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.

mikey_dragon wrote:

munkian wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I just really hope we have a coach who is not the current coach of one of the 4 teams next time.

It doesn't seem feasible that could happen.

We did in 2009 and the Scots still moaned.

Are you sure it wasn't the Irish ? They have plenty of players selected but are still joining in moaning with the Jocks

There's no quote function on the platform I'm using but it was you as you seem he'll bent on defending gatland for some reason.

munkian wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

munkian wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I just really hope we have a coach who is not the current coach of one of the 4 teams next time.

It doesn't seem feasible that could happen.

We did in 2009 and the Scots still moaned.

Are you sure it wasn't the Irish ? They have plenty of players selected but are still  joining in moaning with the Jocks

We got a thing called a conscience, munk.... it's a big word but a useful thing to have in your pocket if you fold it well.  

Plus 11 isn't plenty.  Lions needed four more Irish players to create a chance of winning the series  

Ah well......... the pool bum slapping larks with the towels will still be great stuff to see on the social media pages - though chancing exposing a bum to the winter chills of New Zealand is a thing only the Scots would have been man enough to handle

PS - I assume there is now no room for the Scottish doc? Quota has already been reached with the two players.

Jamie Roberts might get on the plane after all.

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




He did not get much respect from his players when playing England. did he? ( kick for goal) Dan Biggar, Al i will kick for the corner. yeh... some respect that is.

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




He did not get much respect from his players when playing England. did he? ( kick for goal) Dan Biggar, Al i will kick for the corner. yeh... some respect that is.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I know stats don't tell the whole story, but wow!

https://twitter.com/vern_cotter/status/855155432230453248

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I know stats don't tell the whole story, but wow!

https://twitter.com/vern_cotter/status/855155432230453248

Is this for this season? If so, the Dan Biggar stats are b*llocks for a start! 41 points? 119 so far for Ospreys.

Shaky looking stats for Russell in defence. 35 turnovers conceded?! Same number of missed tackles!

Damn lies and statistics.

They aren't my stats, they were compiled by someone else. I think they might be for the 6N?

How can you compare the Biggar and Russell stats as Russel has played 600 minutes more than Biggar not a fair comparison

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:They aren't my stats, they were compiled by someone else. I think they might be for the 6N?

Don't think they're 6 nations. 1685 mins (21 games equivalent) played by Russell. No way!

I was trying to see where the minutes played was and its right in the middle lol! I paid 3k for laser eye surgery too!

Not sure what stats they're showing, but Russell's certainly got some good stats. Not denying it. Biggar's got some good ones too. They've both got some bad stats. Russell has played 60% more minutes than Biggar. Hard to draw conclusions on this.

The Watson V Warburton is a fairer comparison (if the stats are accurate). And Watson smashes Warburton out of the water. Would like to see the Tips comparison. To both actually.

Are the stats test match rugby for the season? Playing Japan in the summer as opposed to NZ will obviously offset a few key stats

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Are the stats test match rugby for the season? Playing Japan in the summer as opposed to NZ will obviously offset a few key stats

Nah, no one plays 21 test matches a year. Do they? Just looking at minutes played and crudely dividing by 80 to assume a whole game played. This must be ALL games?

On Warrburton, obviously he's been playing 6 for Wales so comparing to a 7 (am I right in that Watson usually plays 7) there's bound to be some 7-specific areas where Warbs would be lacking (if these stats include international), but still awesome stats from Watson.

Lol at those trying to think of clever reasons as to why Joseph wouldn't fit into Warren Gatland's team - he was the one who apparently convinced the rest of the Lions coaching staff that "we can't leave Jonathan Joseph out".

http://www.the42.ie/garry-ringrose-lions-close-joseph-3348953-Apr2017/

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Lol at those trying to think of clever reasons as to why Joseph wouldn't fit into Warren Gatland's team - he was the one who apparently convinced the rest of the Lions coaching staff that "we can't leave Jonathan Joseph out".

http://www.the42.ie/garry-ringrose-lions-close-joseph-3348953-Apr2017/

Doesn't surprise me that Howley wouldn't want to pick an exciting attacking player who can get past a defender without trying to run over him......

