Lions Announcement - Round 2

First topic message reminder :

Forwards: Tadhg Beirne, Jack Conan, Luke Cowan Dickie, Tom Curry, Zander Fagerson, Taulupe Faletau, Tadhg Furlong, Jamie George, Iain Henderson, Jonny Hill, Maro Itoje, Alun Wyn Jones, Wyn Jones, Courtney Lawes, Ken Owens, Andrew Porter, Sam Simmonds, Rory Sutherland, Justin Tipuric, Mako Vunipola, Hamish Watson.

Backs: Josh Adams, Bundee Aki, Dan Biggar, Elliot Daly, Gareth Davies, Owen Farrell, Chris Harris, Robbie Henshaw, Stuart Hogg, Conor Murray, Ali Price, Louis Rees-Zammit, Finn Russell, Duhan van der Merwe, Anthony Watson, Liam Williams.

It was in injury time as well, which made it all the more frustrating.....

LordDowlais wrote:It was in injury time as well, which made it all the more frustrating.....

If I recall correctly, if he'd made a legal tackle, and the try had been scored, it would have been a demanding conversion, and Wales might still have won.

I remember taking very strongly against Williams after that, which was a real lesson in not jumping to hasty conclusions, or assuming someone can't change his spots. He became a fantastic player, and someone it's always a real pleasure to watch.

That was a good game.

Here is an insight as to why AWJ is captain:-

https://youtu.be/CUkZUMZjSdY

WOL Article:

Rugby Fan wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:It was in injury time as well, which made it all the more frustrating.....

If I recall correctly, if he'd made a legal tackle, and the try had been scored, it would have been a demanding conversion, and Wales might still have won.

I remember taking very strongly against Williams after that, which was a real lesson in not jumping to hasty conclusions, or assuming someone can't change his spots. He became a fantastic player, and someone it's always a real pleasure to watch.

Yes, I agree, Gatland also dropped him for the next few games if memory serves me right, the thing is, if he tackled properly, he would have put the winger into touch anyway. I was fuming at the time.

For me without reading the article he was the obvious choice.

I’ve changed the article to a YouTube link. There was no insight in that article, just pure clickbait and a brief discussion into dialogue.

To allow others to be able to read the "insight", I have added it to the post to save some clicks too.

Selection for the Lions is about individuals not about balancing the different countries.  Yes it may reflect the strengths of the different teams.  This year England were really awful and one or two selections were fortunate or border line but over a longer time period less so.

Tweak the numbers one or two the other way and things look different, so one or two marginal calls make a big impact.  For example not taking Sexton was more about durability than ability.

Collapse2005 wrote:Maybe so but that doesnt explain why he selected 11 English players. He has his reasons and thats fine however after a finish of fifth in the six nations you cant really expect non English media to not point this out.

You wonder how much is down to Gatland. On previous tours, we've heard how Gatland listened to Farrell, Borthwick and Rowntree in selecting England players. There were no such voices this time. While Gatland must have given weight to his previous experience with Farrell, Lawes, Daly, George, Anthony Watson, Itoje and Vunipola, he has never worked with LCD, Hill or Simmonds, and none of those three were obvious selections in the way that a newcomer like Curry was.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:I think by every possible metric England are fairly fortunate to have 11 players selected this time round.

As you've posted about 30 times...........

In reality though, it's not really 11.

England – 11 9

Wales – 10

Ireland – 8

Scotland – 8

As Simmonds hasn't played for England for a number of years and Lawes was injured for the 6N, does that make it any easier to take?

And.....

England won the 6N and the AI competition last year and you could argue that the Saracens players were not match fit for the 6N just passed, that's 5 more players......

England – 9 4

Wales – 10

Ireland – 8

Scotland – 8

Surely you're happy now?

I am trying to understand this, are you serious ,when suggesting that;

1. There's an argument to say that the England head coach and Australian Eddie Jones played unfit Saracen players? Strangely Maitland had an excellent 6Ns
2. That there's really only 4 England players going on tour?

Some fans are purely basing opinions on the recent six nations when selection is a lot more nuanced than that. In 2020 England comfortably beat Wales and Ireland twice apiece on the way to winning both competitions, that won't have been ignored by Gatland. Mako Vunipola is the only English player selected I think is fortunate to be on the plane and even then i'd have selected the available Joe Marler in his place. Short term form isn't as important in Lions selection as long term form.

flyhalffactory wrote:...am trying to understand this, are you serious ,when suggesting that;

1. There's an argument to say that the England head coach and Australian Eddie Jones played unfit Saracen players?

Are you seriously suggesting that Jones hasn't been accused of selecting unfit Saracens players? As far as I can tell, that's one of the most common criticisms of his Six Nations selection policy.

