NEW ZEALAND v BRITISH & IRISH LIONS, 1 July

First topic message reminder :

                   
NEW ZEALAND v BRITISH & IRISH LIONS  
1 July 2017
KO: 19:35 NZST (8.35am BST)
WESTPAC Wellington Regional Stadium, Wellington

Live on Sky Sports HD

Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)
ARs: [tbc]
TMO: [tbc]

A. Head to Head

39 Played 39
30 Won 6
3 Drawn 3
6 Lost 30
664 Points 360

B. Recent Form

24 June 2017
Eden Park, Auckland
30 – 15 to New Zealand

9 July 2005 
Eden Park, Auckland 
38 – 19 to New Zealand 

2 July 2005 
Westpac Stadium, Wellington 
48 – 18 to New Zealand

25 June 2005 
Lancaster Park, Christchurch 
21 – 3 to New Zealand

3 July 1993 
Eden Park, Auckland 
30 – 13 to New Zealand 

26 June 1993 
Athletic Park, Wellington 
7 – 20 to British & Irish Lions

12 June 1993 
Lancaster Park, Christchurch 
20 – 18 to New Zealand

16 July 1983 
Eden Park, Auckland 
38 – 6 to New Zealand

2 July 1983 
Carisbrook, Dunedin 
15 – 8 to New Zealand

18 June 1983 
Athletic Park (Wellington), Wellington 
9 – 0 to New Zealand

4 June 1983 
Lancaster Park, Christchurch 
16 – 12 to New Zealand

C. TEAMS:

NEW ZEALAND

[tbc]

BRITISH & IRISH LIONS  

[tbc]

EST wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

EST wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:An unsuspected rugby BBC Pundit said the leading try scorer on the tour isn't a threat to the test team...

That other guy, Penalty is the next highest scorer for the Lions.

Some dingbat at the BBC wrote:Scotland winger Seymour, despite not being a real threat to the Test team, also profited in Wellington in what was probably his final game in a Lions shirt in New Zealand.

This tour has taken a turn for the surreal.

What is inaccurate with the comment on the Beeb? The journalists out there know that the chances of Seymour being selected are close to zip. The comment was more a reflection on selection than one about Seymour.

PS they talk about North as they had been led to believe that he had a chance of playing in T2.

It's just hugely annoying that when Seymour scores a double, and becomes the top try scorer on the tour, the reporting then dismisses him out of hand.  The sentance RDW has quoted is juxtstaposed with the following very vivid account of North's contribution to the game.

"There were also gains to be made by the likes of George North, perhaps a surprise omission from the first Test squad in Auckland. The Welshman crossed for a classic winger's try, despite playing much of the game in the centre following an early injury to Robbie Henshaw.  Forced into a partnership at inside centre with Jonathan Joseph outside him, North popped up on Henderson's shoulder in the first half and accelerated away from the cover defence for his first try of the tour. He could have had two tries, but for a foot in touch. It was a positive audition from a player out of position, whose explosive power and ability to make yards beyond the tackle could be used by Gatland on Saturday."

I feel you guys are using that to feed a persecution complex.

Now in some ways it is reasonable to have such a complex, but the persecutor is not the Beeb. Perhaps they should have added something about him playing well but as it stands the comment they make was 100% accurate.

Again, I feel they are talking about North simply because he is in contention for a test spot, whereas Seymour could have played the best game of his life and still would not have been considered.

I'm aware that me making a point out of this can be taken as another whinging Scotsman grumbling about how unfair everything is, but to be honest, I would challenge anybody to read that article and think that it wasn't dismissive of Seymour  - it is so blatantly obvious. For what it's worth, I am not complaining about the accuracy.  However,  there are other ways of saying he probably wont make the test squad, without sounding quite so contemptuous.

It may not seem like much, but it's a pretty typical narrative - the Telegraph yesterday gave Nowell 8/10 and Seymour 7/10 as another example.

It's subjective of course, but I don't think that's terribly wide of the mark. The best thing Seymour did was shut his man down (which forced a poor pass which Laidlaw intercepted). I don't think Seymour's crossing of the whitewash really did much to accentuate what was, in my view, another quiet performance. Contrast that to Nowell, and I've seen a fair few clips/acknowledgements of good things Nowell did. After a dodgy first game Nowell has looked back to his high involvement best this tour, it's probably just come too late for a test cap.

Now you may appraise Nowell and Seymour's performances differently (and I'm not trying to convince you your appraisal is wrong!) but I don't think it's crazy to suggest there is a case for someone else seeing it differently. I certainly don't think there is a wider narrative.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Rumors are that AWJ to captain the team.

If true, would mean no Warburton and probably no POM so the earlier post of SOB Tipuric Faletau might happen.

When is the team announced? Rory Best should captain the team. He has been the best captain on the tour and prior to the tour. He would also solve a lot of the breakdown and gainl ine issues and provide excellent leadership.

Maybe, so who do we get to throw the ball in at Lineouts?

