British & Irish Lions Squad 2017

First topic message reminder :

robbo277 wrote:
But as I said, I don't want players to water down their comments. I want to read what the players think, I don't want to read what the press officer tells them to say.

That's fair enough, and I agree with the rest of your comment on this basis. I personally don't particularly care what Mike Brown thinks, especially when it's as obvious as "experienced test player is disappointed to have not been selected for the Lions". I could have told you that without Mike Brown's public statement. The point where it deviated from him merely expressing his disappointment to one where he's put his foot in his mouth is the fact he questioned the coaches' lack of communication to him personally. Even if he's right- and I think he may well be- to publicly bring that into question in the way he has done is antithetical to the whole business of a squad as a unity, a whole above the self.

As for him being a liability, I agree to an extent, but equally he does get in his fair few verbal and physical scraps. He's clearly not a player who's particularly in control of his emotions, a bit like Biggar, in that he wants to plead his case long after it is obvious his efforts are utterly in vain. He's not a catastrophe by any means, but having played with people like him, they can be liabilities. Ticking time bomb may be the incorrect phrase, and overdoing it slightly, but that doesn't negate the point entirely. Either way, it doesn't particularly matter, as I don't think it really affects his performance or mentality, and the players around him, too much: but if it did, it's hard to quantify anyway.

"Pathetic Individual" is a touch over the top Alive.

I must admit, I dont agree with Gwlad's points but he's only stating his opinion.

Apparently Jamie Roberts is really disappointed to be missing out.

Really Jamie!

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I don't like to pan anyone, I'm just being realistic. Mako isn't a good scrummager so I would be adverse to him starting for the Lions, he's an ideal bench option.

Itoje was ok, as he has been all season....ok.

I also said Kruis was outstanding but that doesn't fit in well with your point of Sarries bashing.

I didn't say you were bashing Kruis.

You are focusing on Mako's scrummaging when scrummaging wasn't really a big part of the game on Saturday. Cherrypicking one area and discounting all the good Mako did, not even as if Clermont dominated the scrum, was pretty much parity.

Mako adds so much more than the other LHs because modern rugby these days isn't just about the scrum, don't get me wrong scrummaging is still a key part of being a prop but not the only thing.

Against the best side in the world you need more than just someone who can scrummage well. A good scrum isn't just about 1 player either, it's about combinations.

Itoje being okay still sees him still performing better than the majority of locks. You just have unrealistically high expectations of Itoje, expecting him to put in a 9/10 performance every game. Perhaps it's because the media hype him up too much but he's still a good player.

I was happy with Itoje's effort even if he wasn't the best Saracens forward he still did his bit.

Both are still strong contenders to start.

Has Itoje put in a 9/10 performance recently?

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:Interesting piece of analysis after the Crusaders managed to shut down the Barrett show on Saturday - note that it was an All Black-stacked tight five that got the win mind, so easier said than done.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/92580905/marc-hinton-crusaders-big-squeeze-shows-warren-gatlands-lions-the-way-forward

I watched it. It was a boring enough game. I think both sides showed nerves and forced things at times.

I think the Lions will have the advantage in the tight 5.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Has Itoje put in a 9/10 performance recently?

All of his performances are rated out of 11

Haha.....you'd think so.

The Sgt_Pooly and beshocked episodes are hilarious. If Pooly makes the slightest whiff of criticism against the Sarries (especially Itoje) then the countdown begins until beshocked arrives to defend his boys.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:"Pathetic Individual" is a touch over the top Alive.

I must admit, I dont agree with Gwlad's points but he's only stating his opinion.

Sure, and I just stated mine.

beshocked wrote:

You are focusing on Mako's scrummaging when scrummaging wasn't really a big part of the game on Saturday. Cherrypicking one area and discounting all the good Mako did, not even as if Clermont dominated the scrum, was pretty much parity.

Mako adds so much more than the other LHs because modern rugby these days isn't just about the scrum, don't get me wrong scrummaging is still a key part of being a prop but not the only thing.

Against the best side in the world you need more than just someone who can scrummage well. A good scrum isn't just about 1 player either, it's about combinations.