Soul Requiem wrote:Some fans are purely basing opinions on the recent six nations when selection is a lot more nuanced than that. In 2020 England comfortably beat Wales and Ireland twice apiece on the way to winning both competitions, that won't have been ignored by Gatland. Mako Vunipola is the only English player selected I think is fortunate to be on the plane and even then i'd have selected the available Joe Marler in his place. Short term form isn't as important in Lions selection as long term form.

Ah, so the remit been changed this time then.

When the last Lions were picked, because Wales finished 5th in that years 6N, even though we were without our coach, we were told it was a travesty that so many Welsh players had been selected, but when we all pointed out the same players won the GS the year before in mattered not one jot.

Isn't it strange how people use the circumstances to suit their own agendas at time.

LordDowlais wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Some fans are purely basing opinions on the recent six nations when selection is a lot more nuanced than that. In 2020 England comfortably beat Wales and Ireland twice apiece on the way to winning both competitions, that won't have been ignored by Gatland. Mako Vunipola is the only English player selected I think is fortunate to be on the plane and even then i'd have selected the available Joe Marler in his place. Short term form isn't as important in Lions selection as long term form.

Ah, so the remit been changed this time then.

When the last Lions were picked, because Wales finished 5th in that years 6N, even though we were without our coach, we were told it was a travesty that so many Welsh players had been selected, but when we all pointed out the same players won the GS the year before in mattered not one jot.

Isn't it strange how people use the circumstances to suit their own agendas at time.

If you can find any posts by me from four years stating that then go ahead. Your statement only has any semblance of truth if it is the same person changing the remit otherwise it's a pointless generalisation.

For the record I am not unhappy about the squad. I just find it amusing that we can now use past achievements are now par for the course for selection. Although I would have taken Navidi over one of the two English players.

Soul Requiem wrote:Some fans are purely basing opinions on the recent six nations when selection is a lot more nuanced than that. In 2020 England comfortably beat Wales and Ireland twice apiece on the way to winning both competitions, that won't have been ignored by Gatland. Mako Vunipola is the only English player selected I think is fortunate to be on the plane and even then i'd have selected the available Joe Marler in his place. Short term form isn't as important in Lions selection as long term form.

Some fans will be looking at the last 5 international games, you are correct that's pretty narrow. You can argue with the two new coaches both Ireland and Wales could be excused for not doing well in the 2020 6Ns, both Wales and Ireland (it's well documented) were going to use the ANC to develop coaching strategies and bringing rookies or inexperienced players. So, yes England won the 2020 6Ns but not convincingly, yes they won the ANC but at full strength they struggled against mainly a 3rd choice France 23 full of inexperienced youngsters. If you go back any further then we get to the WC final and semi-finals, we know how Wales did and how England did against the Lions opponents then).

It's not unfair to say
Farrell is very lucky to be on the plane
Vunipola and George are fortunate to be on the plane
Lawes even admitted himself he is very lucky....just as an example Navidi should have been on the plane

(I think they are all class players and I'm not unhappy for them to be selected but they are not the form players)

So you are correct we shouldn't just be looking at 2021 for the form book, we should be looking at key moments over the last 2-3 years, we should be looking at potential, we should be looking at experience.

Gatland knows and I am sure he's been told quite clearly by the money men, how important it is to have certain players on the plane and that this tour is to be as much a commercial success as it is a sporting one

LordDowlais wrote:For the record I am not unhappy about the squad. I just find it amusing that we can now use past achievements are now par for the course for selection. Although I would have taken Navidi over one of the two English players.

Yet again your using false equivalence.

Soul Requiem wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:For the record I am not unhappy about the squad. I just find it amusing that we can now use past achievements are now par for the course for selection. Although I would have taken Navidi over one of the two English players.

Yet again your using false equivalence.

It's all still on here if you look, ask 7.5 he found it somewhere.

I found your point that you wouldn't have picked Alun Wyn last time LD, is that what you're referring too?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I found your point that you wouldn't have picked Alun Wyn last time LD, is that what you're referring too?

No.

You really are hard work.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I found your point that you wouldn't have picked Alun Wyn last time LD, is that what you're referring too?

No.

You really are hard work.

What are you after then? I linked the previous 2nd test discussion on here earlier, thats where I picked up your point that no one would have picked Jones.