How many lineouts has he missed per game. 1 maybe?

I don't think he missed any in his last match either. Dont think it is as big an issue as getting dominated at the breakdown and gainline for 80 minutes. The ABs dominated all the forward stats in the first test yet Ireland dominated all the forward stats in two tests v the ABs last year with best as hooker including the lineout. Not saying he can do it all himself but he is a much better player overall than George.

Only takes one.

imagine the Lions losing by 4 points on Saturday, the 80mins is up we have a lineout 5m out with Best throwing the ball in. *****GAME*****OVER****

mikey_dragon wrote:

cascough wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

cascough wrote:

With that in mind, I don't think it's sensational to suggest AWJ is the more likely candidate for being dropped. Why do you?

I guess you haven't seen my team selection? You might want to go back and look for it before making more daft statements.

You will have to explain to me how your team selection has any bearing on you deriding criticism of AWJ whilst simultaneously implying Kruis has escaped from criticism.

Well if you actually bother to look at my team selection you'd note it features Kruis as a starter, with no sign of AWJ. Surely that answers your question - if not that that's three times you've spectacularly missed my point.

Unless you actually answer my questions, they will remain unanswered.

You posted something that implied you were irked by criticism of AWJ whilst Kruis was escaping criticism. I pointed out that Kruis has not escaped criticism, but that there are rational reasons why more people might be calling for AWJ to be dropped over Kruis. I then asked you your opinion on that. You still haven't answered this.

You then said you would pick Kruis. I asked you what bearing that has on you bemoaning the heightened criticism of AWJ relative to Kruis. You still haven't answered this.

Mark

TightHEAD wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Rumors are that AWJ to captain the team.

If true, would mean no Warburton and probably no POM so the earlier post of SOB Tipuric Faletau might happen.

When is the team announced? Rory Best should captain the team. He has been the best captain on the tour and prior to the tour. He would also solve a lot of the breakdown and gainl ine issues and provide excellent leadership.

Maybe, so who do we get to throw the ball in at Lineouts?

How many lineouts has he missed per game. 1 maybe?

I don't think he missed any in his last match either. Dont think it is as big an issue as getting dominated at the breakdown and gainline for 80 minutes. The ABs dominated all the forward stats in the first test yet Ireland dominated all the forward stats in two tests v the ABs last year with best as hooker including the lineout. Not saying he can do it all himself but he is a much better player overall than George.

Only takes one.

imagine the Lions losing by 4 points on Saturday, the 80mins is up we have a lineout 5m out with Best throwing the ball in. *****GAME*****OVER****

We lost by 15 points last Saturday because we had a pack that couldnt exert any dominance around the park. George was completely ineffective outside of lineout throwing. We arent going to get into a position to lost by just 4 points if we cant get any forward dominance.

The AB pack arent unbeatable at all.

Ian McGeechan's team for the 2nd test:

Furlong
George
Vunipola
Itoje
Lawes
Warburton (6)
SOB (7)
Faletau
Murray
Farrell
Daly
T'eo
Davies
Watson
Williams

Griff wrote:Ian McGeechan's team for the 2nd test:

Furlong
George
Vunipola
Itoje
Lawes
Warburton (6)
SOB (7)
Faletau
Murray
Farrell
Daly
T'eo
Davies
Watson
Williams

Is McGeechan saying thats the team he would select or the team he thinks will be selected?

Furlong/Cole
Best
Vunipola
Itoje/Lawes
Kruis
Stander/POM
SOB (7)
Faletau
Murray
Sexton/Farrell
Daly
T'eo
Davies
Watson/Seymour
Williams

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Griff wrote:Ian McGeechan's team for the 2nd test:

Furlong
George
Vunipola
Itoje
Lawes
Warburton (6)
SOB (7)
Faletau
Murray
Farrell
Daly
T'eo
Davies
Watson
Williams

Is McGeechan saying thats the team he would select or the team he thinks will be selected?

Furlong/Cole
Best
Vunipola
Itoje/Lawes
Kruis
Stander/POM
SOB (7)
Faletau
Murray
Sexton/Farrell
Daly
T'eo
Davies
Watson/Seymour
Williams

It's the team he would select. The one he thinks has the best chance of winning. He picked it after watching the mid week game, live on the pitch side, and changed some starters due to what he saw in the midweek game. Here's the link to the video:

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/16057/10928771/sir-ian-mcgeechan-selects-british-and-irish-lions-team-for-second-test-v-new-Zealand

cascough wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

cascough wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

cascough wrote:

With that in mind, I don't think it's sensational to suggest AWJ is the more likely candidate for being dropped. Why do you?

I guess you haven't seen my team selection? You might want to go back and look for it before making more daft statements.

You will have to explain to me how your team selection has any bearing on you deriding criticism of AWJ whilst simultaneously implying Kruis has escaped from criticism.