I'm of the same mindset as Pooly on this one, I want props who are first and foremost strong at scrum time, everything else on top of that is a bonus.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:The Sgt_Pooly and beshocked episodes are hilarious. If Pooly makes the slightest whiff of criticism against the Sarries (especially Itoje) then the countdown begins until beshocked arrives to defend his boys.

Its like he can smell the criticism! Its rather impressive.

Hammer....completley agree. Jon Welsh did a step and a chip over a defender for us this season, Id have dropped him.

beshocked wrote:A good scrum isn't just about 1 player either, it's about combinations.

Wrong its all about the most valued player in any squad, if you have a good one that is!

Tighthead Props are worth their weight in gold if you want to be successful.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:The Sgt_Pooly and beshocked episodes are hilarious. If Pooly makes the slightest whiff of criticism against the Sarries (especially Itoje) then the countdown begins until beshocked arrives to defend his boys.

Problem is most of the criticism is unwarranted.

Writing off Itoje and M.Vunipola as just good impact players...

They are part of one of the best front fives in Europe and somehow Sgt Pooly can find a way to criticise them. They've just won the European final for the 2nd consecutive year and supposedly haven't covered themselves in glory......

Even more laughable that Hartley repeatedly is picked to start for England ahead of George. At least on that Gatland has made the right decision so far.

It's fair to say Itoje isn't playing as well as last year but Hartley's poor form for England has been ignored by Sgt Pooly.

Brown's inability to pass the ball ignored... etc. Not claiming Mako is a monstrous scrummager, he clearly isn't but he offers so much around the park so if he gets parity at scrum time, he generally is superior to his opposite number.


Tighthead a good TH is important sure but Mako is a LH, plus the hooker is important to anchor the scrum. Plus good scrummaging locks.

TightHEAD wrote:

beshocked wrote:A good scrum isn't just about 1 player either, it's about combinations.

Wrong its all about the most valued player in any squad, if you have a good one that is!  

Tighthead Props are worth their weight in gold if you want to be successful.

Yeah.......

If there aren't many scrums then the scrum becomes a non factor, that's where having an all round effective player is important.

beshocked wrote:Even more laughable that Hartley repeatedly is picked to start for England ahead of George. At least on that Gatland has made the right decision so far.

And this is the nub of things. Apparently Gatland has made the right call on this one thing because he agrees with you. That does not make it right (or wrong).

You constantly ignore the fact that most (if not all) posters feel that George has been playing better than Hartley to state we claim that we view Hartley as a demigod. We do not. We are just willing to be open minded and try to consider what it is Eddie Jones sees to support his selections. Also it could be argued that for sake of consisency you should be critical of George's performances for Sarries when he keeps being pulled wit 30 minutes to go.

So to address your other gripes:

Mako is a very good player, but a number of pundits and posters suggest he would be of more use coming of the bench. That is not to denigrate the player, just to say how they can see him being used.
Itoje is a very good player and an outstanding prospect. He is not the finished article and with the slight dip in his current form he again may be viewed as a bench option.

beshocked wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:The Sgt_Pooly and beshocked episodes are hilarious. If Pooly makes the slightest whiff of criticism against the Sarries (especially Itoje) then the countdown begins until beshocked arrives to defend his boys.

Problem is most of the criticism is unwarranted.

Writing off Itoje and M.Vunipola as just good impact players...

They are part of one of the best front fives in Europe and somehow Sgt Pooly can find a way to criticise them. They've just won the European final for the 2nd consecutive year and supposedly haven't covered themselves in glory......

Even more laughable that Hartley repeatedly is picked to start for England ahead of George. At least on that Gatland has made the right decision so far.

It's fair to say Itoje isn't playing as well as last year but Hartley's poor form for England has been ignored by Sgt Pooly.

Brown's inability to pass the ball ignored... etc. Not claiming Mako is a monstrous scrummager, he clearly isn't but he offers so much around the park so if he gets parity at scrum time, he generally is superior to his opposite number.


Tighthead a good TH is important sure but Mako is a LH, plus the hooker is important to anchor the scrum. Plus good scrummaging locks.

It's laughable alright.