No 7&1/2 wrote:I just really hope we have a coach who is not the current coach of one of the 4 teams next time.

If Eddie Jones really does plan on leaving England after the World Cup, then he could being the running, provided he hasn't gone down in flames in the meantime.

Listened to Jim Hamilton on the Rugby Pod. He thinks AWJ is no better than 50-50 to recover from injury for the tour. However, he says that, as Launchbury doesn't call lineouts, then Charteris or Toner would be considered ahead of the Englishman as a replacement.

He said that Itoje is still raw at calling, and feels Henderson is unreliable, so Kruis and Lawes are the only other genuine squad options.

Who calls for Scotland?

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I just really hope we have a coach who is not the current coach of one of the 4 teams next time.

If Eddie Jones really does plan on leaving England after the World Cup, then he could being the running, provided he hasn't gone down in flames in the meantime.

Listened to Jim Hamilton on the Rugby Pod. He thinks AWJ is no better than 50-50 to recover from injury for the tour. However, he says that, as Launchbury doesn't call lineouts, then Charteris or Toner would be considered ahead of the Englishman as a replacement.

He said that Itoje is still raw at calling, and feels Henderson is unreliable, so Kruis and Lawes are the only other genuine squad options.

Who calls for Scotland?

why 7.5? Gatland has been on 2 and won one. What more do you want? Scots to be involved for the sake of it.

#posiitvediscriminationforunderepresentedrugbyplayerswhodontdeserveit

Woodward's failure in 2005 meant that almost every decision he made was criticized. However, after the 2009 reboot, we've been creeping back towards the kind of Lions tour he tried to run.

This year will be a chance to assess whether Woodward had some good ideas, which were undermined by his poor execution and man-management, or if Lions tours just inevitably buckle once they get beyond a certain size.

Martyn Williams and Matt Dawson both say that the size of the 2005 touring party meant the whole squad was never in synch. The group which played the last match was usually in recovery while the next lot were in the training field. Somehow, with a smaller group in 2009, everybody seemed to be together on the training field, albeit on different trajectories.

There are risks to not having enough players. It was noticeable that the one time the midweek side lost in 2013 was when Shane Williams, Wade and Barritt were suddenly shipped into the backline against the Brumbies. That proved to be too many outsiders for the side to gel.

Look at the schedule then you'll see why the tour party is so large

Its not as big as the 2005 squad, but they are playing less games.

aucklandlaurie wrote:Its not as big as the 2005 squad, but they are playing less games.

Gatland said they are counting on 7 or 8 injuries coming into play so it does suggest a bit of congestion...waiting for players to get injured. If they don't he should at least have a policy of starting everyone at least once on tour.

aucklandlaurie wrote:Its not as big as the 2005 squad, but they are playing less games.

With the ridiculous prospect of playing games 4 days apart and on South Island as well as natural attrition clearly a larger squad is required. This is not to be confused with Sir Power of Four's traveling circus.

hugehandoff wrote:I found Gatland's comments on the number of representatives from each country surprising as he claims to have been unaware. He states he just selected the best players. End of. If that is true then he and his coaches have totally failed to appreciate how important this aspect is in uniting the fans behind the team. I am not asking him to select a Scot just for the hell of it, but where the calls are marginal then this is a factor. But clearly the bias towards players you know cannot be avoided. Just look at Rowntree's influence in getting Sinckler and Marler selected. I am sure they could have squeezed another couple of Scots without weakening the bloated squad of 41.

Yes thats true, especially with the wider squad to cover for injuries.

Its the Lions concept that comes into play here. Unlike Hansen, who generally has 24/7 access to all his potentials year in year out, gatland has a limited timeframe and as Wales coach has a biased view already built in as part of that concept.

For 3 of the 4 years Gatland and the non Welsh players are 'enemies' then suddenly he's got to allow him into his circle of trust?