Well if you actually bother to look at my team selection you'd note it features Kruis as a starter, with no sign of AWJ. Surely that answers your question - if not that that's three times you've spectacularly missed my point.

Unless you actually answer my questions, they will remain unanswered.

You posted something that implied you were irked by criticism of AWJ whilst Kruis was escaping criticism. I pointed out that Kruis has not escaped criticism, but that there are rational reasons why more people might be calling for AWJ to be dropped over Kruis. I then asked you your opinion on that. You still haven't answered this.

You then said you would pick Kruis. I asked you what bearing that has on you bemoaning the heightened criticism of AWJ relative to Kruis. You still haven't answered this.

Riiight so you did miss the point then.

Umm if you go back to the other thread you'll see Kruis did escape criticism, yet AWJ didn't. Kruis was criticized when the lopsided reporting was pointed out by others (before me). Not sure why you felt the need to ask an irrelevant question when Kruis made my team selection, and then keep on asking irrelevant questions.

mikey_dragon wrote:

cascough wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

cascough wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

cascough wrote:

With that in mind, I don't think it's sensational to suggest AWJ is the more likely candidate for being dropped. Why do you?

I guess you haven't seen my team selection? You might want to go back and look for it before making more daft statements.

You will have to explain to me how your team selection has any bearing on you deriding criticism of AWJ whilst simultaneously implying Kruis has escaped from criticism.

Well if you actually bother to look at my team selection you'd note it features Kruis as a starter, with no sign of AWJ. Surely that answers your question - if not that that's three times you've spectacularly missed my point.

Unless you actually answer my questions, they will remain unanswered.

You posted something that implied you were irked by criticism of AWJ whilst Kruis was escaping criticism. I pointed out that Kruis has not escaped criticism, but that there are rational reasons why more people might be calling for AWJ to be dropped over Kruis. I then asked you your opinion on that. You still haven't answered this.

You then said you would pick Kruis. I asked you what bearing that has on you bemoaning the heightened criticism of AWJ relative to Kruis. You still haven't answered this.

Riiight so you did miss the point then.

Umm if you go back to the other thread you'll see Kruis did escape criticism, yet AWJ didn't. Kruis was criticized when the lopsided reporting was pointed out by others (before me). Not sure why you felt the need to ask an irrelevant question when Kruis made my team selection, and then keep on asking irrelevant questions.

You're not going to answer either of my questions, are you?

cascough wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

cascough wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

cascough wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

cascough wrote:

With that in mind, I don't think it's sensational to suggest AWJ is the more likely candidate for being dropped. Why do you?

I guess you haven't seen my team selection? You might want to go back and look for it before making more daft statements.

You will have to explain to me how your team selection has any bearing on you deriding criticism of AWJ whilst simultaneously implying Kruis has escaped from criticism.

Well if you actually bother to look at my team selection you'd note it features Kruis as a starter, with no sign of AWJ. Surely that answers your question - if not that that's three times you've spectacularly missed my point.

Unless you actually answer my questions, they will remain unanswered.

You posted something that implied you were irked by criticism of AWJ whilst Kruis was escaping criticism. I pointed out that Kruis has not escaped criticism, but that there are rational reasons why more people might be calling for AWJ to be dropped over Kruis. I then asked you your opinion on that. You still haven't answered this.

You then said you would pick Kruis. I asked you what bearing that has on you bemoaning the heightened criticism of AWJ relative to Kruis. You still haven't answered this.

Riiight so you did miss the point then.

Umm if you go back to the other thread you'll see Kruis did escape criticism, yet AWJ didn't. Kruis was criticized when the lopsided reporting was pointed out by others (before me). Not sure why you felt the need to ask an irrelevant question when Kruis made my team selection, and then keep on asking irrelevant questions.

You're not going to answer either of my questions, are you?

You asked " I don't think it's sensational to suggest AWJ is the more likely candidate for being dropped. Why do you?" - so at what point did I suggest AWJ might not be dropped? I mean, surely, by alluding to my team selection which features Kruis-Itoje at 2nd row and has Henderson on the bench would in fact highlight the opposite to what you suggest that I'm suggesting? You missed my point in highlighting the lopsided criticism, which I'm now over btw. The information you required was previously posted therefore making your question an irrelevant one. What answer are you hoping for exactly???

cascough wrote:

EST wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

EST wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:An unsuspected rugby BBC Pundit said the leading try scorer on the tour isn't a threat to the test team...

That other guy, Penalty is the next highest scorer for the Lions.

Some dingbat at the BBC wrote:Scotland winger Seymour, despite not being a real threat to the Test team, also profited in Wellington in what was probably his final game in a Lions shirt in New Zealand.

This tour has taken a turn for the surreal.

What is inaccurate with the comment on the Beeb? The journalists out there know that the chances of Seymour being selected are close to zip. The comment was more a reflection on selection than one about Seymour.

PS they talk about North as they had been led to believe that he had a chance of playing in T2.