The link is here if you wanted that? https://www.606v2.com/t65971p200-new-zealand-v-british-irish-lions-1-july

Rugby Fan wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:...am trying to understand this, are you serious ,when suggesting that;

1. There's an argument to say that the England head coach and Australian Eddie Jones played unfit Saracen players?

Are you seriously suggesting that Jones hasn't been accused of selecting unfit Saracens players? As far as I can tell, that's one of the most common criticisms of his Six Nations selection policy.

By whom......only media forum sites or by the low-brow columnists.
I haven't read one serious rugby professional stating that they weren't fit, in fact if anything they had more time with Eddie to work through playing strategy, coaching style, training ground moves. Plus it all falls flat when we look at the performance of Maitland who was top class throughout the 6Ns

However if that is the case and the Saracens players are still not playing top class rugby then why are we taking them to a level up again (SA) when their next games are against the mighty Ampthill, then Coventry etc

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I found your point that you wouldn't have picked Alun Wyn last time LD, is that what you're referring too?

No.

You really are hard work.

What are you after then? I linked the previous 2nd test discussion on here earlier, thats where I picked up your point that no one would have picked Jones.

You know where the info is, so he can ask you, thats all.

The link is above LD. Doesn't alter Soul's point though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The link is above LD. Doesn't alter Soul's point though.

Normally I would expect a thanks for linking it in again.

It's your constant back handed comments. You could have just posted the link without all the AWJ crap.

There is just no communicating with you. Anyway, before I cop a red warning, I'll leave it there.

So is that a thanks then LD? Or a toys out to side step Souls point?

flyhalffactory wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:...am trying to understand this, are you serious ,when suggesting that;

1. There's an argument to say that the England head coach and Australian Eddie Jones played unfit Saracen players?

Are you seriously suggesting that Jones hasn't been accused of selecting unfit Saracens players? As far as I can tell, that's one of the most common criticisms of his Six Nations selection policy.

By whom......only media forum sites or by the low-brow columnists.
I haven't read one serious rugby professional stating that they weren't fit, in fact if anything they had more time with Eddie to work through playing strategy, coaching style, training ground moves. Plus it all falls flat when we look at the performance of Maitland who was top class throughout the 6Ns

However if that is the case and the Saracens players are still not playing top class rugby then why are we taking them to a level up again (SA) when their next games are against the mighty Ampthill, then Coventry etc

Match fit....not fit.

Quite a few of the English players (Youngs/George to name a couple) suggested the lack of match practise could be/was a factor for some of the below par performances.

I would certainly say this was a major factor in the Scotland game and somewhat against Wales. Ireland, I thought we were just outplayed.

The way some posters go on, you would think that England got hammered every game and the players were awful. The Wales and Scotland games were tight and we beat an excellent French side. Only Ireland can claim to have won convincingly imo.

If England had of won the 6N, we'd have probably had 15 or so players....we didn't, so we have less. Its a good result for all really as we have a great balance from all nations.

40-24 is tight?!  Even ignoring for a minute the referee (because that's bound to be brought up) there were 16 unanswered and un-contentious points that took it from 24-24 to 40-24 in the 2nd half.  16 unanswered points is not tight!!!  Although admittedly we may have different definitions of 'tight'.

It's an odd one that Wales game. I discount it due to the ref and officials messing up so badly. Scotland was tight as they forgot to attack and Ireland kicked out arse.

flyhalffactory wrote:By whom......only media forum sites or by the low-brow columnists.

Of the top of my head, Rugby Pass, Brian Moore, Andy Goode, Stephen Jones, Owen Slot, Stuart Barnes, Tom May, Mick Cleary, Clive Woodward, The RFU, Sam Warburton and Kryan Bracken.

I genuinely think it would be harder to find people who don't think the condition of England's Saracens contingent was a factor in this year's Six Nations results, than people who do.

Yeah, I discount all of Wales' losses. Makes it so much easier.

Do you? ok.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you? ok.

Sarcasm.

The Oracle wrote:40-24 is tight?!  Even ignoring for a minute the referee (because that's bound to be brought up) there were 16 unanswered and un-contentious points that took it from 24-24 to 40-24 in the 2nd half.  16 unanswered points is not tight!!!  Although admittedly we may have different definitions of 'tight'.

How true you are, those two wrong calls that resulted in 11 extra points made no difference to the match whatsoever.

Soul Requiem wrote:

The Oracle wrote:40-24 is tight?!  Even ignoring for a minute the referee (because that's bound to be brought up) there were 16 unanswered and un-contentious points that took it from 24-24 to 40-24 in the 2nd half.  16 unanswered points is not tight!!!  Although admittedly we may have different definitions of 'tight'.

