrong, but its what I'd like to see

cascough wrote:

You are literally trying to make out I said something I didn't.

He was fine, i don't think he did shine. I also don't think he was bad (which is what you're doing your best to make out I'm saying. I dislike the hype, that's all and I rather we talk about how good Maitland was but people seem more interested in hyping their favourites rather than giving praise where it's actually due.

You talk about pomposity? Perhaps you'd like to point out why your being on a board longer makes what you have to say any more valid? Old boys club is it?

And my point was okay but badly made? Care to explain why? Or are you just going for condescension?

I always assumed Miaow was female. In any case can we not all get along? Come on I know you really love each other.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:IMO NZ will score tries against any combination of players the Lions put out there. Wether its 6ft5 lumps or smaller elusive pacey guys. NZ will score tries. It's what they do.

I think the Lions need to throw caution to the wind and play a high tempo, fast recycling, hammer the breakdown type game. Similar to what Scotland did to Ireland at the weekend in the 1st half or what Glasgow have been doing on all season long.

Lancaster's England did the same when they turned them over at Twickenham, with Robshaw absolutely hammering every ruck to win quick ball to get Tuilagi hitting the line before they could reset.

Ireland did something very similar in Chicago.

High tempo rugby is how you beat NZ, and I think we should try and get our attacking game right before delving into complex defensive systems we don't have time to implement, practice or familiarize the players with. We aren't even sure any defensive system will stop the all blacks from scoring.

So for me that's a secondary consideration. Get a team together that can recycle quickly and attack the line. My team:

1. McGrath
2. Owens
3. Furlong
4. J Gray
5. AWJ (C)
6. Warburton
7. Watson
8. CJ Stander

9. Murray
10. Farrell
11. North
12. Henshaw
13. JJ
14. Maitland
15. Hogg

16.Hartley 17.Cole 18.Marler 19.Itoje 20.Haskell 21.Webb 22.Davis 23.Nowell

Tell the entire front row they have 50 minutes. No holding back, tackle yourselves silly and smash every single ruck. Burn yourselves out because we are making changes at 50 mins. Same for Watson, it's a tactic Scotland did at the weekend where Watson burst himself over 50 minutes knowing Barclay was coming on to see the game out. Except this time Haskell coming on to increase the physicality and boss the breakdown even more. Webb Davis and Nowell brought on in the last 20 to try and up the tempo even more.

I agree with your tactics 100%. Id rather we aim to blow them off the park than grind out a Warrenball win. However, if its a smash and grab job Im not sure Farrell is the right man at 10. Id keep him at 12 and Russell at 10.

I accept that literally no one agrees with me but that 10 12 combo gets my juices flowing. It literally excites the sh1t out of me. Not convinced that inexperience of Russell would be an issue with Murray and Faz on either side of him.

Guns I agree to an extent, however Farrell at 12 I'm just not convinced of. At 10 for sarries he's great but when he plays 12 for England IMO he plays 12 like too much of a Fly Half. I'd rather someone a bit beefier than Farrell at 12 to tidy up poorer ball.

I'd stick him at 10 (for the moment) Russell isn't the finished article yet and is cut from the same cloth as Toonie, but even more mercurial. He doesn't manage games well enough yet. 2 examples from the weekend his poorly executed dink through nearly gifted Ireland a try and despite being out of favour with a lot of Scotland posters Weir did exactly what was needed when Russel went off for his HIA, chipped it into the corner to make Ireland work the ball back from deep.

I love that Russell is a running fly half and one of the best genuine talents at 10 this country has produced in years. I do think this tour is a bit too early for him, especially with Farrell, Bigger, Sexton and Ford all playing pretty decent rugby.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Round and round you go.  Not really settling on a point. So which parts of Gatland system will definitely not change.

Think you'll feel more at home here 7.5: https://www.606v2.com/t65126-the-fantasy-lions-2017-thread

Which parts of Gatlands system definitely won't change?

cascough wrote:Just so you know, I've been reading these boards since their inception (and 606 before it for about 5 years), but it makes absolutely no difference. If you think it does, I think that says more about you than me.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you haven't taken it. Your choice.

It means don't come in a declare yourself "objective" with a subjective opinion, and an illogical one at that. That takes a special kind of oblivious arrogance. It means don't jump into a thread and start asking sidewiping questions when you hadn't been involved in the discussion. It means when you're told to tone it down a bit- as a new member who feels a sense of entitlement which may well have come from watching these boards for several years, who knows- don't bemoan that I'm not willing to 'debate' you when you've added nothing to the discussion prior to that point. And then don't throw your arms up in the air and cry foul play when someone does point out a fallacy in your pseudo-profound comment about why people shouldn't praise Hogg for scoring two tries with limited ball.  

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which parts of Gatlands system definitely won't change?

1. Tackling

Your turn.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
I'd stick him at 10 (for the moment) Russell isn't the finished article yet and is cut from the same cloth as Toonie, but even more mercurial. He doesn't manage games well enough yet. 2 examples from the weekend his poorly executed dink through nearly gifted Ireland a try and despite being out of favour with a lot of Scotland posters Weir did exactly what was needed when Russel went off for his HIA, chipped it into the corner to make Ireland work the ball back from deep.