It's just hugely annoying that when Seymour scores a double, and becomes the top try scorer on the tour, the reporting then dismisses him out of hand.  The sentance RDW has quoted is juxtstaposed with the following very vivid account of North's contribution to the game.

"There were also gains to be made by the likes of George North, perhaps a surprise omission from the first Test squad in Auckland. The Welshman crossed for a classic winger's try, despite playing much of the game in the centre following an early injury to Robbie Henshaw.  Forced into a partnership at inside centre with Jonathan Joseph outside him, North popped up on Henderson's shoulder in the first half and accelerated away from the cover defence for his first try of the tour. He could have had two tries, but for a foot in touch. It was a positive audition from a player out of position, whose explosive power and ability to make yards beyond the tackle could be used by Gatland on Saturday."

I feel you guys are using that to feed a persecution complex.

Now in some ways it is reasonable to have such a complex, but the persecutor is not the Beeb. Perhaps they should have added something about him playing well but as it stands the comment they make was 100% accurate.

Again, I feel they are talking about North simply because he is in contention for a test spot, whereas Seymour could have played the best game of his life and still would not have been considered.

I'm aware that me making a point out of this can be taken as another whinging Scotsman grumbling about how unfair everything is, but to be honest, I would challenge anybody to read that article and think that it wasn't dismissive of Seymour  - it is so blatantly obvious. For what it's worth, I am not complaining about the accuracy.  However,  there are other ways of saying he probably wont make the test squad, without sounding quite so contemptuous.

It may not seem like much, but it's a pretty typical narrative - the Telegraph yesterday gave Nowell 8/10 and Seymour 7/10 as another example.

It's subjective of course, but I don't think that's terribly wide of the mark. The best thing Seymour did was shut his man down (which forced a poor pass which Laidlaw intercepted). I don't think Seymour's crossing of the whitewash really did much to accentuate what was, in my view, another quiet performance. Contrast that to Nowell, and I've seen a fair few clips/acknowledgements of good things Nowell did. After a dodgy first game Nowell has looked back to his high involvement best this tour, it's probably just come too late for a test cap.

Now you may appraise Nowell and Seymour's performances differently (and I'm not trying to convince you your appraisal is wrong!) but I don't think it's crazy to suggest there is a case for someone else seeing it differently. I certainly don't think there is a wider narrative.

Of course these things are subjective, I was using the example of Nowell V Seymour to highlight how seeminly incidental incidents in the media can culmulatively stack up. This is compounded by the fact that the beeb dont seem to employ a Scottish representative to contribute to the live feed updates, focusing on national players, in the way that the Scrum V and BBC NI journos do.

For what it's worth, I would have given both Nowell and Seymour equal weighting. I think you need to also include the fact that after Seymour had forced the intercept, he was immediately up on his feet and supporting Laidlaw to be in the position to take the pop pass. He also had a couple of other nice involvments, as did Nowell.

Griff wrote:
It's the team he would select.  The one he thinks has the best chance of winning.  He picked it after watching the mid week game, live on the pitch side, and changed some starters due to what he saw in the midweek game.  Here's the link to the video:

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/16057/10928771/sir-ian-mcgeechan-selects-british-and-irish-lions-team-for-second-test-v-new-Zealand

Id be interested to know how he justifies the Warburton selection. Not that he is a bad player but his form hasnt been great, maybe if Warburton had a stormer at the breakdown it could be worth it.

Mikey, you said there was no balance on this board and cited AWJ and Kruis as an example.

I countered that example and asked why you thought it was a good example. I didn't counter who you would select (hence why I asked why it was relevant).

That's all.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Griff wrote:
It's the team he would select.  The one he thinks has the best chance of winning.  He picked it after watching the mid week game, live on the pitch side, and changed some starters due to what he saw in the midweek game.  Here's the link to the video:

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/16057/10928771/sir-ian-mcgeechan-selects-british-and-irish-lions-team-for-second-test-v-new-Zealand

Id be interested to know how he justifies the Warburton selection. Not that he is a bad player but his form hasnt been great, maybe if Warburton had a stormer at the breakdown it could be worth it.

Read the link and watch the video! He says he'd use Faletau and SOB for ball carrying and Warburton for ball winning (on the ground). I guess he sees him as a good jackal'er. I'd prefer Tipuric if that's what we needed personally.

cascough wrote:Mikey, you said there was no balance on this board and cited AWJ and Kruis as an example.

I countered that example and asked why you thought it was a good example. I didn't counter who you would select (hence why I asked why it was relevant).

That's all.

Yes and I had reason for that, which I've already informed you but as you're struggling see here (especially page 6 onwards): https://www.606v2.com/t65938p300-lions-pack-awj-criticism-and-an-alternative-view

You insinuated that I wouldn't drop AWJ which is also incorrect.