What's great about the Lions tour for beshocked is that there's 3 other nations sets of fans to argue with about how (insert Saracens player here) has been overlooked in favour of (insert non Saracens player) who has been treated as a (deity/put on a pedestal/given special treatment)

Can't wait

I just hope that Jamie George is on the bench for the first test, comes on for the last 15-20 minutes and has a stormer, and then Gatland decides to keep him on the bench for the last two games. I think beshocked's head would explode.

No idea why. You'd think beshocked would be pleased that the player he's backed has shown such excellent performance in the impact role he was given

No reason to make a change that might upset his form over the next two games

Gatland did mention regarding his pack he'll have a strong set piece good hands in open play but also a couple of strong players off the bench. Regarding the bench thing to me that's probably george and probably one of Stander and mako. I wouldn't be surprised if he feels that the front row is strong enough that he starts mako as he had no problem when he was a weaker scrumager 4 years ago; though in the 3rd it showed what a difference corbisiero could make.

beshocked wrote:


Tighthead a good TH is important sure but Mako is a LH, plus the hooker is important to anchor the scrum. Plus good scrummaging locks.

I wasn't talking about Mako.

Is it just me or was George the clear second best hooker for Saracens at the weekend?

Scottrf wrote:Is it just me or was George the clear second best hooker for Saracens at the weekend?

I dunno, were you the second best hooker for saracens at the weekend?

The squad that aren't in finals are training this week down in Wales - good chance for those guys to make a good first impression.

Hopefully it doesn't lead to a split in the group given that they will have bonded over the next few weeks before the rest of the squad join.

beshocked wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:The Sgt_Pooly and beshocked episodes are hilarious. If Pooly makes the slightest whiff of criticism against the Sarries (especially Itoje) then the countdown begins until beshocked arrives to defend his boys.

Problem is most of the criticism is unwarranted.

If you think calling someone ok is criticism you're in for a shock once you leave school BS, life is tough man!

RDW_Scotland wrote:The squad that aren't in finals are training this week down in Wales - good chance for those guys to make a good first impression.

Hopefully it doesn't lead to a split in the group given that they will have bonded over the next few weeks before the rest of the squad join.

How many does that actually leave?

With the bulk of Irish, English and Welsh players in the playoffs or France (and that also takes 1/3 of Scotland out)

By my reckoning :

Seymour
Hogg
Payne
North
Watson
Joseph
Teo
Laidlaw
Marler
Sinckler
Warburton (*is he still injured?)
Moriarty
Faletau

Hardly much of a party. I suppose they could take on a local rugby league side.

The Ulster boys are about too (Best and Henderson)

http://www.lionsrugby.com/news/16181.php#.WRmpj2nyuCg

Good point. Well at least a fair chunk of the midweek squad will get a chance to bond

LondonTiger wrote:

beshocked wrote:Even more laughable that Hartley repeatedly is picked to start for England ahead of George. At least on that Gatland has made the right decision so far.

And this is the nub of things. Apparently Gatland has made the right call on this one thing because he agrees with you. That does not make it right (or wrong).

You constantly ignore the fact that most (if not all) posters feel that George has been playing better than Hartley to state we claim that we view Hartley as a demigod. We do not. We are just willing to be open minded and try to consider what it is Eddie Jones sees to support his selections. Also it could be argued that for sake of consisency you should be critical of George's performances for Sarries when he keeps being pulled wit 30 minutes to go.

So to address your other gripes:

Mako is a very good player, but a number of pundits and posters suggest he would be of more use coming of the bench. That is not to denigrate the player, just to say how they can see him being used.
Itoje is a very good player and an outstanding prospect. He is not the finished article and with the slight dip in his current form he again may be viewed as a bench option.

We won't know if it's the right call till after the Lions tour. I can understand why Gatland might be compelled to take Hartley even if I wouldn't.

No I don't ignore that quite a few posters feel George has played better than Hartley and you are not one of the people I believe views Hartley as a demi god.

I can't say you are one of the posters regularly championing Hartley. Of course I can understand why Jones made the decision he did.

Can't be critical of George when he's been generally playing well even it's not the full game.