He's been tasked to win this series so a slight Welsh bias is not only understandable, its a must. With his players there will be many things he's seen on the training field that have not yet had a chance to materialise on the field. This will be happening in the other three countries as well but Gats aint seeing any of that.

With his own players he knows which will give him their best...he doesnt know that of the others so a 50/50 will likely go for his man, and thats probably resulted in 3-4 more players than should probably be there...'the lucky my coach is THE coach' ones.

Gwlad wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Its not as big as the 2005 squad, but they are playing less games.

With the ridiculous prospect of playing games 4 days apart and on South Island as well as natural attrition clearly a larger squad is required. This is not to be confused with Sir Power of Four's traveling circus.

Lions 77 played 25 matches and took only 30. Its not so much about the number of games but the likelihood of injury with the heavy contact levels of todays game and having to fly them out.

According to Gatland anyway. 41 is however a lot of players and it could have the effect of Gatland not being able to see the wood for the trees if he feels he has to play them all. For their own sakes hopefully they all get a game.

The schedule lends itself to two teams anyway; whoever came up with it was clearly trying to help the hosts. Ridiculous.
Likely starters will play opening game, then Crusaders, NZ Maori and then Test 1.
Mid weekers will be Blues, Highlanders and Chiefs and no one will care about the Hurricanes game. That said there may be the opportunity to give some likely test players a feel for Eden Park at the blues game.

Gwlad wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Its not as big as the 2005 squad, but they are playing less games.

With the ridiculous prospect of playing games 4 days apart and on South Island as well as natural attrition clearly a larger squad is required. This is not to be confused with Sir Power of Four's traveling circus.

They are directly comparable.

It's a common criticism that Woodward took too large a squad but it's also true that the Lions ran out of players by the end of the series. There simply wasn't time to call up late replacements. Woodward had tried to guard against that eventuality but you can't predict where injuries will hit.

In 2005, replacements were at home in Europe (England & Scotland didn't tour), in North America with Wales, or in Japan with Ireland. Only Japan was roughly in the same time zone.

Similarly, in 2013, replacements were in Argentina (England), South Africa (Scotland), North America (Ireland) or Japan (Wales). Drafting in replacements couldn't easily be done at short notice, which is why Gatland ended up calling on nearby Tom Court and Shane Williams.

This year, England are again distant in Argentina but Scotland, Wales and Ireland will all be in the same time zone. Replacements are as conveniently available as they have ever been, and yet Gatland still wants 41 players. He has come to a similar conclusion as Woodward did (even allowing for different replacement rules).

1989, 1997 and 2009 Lions tours all had great squad chemistry between Test and midweek players. 1983, 1993 and 2005 had deep divisions, and those three were all tours of NZ. Whether Gatland wins or loses this series, if he can run a tour where the players bond well, then he'll have achieved something that no-one has managed to do with the Lions in NZ for some time. Probably since 1971.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Its not as big as the 2005 squad, but they are playing less games.

With the ridiculous prospect of playing games 4 days apart and on South Island as well as natural attrition clearly a larger squad is required. This is not to be confused with Sir Power of Four's traveling circus.

They are directly comparable.

1989, 1997 and 2009 Lions tours all had great squad chemistry between Test and midweek players. 1983, 1993 and 2005 had deep divisions, and those three were all tours of NZ. Whether Gatland wins or loses this series, if he can run a tour where the players bond well, then he'll have achieved something that no-one has managed to do with the Lions in NZ for some time. Probably since 1971.

There will be division here too. Gatlands selections for every match will be criticised if the losses start piling up. Two separate squads will eventuate as Gatland tries to get at least a core group going, away from a huge amount of noise around him.

Although they rarely lose a series the ABs have never been in a better state for this tour. I fully expect the ABs to step up yet another level and ironically it's comments like this across the board that should provide the Lions plenty of motivation. They must make the best of the underdog card. Gatlands media tune should be consistent, not reactive, and respectful giving nothing to the ABs for motivation.