EST wrote:

carlascough wrote:
It's subjective of course, but I don't think that's terribly wide of the mark. The best thing Seymour did was shut his man down (which forced a poor pass which Laidlaw intercepted). I don't think Seymour's crossing of the whitewash really did much to accentuate what was, in my view, another quiet performance. Contrast that to Nowell, and I've seen a fair few clips/acknowledgements of good things Nowell did. After a dodgy first game Nowell has looked back to his high involvement best this tour, it's probably just come too late for a test cap.

Now you may appraise Nowell and Seymour's performances differently (and I'm not trying to convince you your appraisal is wrong!) but I don't think it's crazy to suggest there is a case for someone else seeing it differently. I certainly don't think there is a wider narrative.

Of course these things are subjective, I was using the example of Nowell V Seymour to highlight how seeminly incidental incidents in the media can culmulatively stack up.  This is compounded by the fact that the beeb dont seem to employ a Scottish representative to contribute to the live feed updates, focusing on national players, in the way that the Scrum V and BBC NI journos do.

For what it's worth, I would have given both Nowell and Seymour equal weighting.  I think you need to also include the fact that after Seymour had forced the intercept, he was immediately up on his feet and supporting Laidlaw to be in the position to take the pop pass.  He also had a couple of other nice involvments, as did Nowell.

He was immediately on his feet because he never goes to ground. He shut the man down, rather than full on tackle him. His timing and positioning were excellent, but anything that followed was absolute bread and butter for a winger (as was his walk in for the second try). Like I said, The actual crossing of the whitewash part does nothing to accentuate his performance for me, and I thought he was quiet. We can disagree on that (and it's really not my point), but I'm just saying I don't think it's scandalous that a paper would rate Nowell as higher. I don't feel there's an anti Scottish agenda by the media, personally.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:The AB pack arent unbeatable at all.

Are the ABs pack there for the taking guns?

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:The AB pack arent unbeatable at all.

Are the ABs pack there for the taking guns?

They're certainly a much tougher prospect at home at the start of their season vs guys playing away at then end of theirs than the other way around.

cascough wrote:

EST wrote:

carlascough wrote:
It's subjective of course, but I don't think that's terribly wide of the mark. The best thing Seymour did was shut his man down (which forced a poor pass which Laidlaw intercepted). I don't think Seymour's crossing of the whitewash really did much to accentuate what was, in my view, another quiet performance. Contrast that to Nowell, and I've seen a fair few clips/acknowledgements of good things Nowell did. After a dodgy first game Nowell has looked back to his high involvement best this tour, it's probably just come too late for a test cap.

Now you may appraise Nowell and Seymour's performances differently (and I'm not trying to convince you your appraisal is wrong!) but I don't think it's crazy to suggest there is a case for someone else seeing it differently. I certainly don't think there is a wider narrative.

Of course these things are subjective, I was using the example of Nowell V Seymour to highlight how seeminly incidental incidents in the media can culmulatively stack up.  This is compounded by the fact that the beeb dont seem to employ a Scottish representative to contribute to the live feed updates, focusing on national players, in the way that the Scrum V and BBC NI journos do.

For what it's worth, I would have given both Nowell and Seymour equal weighting.  I think you need to also include the fact that after Seymour had forced the intercept, he was immediately up on his feet and supporting Laidlaw to be in the position to take the pop pass.  He also had a couple of other nice involvments, as did Nowell.

He was immediately on his feet because he never goes to ground. He shut the man down, rather than full on tackle him. His timing and positioning were excellent, but anything that followed was absolute bread and butter for a winger (as was his walk in for the second try). Like I said, The actual crossing of the whitewash part does nothing to accentuate his performance for me, and I thought he was quiet. We can disagree on that (and it's really not my point), but I'm just saying I don't think it's scandalous that a paper would rate Nowell as higher. I don't feel there's an anti Scottish agenda by the media, personally.

Thats true, I thought he had gone to ground - still doesn't change the fact that he busted his gut to run an excellent supporting line - not something that has been a strength of our wingers on tour.

I would like your take on the original Beeb article though, Cascough? Do you think it was balanced? I don't think there is an implcit agenda against Scotland. Rather, I think the years we have spent in the relative wilderness has attributed negative connotations to our current players, some of which is fair and some of which is unfair. North and Seymour both played relatively well, but yet one was lavished with praise and the other resigned to playing his last game on tour.

It is our job to change those opinions, but I think it will be a hard ask.

Maybe it was that North changed position to centre for a large part of the game, which is not easy to do (not like a 6 moving to 8, for example, which is often done). Maybe that's why he got a bit of extra praise. The tries they both scored by running a supporting line were almost identical! Sort of like an open goal. Both supporting lines, a pop pass and then a run in to the line without anyone near. Both good pieces of play.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:The AB pack arent unbeatable at all.

Are the ABs pack there for the taking guns?

They're certainly a much tougher prospect at home at the start of their season vs guys playing away at then end of theirs than the other way around.

I see what you did there...

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:The AB pack arent unbeatable at all.

Are the ABs pack there for the taking guns?