England haven't started George once. That's not sharing the duties, it's putting one playing on a pedestal when he doesn't deserve to.

Perhaps if Sgt Pooly had worded it as eloquently as you he wouldn't get the same criticism. His comments come across as overly critical of 2 very good players. As Sgt Pooly has a history of being dismissive of Itoje it's no surprise I will be more critical even if he makes some fair points.

beshocked wrote:Perhaps if Sgt Pooly had worded it as eloquently as you he wouldn't get the same criticism. His comments come across as overly critical of 2 very good players. As Sgt Pooly has a history of being dismissive of Itoje it's no surprise I will be more critical even if he makes some fair points.

Seems like you're putting Itoje on a pedestal and treating him as a demigod.

Thoughts from the Weekend,

Laidlaw: some good some bad, silly pass to nothing however drew the men and made the pass that set Moriarty over.

Moriarty: Fairly anonymous until he scored.

Farrell : Got handed off a bit too easily, missed some kicks but overall had a decent game.

Itoje : Not a great game by his usual standards. Missed some tackles, gave away some penalties.

Kruis : looked incredible. Powerful carrying, terrific lineout work.

George : Tireless in the loose, part of a great lineout and scrum.

Mako : Dunno what the fuss is, Clermont seemed to struggle quite a bit in the scrum.

Billy V : Lions incumbent no.8 Noone really comes close in terms of raw physicality and ferocity in contact. I know I said I'd start Taulupe, but Jeez Billy V is a war crime.

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:Perhaps if Sgt Pooly had worded it as eloquently as you he wouldn't get the same criticism. His comments come across as overly critical of 2 very good players. As Sgt Pooly has a history of being dismissive of Itoje it's no surprise I will be more critical even if he makes some fair points.

Seems like you're putting Itoje on a pedestal and treating him as a demigod.

Well no actually. I realise Itoje has flaws.

On the contrary I've been mentioning his poor discipline for some time -. Long before some other posters noticed.

Itoje isn't perfect, not the finished article. He has his strengths and weaknesses. Sgt Pooly you are right when you say Itoje must improve his carrying and discipline - something I've said for some time too.

Sometimes it's forgotten he's still only 22. Still room for improvement.

It's the media who overhype Itoje, not me. Unfortunately sometimes people go the other way and criticise him because the media love him.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Thoughts from the Weekend,

Laidlaw: some good some bad, silly pass to nothing however drew the men and made the pass that set Moriarty over.

Moriarty: Fairly anonymous until he scored.

Farrell : Got handed off a bit too easily, missed some kicks but overall had a decent game.

Itoje : Not a great game by his usual standards. Missed some tackles, gave away some penalties.

Kruis : looked incredible. Powerful carrying, terrific lineout work.

George : Tireless in the loose, part of a great lineout and scrum.

Mako : Dunno what the fuss is, Clermont seemed to struggle quite a bit in the scrum.

Billy V : Lions incumbent no.8 Noone really comes close in terms of raw physicality and ferocity in contact. I know I said I'd start Taulupe, but Jeez Billy V is a war crime.

I'd agree with this - I think NZ have the tools available to deal with Faletau but Billy V is unlike anything they've ever had to deal with.

Not sure about that RDW. The way I see it is NZ is a country full of oversized islanders a lot of them not unlike Billy V. However, NZ dont really pick these huge oversized units that often presumably because they cant keep up with the pace and skill possibly of AB rugby. That said Billy V is a fine player so it will be exciting to see how he gets on.

Fortunately billy fits into the Picamoles camp of oversized units who have oodles of skill....If not the speed for 100 metres in 12 seconds!

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Not sure about that RDW. The way I see it is NZ is a country full of oversized islanders a lot of them not unlike Billy V. However, NZ dont really pick these huge oversized units that often presumably because they cant keep up with the pace and skill possibly of AB rugby. That said Billy V is a fine player so it will be exciting to see how he gets on.

I was thinking about this the other day, even in a country full of Pacifc Island units - i'm struggling to think of many who are as physically intimidating as Billy, he really is a bit of a freak.