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Its not as big as the 2005 squad, but they are playing less games.

With the ridiculous prospect of playing games 4 days apart and on South Island as well as natural attrition clearly a larger squad is required. This is not to be confused with Sir Power of Four's traveling circus.

Lions 77 played 25 matches and took only 30. Its not so much about the number of games but the likelihood of injury with the heavy contact levels of todays game and having to fly them out.

According to Gatland anyway. 41 is however a lot of players and it could have the effect of Gatland not being able to see the wood for the trees if he feels he has to play them all. For their own sakes hopefully they all get a game.

It was the Lions that insisted on a tough tour. Besides, it looks similar to 2013, though the Super sides in Oz didn't give their matches high priority, ours will, bar the non AB rule. Too much pride at stake not too.

Taylorman wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Its not as big as the 2005 squad, but they are playing less games.

With the ridiculous prospect of playing games 4 days apart and on South Island as well as natural attrition clearly a larger squad is required. This is not to be confused with Sir Power of Four's traveling circus.

Lions 77 played 25 matches and took only 30. Its not so much about the number of games but the likelihood of injury with the heavy contact levels of todays game and having to fly them out.

According to Gatland anyway. 41 is however a lot of players and it could have the effect of Gatland not being able to see the wood for the trees if he feels he has to play them all. For their own sakes hopefully they all get a game.

It was the Lions that insisted on a tough tour. Besides, it looks similar to 2013, though the Super sides in Oz didn't give their matches high priority, ours will, bar the non AB rule. Too much pride at stake not too.

of course you will being so much prouder than the rest of the rugby world

Gwlad wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:Its not as big as the 2005 squad, but they are playing less games.

With the ridiculous prospect of playing games 4 days apart and on South Island as well as natural attrition clearly a larger squad is required. This is not to be confused with Sir Power of Four's traveling circus.

Lions 77 played 25 matches and took only 30. Its not so much about the number of games but the likelihood of injury with the heavy contact levels of todays game and having to fly them out.

According to Gatland anyway. 41 is however a lot of players and it could have the effect of Gatland not being able to see the wood for the trees if he feels he has to play them all. For their own sakes hopefully they all get a game.

It was the Lions that insisted on a tough tour. Besides, it looks similar to 2013, though the Super sides in Oz didn't give their matches high priority, ours will, bar the non AB rule. Too much pride at stake not too.

of course you will being so much prouder than the rest of the rugby world

Well yes, obviously.

Why gwlad? Well this is twice in a row where gatland is making the same mistakes of taking unfit and out of form players. I expect we'll see some players playing great in the warm ups and promptly being no where near the test side again until injuries force his hand. We've seen these issues with Woodward before. I'd like to see a top club coach offered it.

Its only a mistake if you lose.

Again, 2013 was the first successful Lions tour since 1997.

2009 still hurts though, feicing ROG

No it can be a mistake and you can still scrape a win.

Getting into the realms of 'moral victories' now...

Why?

Because a win is a win.

Ok. But I'm talking about mistakes gatland made and continues to make.

With the Lions or just generally ?

You a bit sleepy this morning? The lions.

Right, see earlier post then.

You're earlier post which talks about wins not mistakes?

RIP big ugo ehiogu.

Work is actually more appealing than this conversation.

Good. Because you seem to be struggling to understand it.

I think we all are

You also can't separate mistakes and wins? Didn't think that was too challenging a concept to be honest.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You also can't separate mistakes and wins? Didn't think that was too challenging a concept to be honest.

This is exactly what the Kiwi fans keep saying about that Ireland game

Gooseberry wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You also can't separate mistakes and wins? Didn't think that was too challenging a concept to be honest.

This is exactly what the Kiwi fans keep saying about that Ireland game

What Ireland game?

Taylorman wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You also can't separate mistakes and wins? Didn't think that was too challenging a concept to be honest.

This is exactly what the Kiwi fans keep saying about that Ireland game

What Ireland game?

The money spinner exhibition game in Chicago that shouldn't even have been capped