They're certainly a much tougher prospect at home at the start of their season vs guys playing away at then end of theirs than the other way around.

Yes absolutely, why not? Ireland have won the forward battle v the ABs three tests in a row now. That is undeniable. Why shouldnt the Lions be able to do it?

Yes its away from home but the next test is away from fortress Eden park with a French ref with forwards from the teams ranked 2 and 3 in the world amongst others. I see not reason why the Lions shouldnt be able to win the forward battle.

It was probably a mistake to select O'Mahoney as he isnt the most physical back row forward and Id swap George for Best and and Itoje for AWJ, Sexton for Farrell, Bobs your uncle, Fanny's your auntie, Lions by 10.

EST wrote:

cascough wrote:

EST wrote:

carlascough wrote:
It's subjective of course, but I don't think that's terribly wide of the mark. The best thing Seymour did was shut his man down (which forced a poor pass which Laidlaw intercepted). I don't think Seymour's crossing of the whitewash really did much to accentuate what was, in my view, another quiet performance. Contrast that to Nowell, and I've seen a fair few clips/acknowledgements of good things Nowell did. After a dodgy first game Nowell has looked back to his high involvement best this tour, it's probably just come too late for a test cap.

Now you may appraise Nowell and Seymour's performances differently (and I'm not trying to convince you your appraisal is wrong!) but I don't think it's crazy to suggest there is a case for someone else seeing it differently. I certainly don't think there is a wider narrative.

Of course these things are subjective, I was using the example of Nowell V Seymour to highlight how seeminly incidental incidents in the media can culmulatively stack up.  This is compounded by the fact that the beeb dont seem to employ a Scottish representative to contribute to the live feed updates, focusing on national players, in the way that the Scrum V and BBC NI journos do.

For what it's worth, I would have given both Nowell and Seymour equal weighting.  I think you need to also include the fact that after Seymour had forced the intercept, he was immediately up on his feet and supporting Laidlaw to be in the position to take the pop pass.  He also had a couple of other nice involvments, as did Nowell.

He was immediately on his feet because he never goes to ground. He shut the man down, rather than full on tackle him. His timing and positioning were excellent, but anything that followed was absolute bread and butter for a winger (as was his walk in for the second try). Like I said, The actual crossing of the whitewash part does nothing to accentuate his performance for me, and I thought he was quiet. We can disagree on that (and it's really not my point), but I'm just saying I don't think it's scandalous that a paper would rate Nowell as higher. I don't feel there's an anti Scottish agenda by the media, personally.

Thats true, I thought he had gone to ground - still doesn't change the fact that he busted his gut to run an excellent supporting line - not something that has been a strength of our wingers on tour.

I would like your take on the original Beeb article though, Cascough?  Do you think it was balanced?  I don't think there is an implcit agenda against Scotland.  Rather, I think the years we have spent in the relative wilderness has attributed negative connotations to our current players, some of which is fair and some of which is unfair.  North and Seymour both played relatively well, but yet one was lavished with praise and the other resigned to playing his last game on tour.

It is our job to change those opinions, but I think it will be a hard ask.

Does it give fair airtime to North and Seymour? No I don't think it does.

Is what was said about Seymour innacurate? No I don't think it was.

Can I understand why they have chosen to focus on North (big name, played out of position)? Yes, and to be fair there is an accompanying graphic highlighting Seymour as the leading try scorer.

My overriding feeling is that the article (and Rugby Union journalism in general) is mostly crap. There's also an article on the BBC website by Jamie Lyall that incorrectly says Dell was preferred over Nel for a Lions call up. Since Dell went (and has played most of his rugby) as a loosehead, the Nel reference is misleading and irrelevant. It might as well say Dell was preferred to Ali Pryce for a Lions call up. Jamie Lyall works for BBC Scotland and has worked for Scottish Rugby Blog and Scotzine, so I highly doubt he has an agenda against Scottish rugby. If I ever get to watch my team play on TV, I have to endure commentators and analysts who blatantly don't have a clue about championship rugby (they get names, history, positions wrong frequently). I don't take that to mean that there is an anti championship rhetoric though, I just think the media are crap.

Griff wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Griff wrote:
It's the team he would select.  The one he thinks has the best chance of winning.  He picked it after watching the mid week game, live on the pitch side, and changed some starters due to what he saw in the midweek game.  Here's the link to the video:

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/16057/10928771/sir-ian-mcgeechan-selects-british-and-irish-lions-team-for-second-test-v-new-Zealand

Id be interested to know how he justifies the Warburton selection. Not that he is a bad player but his form hasnt been great, maybe if Warburton had a stormer at the breakdown it could be worth it.

Read the link and watch the video!  He says he'd use Faletau and SOB for ball carrying and Warburton for ball winning (on the ground).  I guess he sees him as a good jackal'er.  I'd prefer Tipuric if that's what we needed personally.

I think that's probably fair enough Warburton can be very good at that but he would need to raise his game a few levels from recent form IMO.