EST wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Not sure about that RDW. The way I see it is NZ is a country full of oversized islanders a lot of them not unlike Billy V. However, NZ dont really pick these huge oversized units that often presumably because they cant keep up with the pace and skill possibly of AB rugby. That said Billy V is a fine player so it will be exciting to see how he gets on.

I was thinking about this the other day, even in a country full of Pacifc Island units - i'm struggling to think of many who are as physically intimidating as Billy, he really is a bit of a freak.  

There is a good chance that there are lots. England traditionally pick the biggest players for their underage sides while it seems to me NZ tend to pick the most skillful.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Thoughts from the Weekend,

Laidlaw: some good some bad, silly pass to nothing however drew the men and made the pass that set Moriarty over.

Moriarty: Fairly anonymous until he scored.

Farrell : Got handed off a bit too easily, missed some kicks but overall had a decent game.

Itoje : Not a great game by his usual standards. Missed some tackles, gave away some penalties.

Kruis : looked incredible. Powerful carrying, terrific lineout work.

George : Tireless in the loose, part of a great lineout and scrum.

Mako : Dunno what the fuss is, Clermont seemed to struggle quite a bit in the scrum.

Billy V : Lions incumbent no.8 Noone really comes close in terms of raw physicality and ferocity in contact. I know I said I'd start Taulupe, but Jeez Billy V is a war crime.

I'd agree with this - I think NZ have the tools available to deal with Faletau but Billy V is unlike anything they've ever had to deal with.

 How does Billy V go when in oxygen debt?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Thoughts from the Weekend,

Laidlaw: some good some bad, silly pass to nothing however drew the men and made the pass that set Moriarty over.

Moriarty: Fairly anonymous until he scored.

Farrell : Got handed off a bit too easily, missed some kicks but overall had a decent game.

Itoje : Not a great game by his usual standards. Missed some tackles, gave away some penalties.

Kruis : looked incredible. Powerful carrying, terrific lineout work.

George : Tireless in the loose, part of a great lineout and scrum.

Mako : Dunno what the fuss is, Clermont seemed to struggle quite a bit in the scrum.

Billy V : Lions incumbent no.8 Noone really comes close in terms of raw physicality and ferocity in contact. I know I said I'd start Taulupe, but Jeez Billy V is a war crime.

I'd agree with this - I think NZ have the tools available to deal with Faletau but Billy V is unlike anything they've ever had to deal with.

 How does Billy V go when in oxygen debt?

The All Blacks fitness is impressive, however I haven't seen anything to make me think that Billy couldn't cope with the all blacks for 80 minutes. He won't have to, because logically someone like Stander could come on with 20 minutes to go.

I'm not sure what makes you question his fitness levels when there is no tangible evidence that he has a fitness or conditioning problem. Specifically at the weekend he looked just as strong in the final quarter as he did in the first.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

EST wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Not sure about that RDW. The way I see it is NZ is a country full of oversized islanders a lot of them not unlike Billy V. However, NZ dont really pick these huge oversized units that often presumably because they cant keep up with the pace and skill possibly of AB rugby. That said Billy V is a fine player so it will be exciting to see how he gets on.

I was thinking about this the other day, even in a country full of Pacifc Island units - i'm struggling to think of many who are as physically intimidating as Billy, he really is a bit of a freak.  

There is a good chance that there are lots. England traditionally pick the biggest players for their underage sides while it seems to me NZ tend to pick the most skillful.

Really?

I can't agree with this at all Guns. Over the last 3/4 year the English packs have been anything but big and infact are often smaller than their opposition. I'm sure last time we played NZ at U20 level we had a smaller pack.

English packs over the last few U20 WC's have been generally been fast and technically very good and we've not had that many big units.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

EST wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Not sure about that RDW. The way I see it is NZ is a country full of oversized islanders a lot of them not unlike Billy V. However, NZ dont really pick these huge oversized units that often presumably because they cant keep up with the pace and skill possibly of AB rugby. That said Billy V is a fine player so it will be exciting to see how he gets on.

I was thinking about this the other day, even in a country full of Pacifc Island units - i'm struggling to think of many who are as physically intimidating as Billy, he really is a bit of a freak.  

There is a good chance that there are lots. England traditionally pick the biggest players for their underage sides while it seems to me NZ tend to pick the most skillful.