I love that Russell is a running fly half and one of the best genuine talents at 10 this country has produced in years. I do think this tour is a bit too early for him, especially with Farrell, Bigger, Sexton and Ford all playing pretty decent rugby.

Man talks sense.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

I always assumed Miaow was female. In any case can we not all get along? Come on I know you really love each other.

Weird to presume an individual's gender either way other than to say that generally I assumed most of this board would be boys, because, well, it is rugby after all...? I take no offence at being suspected of being a boy or a girl in and of itself, but weird assumption to make in the first place.

I think it a weird assumption too based simply on miaow's traits.  To me, he was always a man.... and not much of a pu-ssy cat version either

Anyway, I would though take issue with miaow for assuming there should never be supposition down that line.  On different forums you do have to be guessing gender and if you've been on them long enough, you can make mistakes.

Second point, we've had women here before.  We ain't on Golf Club rules yet.

.

You really don't want to back your comments up with explanation miaow do you?

RuggerRadge.

Yes, the Lions will concede tries. But then it's far easier to beat NZ if you concede one try in a Test match, than it is if you concede 3 or more.

The Lions could go in looking to score 3 tries for themselves, but how much defensive work do they sacrifice in order to score those tries? In almost every scenario, the All Blacks outscore the Lions in tries, because they're simply too good. They regularly beat teams despite having less of the ball. They're the best counter attacking team in the world by far. If there's any defensive lapse, even when the ABs don't have the ball, it can almost instantly become a 5-7 pointer.

The point is this: if you are almost man for man the weaker team in terms of skill (taking out playing away from home, the unsettled nature of the Lions etc.) how do you set your team up? This goes for any sport. You try to minimise that skill deficit through tactics: primarily, by keeping things defensively tight, minimising errors, and controlling the game as much as you can so that the opposition's skill has limited chance to flourish.

In literal terms, this means, yes, the ABs will probably score a try. You do your best to hope that doesn't happen, but ultimately, you have to factor in. I cannot fathom why you factor in conceding several tries unless absolutely necessary, i.e. unless you have to adapt to that on the field of play? Why are you conceding that scenario in a game before it's already begun? I honestly don't quite understand it. Going in and keeping it tight doesn't mean you don't have a fallback plan in case NZ do let rip, because that is evidently a possibility, but you set up to stop it happening in the first place.

The Lions will have better goalkickers than NZ. Gatland has literally come out and said that this will be a key facet of their tactical play, as if he even needed to with the likes of Farrell, Halfpenny, Biggar etc. all available to him.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/sport/national-sport/87392714/British-and-Irish-Lions-have-better-goal-kickers-than-All-Blacks

Warren Gatland wrote: "We have got three or four guys who are better goal-kickers than New Zealand have got," Gatland said.

"They might be at 100 per cent (one day) and 50 per cent the next. Our guys are regularly at 90 per cent so if the series came down to goal-kicking, that's encouraging."

Part of the way Gatland controls games is through sustained pressure. The kind Ireland exhibited through possession and territory, but couldn't turn into enough points to win the game in Dublin. However, with the kickers the Lions have, if they control the ball well enough, defend better than Ireland did in conceding three tries, and kick their goals having earnt them through that control of the game, then they can win.

Finally, Warren Gatland will not accept a repeat of 2005. He wants the All Blacks job. He's not going to accept a hammering and see his coaching career take a hit in the same way Clive Woodward's did.

It's just not going to happen boys and girls.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You really don't want to back your comments up with explanation miaow do you?

You're the world's worst lawyer, 7.5! You neither engage with nor seem to understand my points when I make them, yet remain hostile to me. Why do you think you always deserve an explanation haha?

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You really don't want to back your comments up with explanation miaow do you?

You're the world's worst lawyer, 7.5! You neither engage with nor seem to understand my points when I make them, yet remain hostile to me. Why do you think you always deserve an explanation haha?

There's nothing to understand because you've not made a point yet, you're simply unable to explain why JJ wouldn't fit into Gatlands defensive system and instead gave a childish one word response; tackling.

You keep saying the lawyer thing. I'm not hostile to you at all except when your own bias leaks out ie england and colonies.so you really can't answer simple questions?

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You really don't want to back your comments up with explanation miaow do you?

You're the world's worst lawyer, 7.5! You neither engage with nor seem to understand my points when I make them, yet remain hostile to me. Why do you think you always deserve an explanation haha?

miaow, you should do what I have done and put him on foe. This way you will not have to put up with his inane drivel. He will always just argue for the sake of arguing, and will always look for the negatives in your posts. The only trouble is, people keep quoting him. Also, he come's on here and claims he's English, yet he is always all over the Welsh/Irish threads causing the same over and over around the mulberry bush, no point comments. He must just be anti Welsh.

For the record, I like the way you way you put the time and effort into your posts, just because most members cannot be bothered to take the time to read them and digest therm properly for what they are, then that's their problem.

Another guy who struggles to answer simple posts.

To calm you all down: are cats as intelligent as dogs?

Simple question