Vunipola
Owens              George IMO has been pretty anonomous
Furlong
Henderson        Outstanding all tour and again on Tuesday
Itoji                 X-Facor
Warburton        A need to beef up breakdown
O'Brien
Falatau
Murphy
Sexton             Farrell was way off pace in first test
Teo
Davies
Watson
North               Daly is great going forward but lost defensive shape on two of the three NZ tries
Williams          

robbo277 wrote:Here are the changes I'd make, if I had to pick the squad today:

Vunipola
George
Furlong
Jones Itoje
Kruis Lawes
O'Mahony Stander
O'Brien
Faletau
Murray
Farrell
Daly
Te'o
Davies
Watson
Williams

Owens
McGrath
Sinckler
Itoje Henderson
Warburton Tipuric
Webb
Sexton Biggar
Halfpenny Joseph

Hard with Gatland running a load of these guys into the ground, but I'd pick this team.

The front row and the backs I've left, I think they'll be stronger for having another game together, but I've changed 4, 5 and 6 to try to match the AB's power.

Henderson on the bench can come on at lock or at 6, Tipuric would potentially start if he hadn't played the 80 in midweek. Then backs I've gone with players who have shown more attacking form over the tour to give another option late on.

cascough wrote:

EST wrote:

cascough wrote:

EST wrote:

carlascough wrote:
It's subjective of course, but I don't think that's terribly wide of the mark. The best thing Seymour did was shut his man down (which forced a poor pass which Laidlaw intercepted). I don't think Seymour's crossing of the whitewash really did much to accentuate what was, in my view, another quiet performance. Contrast that to Nowell, and I've seen a fair few clips/acknowledgements of good things Nowell did. After a dodgy first game Nowell has looked back to his high involvement best this tour, it's probably just come too late for a test cap.

Now you may appraise Nowell and Seymour's performances differently (and I'm not trying to convince you your appraisal is wrong!) but I don't think it's crazy to suggest there is a case for someone else seeing it differently. I certainly don't think there is a wider narrative.

Of course these things are subjective, I was using the example of Nowell V Seymour to highlight how seeminly incidental incidents in the media can culmulatively stack up.  This is compounded by the fact that the beeb dont seem to employ a Scottish representative to contribute to the live feed updates, focusing on national players, in the way that the Scrum V and BBC NI journos do.

For what it's worth, I would have given both Nowell and Seymour equal weighting.  I think you need to also include the fact that after Seymour had forced the intercept, he was immediately up on his feet and supporting Laidlaw to be in the position to take the pop pass.  He also had a couple of other nice involvments, as did Nowell.

He was immediately on his feet because he never goes to ground. He shut the man down, rather than full on tackle him. His timing and positioning were excellent, but anything that followed was absolute bread and butter for a winger (as was his walk in for the second try). Like I said, The actual crossing of the whitewash part does nothing to accentuate his performance for me, and I thought he was quiet. We can disagree on that (and it's really not my point), but I'm just saying I don't think it's scandalous that a paper would rate Nowell as higher. I don't feel there's an anti Scottish agenda by the media, personally.

Thats true, I thought he had gone to ground - still doesn't change the fact that he busted his gut to run an excellent supporting line - not something that has been a strength of our wingers on tour.

I would like your take on the original Beeb article though, Cascough?  Do you think it was balanced?  I don't think there is an implcit agenda against Scotland.  Rather, I think the years we have spent in the relative wilderness has attributed negative connotations to our current players, some of which is fair and some of which is unfair.  North and Seymour both played relatively well, but yet one was lavished with praise and the other resigned to playing his last game on tour.

It is our job to change those opinions, but I think it will be a hard ask.

Does it give fair airtime to North and Seymour? No I don't think it does.

Is what was said about Seymour innacurate? No I don't think it was.

Can I understand why they have chosen to focus on North (big name, played out of position)? Yes, and to be fair there is an accompanying graphic highlighting Seymour as the leading try scorer.

My overriding feeling is that the article (and Rugby Union journalism in general) is mostly crap. There's also an article on the BBC website by Jamie Lyall that incorrectly says Dell was preferred over Nel for a Lions call up. Since Dell went (and has played most of his rugby) as a loosehead, the Nel reference is misleading and irrelevant. It might as well say Dell was preferred to Ali Pryce for a Lions call up. Jamie Lyall works for BBC Scotland and has worked for Scottish Rugby Blog and Scotzine, so I highly doubt he has an agenda against Scottish rugby. If I ever get to watch my team play on TV, I have to endure commentators and analysts who blatantly don't have a clue about championship rugby (they get names, history, positions wrong frequently). I don't take that to mean that there is an anti championship rhetoric though, I just think the media are crap.

I agree on it being crap - there is virtually no discussion on in-depth tactics/explantion of attack paterns etc, which doesn't encourage informed debate.