Really?

I can't agree with this at all Guns. Over the last 3/4 year the English packs have been anything but big and infact are often smaller than their opposition. I'm sure last time we played NZ at U20 level we had a smaller pack.

English packs over the last few U20 WC's have been generally been fast and technically very good and we've not had that many big units.

In NZ a lack of size up front was blamed for our poor performance last year - can't remember if we played England mind

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Really?

I can't agree with this at all Guns. Over the last 3/4 year the English packs have been anything but big and infact are often smaller than their opposition. I'm sure last time we played NZ at U20 level we had a smaller pack.

English packs over the last few U20 WC's have been generally been fast and technically very good and we've not had that many big units.

I guess the point I was making was the England under 20 side is more often that not the biggest side at the junior RWC. Perhaps less so lately?

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:In NZ a lack of size up front was blamed for our poor performance last year - can't remember if we played England mind

Nope. Defeat to Ireland in the pool games meant you missed out on a semi final spot I think.

LondonTiger wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:In NZ a lack of size up front was blamed for our poor performance last year - can't remember if we played England mind

Nope. Defeat to Ireland in the pool games meant you missed out on a semi final spot I think.

Ireland men, Ireland women and Ireland under 20s have all defeated NZ in the last few years. Just saying.

LondonTiger wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:In NZ a lack of size up front was blamed for our poor performance last year - can't remember if we played England mind

Nope. Defeat to Ireland in the pool games meant you missed out on a semi final spot I think.

Also I do not remember the Baby Blacks being smaller than their Irish counterparts.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

EST wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Not sure about that RDW. The way I see it is NZ is a country full of oversized islanders a lot of them not unlike Billy V. However, NZ dont really pick these huge oversized units that often presumably because they cant keep up with the pace and skill possibly of AB rugby. That said Billy V is a fine player so it will be exciting to see how he gets on.

I was thinking about this the other day, even in a country full of Pacifc Island units - i'm struggling to think of many who are as physically intimidating as Billy, he really is a bit of a freak.  

There is a good chance that there are lots. England traditionally pick the biggest players for their underage sides while it seems to me NZ tend to pick the most skillful.

I assumed there would be, Guns - but when I thought about it, I couldn't come up with many examples. I'm sure there must be plenty further down, playing in the Mitre cup.

In the wider scheme of things, I think it will be very interesting to see how NZ will play in order to mitigate the Lions (potential) advantage in physicality. In the 2011 WC semi-final, I remember how they either targeted Pocock directly, or played much wider of 10, so as to reduce the chance of him getting to the breakdown first to jackal. I'm sure we will see plenty of coast to coast rugby, to really test Billy V's aerobic conditioning.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Really?

I can't agree with this at all Guns. Over the last 3/4 year the English packs have been anything but big and infact are often smaller than their opposition. I'm sure last time we played NZ at U20 level we had a smaller pack.

English packs over the last few U20 WC's have been generally been fast and technically very good and we've not had that many big units.

I guess the point I was making was the England under 20 side is more often that not the biggest side at the junior RWC. Perhaps less so lately?

Very much so Guns, there's been a big change of focus over the years. I only know as the commentators tend to comment on it about 300 times every match just so we know.

The packs that led to a series of unsuccessful finals were certainly close to being the biggest each year. However that has changed in the last few years - and co-incided with actually winning things.

alive555 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:I think the person who is most biased regarding this is you.

If the is all some biased conspiracy then Townsend's presence would have just mean't more bias. The Power of Four bias.

I think you're biased against bias and rather ignorant, that it's really boring because you won't/can't differentiate between what you think bias is and what it really is and what has happened in this case

All in the rather pointless pursuit of straw man point scoring, in that at least you're consistent.

A truly pathetic individual defending the indefensible

Ffs gatland picked more welsh players than irish and ireland are 4th ranked and wales 9th. Thats not a small margin.

If thats not more evidence of bias i dont know what is.

Wales shouldnt have had more than 5 or 6 and everyone else a couple more players.

Debate over.

ad hominem

Gatland wouldn't do that BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE STUPID!!!!!