However, you are comparing a stupid mistake by a journo who should know better (Lyall), with a conscious decision to be unbalanced (Gwilliam) - they're not comparable. I'll stop banging on about this, but I feel pretty strongly about this stuff.

Murphy?

Obviously Murray with a typo

Just seen that Tipuric made 24 tackles v Hurricanes, with none missed. That takes him to 59 tackles for the tour - with none missed. I know I'm Welsh and it probably looks like a Welshman pushing for the inclusion of more Welsh players, but thought that was worthy of posting. I would be happy to give the 1st test backrow another shot, for what it's worth. But if they are looking to bring in a 'fetcher' I'd prefer to see Tipuric than Warburton brought in.

Said it all tour. Said it last tour. Tipuric is class and I don't know why gatland doesn't rate him.

He's an excellent rugby player. There's a misconception that he doesn't do the dirty work of an openside, but he does.

To me Tips seems a quiet guy who goes unnoticed by many, but his work rate is top class and should get more game time.


I'd start him at 7 to be honest


Perhaps he should be vocal and demand a start.

As an England supporter, I'd happily take Tipuric over any England flanker, and especially over a lacking-form Warburton.

I like Tipuric. I feel he's struggling to shake off a perception of someone who does the flashier stuff well but shies away from some of the more nitty-gritty work. That might have been a fair criticism a couple of years ago, but I think he's really worked on those weaknesses and would be a worthy pick now.

In a way, similar to Hogg's perceived weakness in defence.

Probably because Tips spent too long avoiding flanker duties, he was preferring to play on the wing. More often not he'd been underwhelming in a Wales jersey. That's not the case this season though, he's very good in all areas.

He's the most complete loose forward in the NH in my view, the kind we desperately need more of if we're ever going to catch up with the ABs.

Physical, fast, skilled, as at home in a slick back-line running play as jackaling against front-rowers, smart rugby brain.

No surprise Gatland doesn't rate him I suppose.

I'd have picked Stander and Tipuric at 6 and 7 for this test. With them both having done 80 in midweek though, I'm now not so sure about this, and would pick Stander and O'Brien with Tipuric on the bench.

Is anyone surprised the man who picked Alun Wyn Jones over Maro Itoje can't see how good Tipuric is

Some of Gatlands picks are simple baffling. It is not even that it is Welsh bias - as he is picking out of form Welsh over in form and deserving Welsh players

I really think he has an issue in adapting his thinking and picks favorites and sticks with them (which is good for a while, but can go too long)

Tips is too small for Gatlands ideal of a back row?

Only changes are Naholo to the wing and Laumape to the bench for the injured Smith and Crotty. Glad they picked this team rather than shuffling Barrett to FB to keep Dagg on wing.

All Blacks team to play the British and Irish Lions in the second test:

15. Israel Dagg
14. Waisake Naholo
13. Anton Lienert-Brown
12. Sonny Bill Williams
11. Rieko Ioane
10. Beauden Barrett
9. Aaron Smith
8. Kieran Read (c)
7. Sam Cane
6. Jerome Kaino
5. Sam Whitelock
4. Brodie Retallick
3. Owen Franks
2. Codie Taylor
1. Joe Moody

Reserves: Nathan Harris, Wyatt Crockett, Charlie Faumuina, Scott Barrett, Ardie Savea, TJ Perenara, Aaron Cruden, Ngani Laumape.

Tips is too small for Gatlands ideal of a back row?

Tips is too small for Gatland's ideal of a winger.

Isn't the Lions team meant to be out by now?

mikey_dragon wrote:Isn't the Lions team meant to be out by now?

8am tomorrow I believe

carpet baboon wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Isn't the Lions team meant to be out by now?

8am tomorrow I believe

No, in the early hours, about 1.30 apparently

Furlong
Best
McGrath
Kruis
Lawes
O'Brien
Warburton (Tipuric really but who are we kidding)
O'Mahony
Webb
Sexton
Daly
T'eo
Davies
Watson
Williams

Marler
George
Vunipola
Itoje
Henderson
Murray
Farrell
Seymour

Mobile aggressive pack and high tempo half-backs to start. Front rows grouped by country and a bench to close a game if in position. I think the Lions need to get ahead of NZ ala Ireland in Chicago. Chasing down this team is not far off impossible.

BamBam wrote:Is anyone surprised the man who picked Alun Wyn Jones over Maro Itoje can't see how good Tipuric is

Lol, no I'm not surprised at all.

Lions: Liam Williams; Anthony Watson, Jonathan Davies, Owen Farrell, Elliot Daly; Johnny Sexton, Conor Murray; Mako Vunipola, Jamie George, Tadhg Furlong, Maro Itoje, Alun Wyn Jones, Sam Warburton (capt), Sean O’Brien, Taulupe Faletau.

Replacements: Ken Owens, Jack McGrath, Kyle Sinckler, Courtney Lawes, CJ Stander, Rhys Webb, Ben Te’o, Jack Nowell.

Does AWJ have compromising pictures of Gatland or something???