How true you are, those two wrong calls that resulted in 11 extra points made no difference to the match whatsoever.

Cheers

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you? ok.

Sarcasm.  

Ah. Makes more sense. A normal loss and one where the offcials didn't know the laws/rules is quite different.

I keep forgetting. Silly of me. You can never actually beat England. There's always some reason why it was not actually a loss for them when the scoreboard suggests something different.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you? ok.

Sarcasm.  

Ah. Makes more sense. A normal loss and one where the offcials didn't know the laws/rules is quite different.

So you won that game, yes?

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you? ok.

Sarcasm.  

Ah. Makes more sense. A normal loss and one where the offcials didn't know the laws/rules is quite different.

So you won that game, yes?  

No. As I said I just discount it as it was such a bizarre performance from the officials. It still sits there in the record books as does the bizarre 1999 game (which I also discount).

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:...am trying to understand this, are you serious ,when suggesting that;

1. There's an argument to say that the England head coach and Australian Eddie Jones played unfit Saracen players?

Are you seriously suggesting that Jones hasn't been accused of selecting unfit Saracens players? As far as I can tell, that's one of the most common criticisms of his Six Nations selection policy.

By whom......only media forum sites or by the low-brow columnists.
I haven't read one serious rugby professional stating that they weren't fit, in fact if anything they had more time with Eddie to work through playing strategy, coaching style, training ground moves. Plus it all falls flat when we look at the performance of Maitland who was top class throughout the 6Ns

However if that is the case and the Saracens players are still not playing top class rugby then why are we taking them to a level up again (SA) when their next games are against the mighty Ampthill, then Coventry etc

Match fit....not fit.

Quite a few of the English players (Youngs/George to name a couple) suggested the lack of match practise could be/was a factor for some of the below par performances.

I would certainly say this was a major factor in the Scotland game and somewhat against Wales. Ireland, I thought we were just outplayed.

The way some posters go on, you would think that England got hammered every game and the players were awful. The Wales and Scotland games were tight and we beat an excellent French side. Only Ireland can claim to have won convincingly imo.

If England had of won the 6N, we'd have probably had 15 or so players....we didn't, so we have less. Its a good result for all really as we have a great balance from all nations.

The Premiership restarting last season with that congested schedule, pausing briefly in November then belatedly starting this season, plus the England players needing stricter bubbles to placate the PRL wasn't a good mix to get players game time for the Six Nations it's fair to say. Picking the Sarries players exacerbated it but the England players at Prem clubs had no club game time either really. A lot of us wanted Lawrence picked for instance but he'd played I think 2 games for Worcester between the ANC finishing and 6N bubble getting together. Not ideal for form or fitness.

A really poor tournament but that doesn't make poor players as Wales proved with their improvement from last year to this one.

I think the England players selected is representative of where the England team is. They had the firepower to reach a RWC final, win the 2020 6N and ANC but also the fragility with key players injured and lacking match sharpness to be pretty dire for much of the 2021 6N. As such key players from the big performances in LCD, Geoorge, Itoje, Lawes, Curry, Farrell and Watson made it but some very good players also missed out such as Sinckler, Underhill, Billy and May.

Personally I wouldn't have picked Daly or Mako but my two of my top choices to replace them would have been May and Marler I think. Huw Jones as a utility back and Cian Healy for his solidity could also fill either spot well though. Had North been fit Daly may well have missed out anyway given he's listed as a centre in the squad announcement.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you? ok.

Sarcasm.  

Ah. Makes more sense. A normal loss and one where the offcials didn't know the laws/rules is quite different.

So you won that game, yes?  

No. As I said I just discount it as it was such a bizarre performance from the officials. It still sits there in the record books as does the bizarre 1999 game (which I also discount).

For me that game proved very little. Amazingly both sides did on occasion produce some good scores (the English tries were good, but I could also be biased) but what sticks in my mind (apart from the obvious stuff) was both teams just playing to get penalties because so often trying to create anything just seemed to invite a whistle.

Overall it was a horrible game won by a Welsh team that outlasted an England that seemed to exhaust itself getting back into contention. With a sympathetic referee it could have been a very good game indeed.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you? ok.

Sarcasm.  

Ah. Makes more sense. A normal loss and one where the offcials didn't know the laws/rules is quite different.

So you won that game, yes?  

No. As I said I just discount it as it was such a bizarre performance from the officials. It still sits there in the record books as does the bizarre 1999 game (which I also discount).

Dare I ask what issues you have with the 1999 game?

The Oracle wrote:40-24 is tight?!  Even ignoring for a minute the referee (because that's bound to be brought up) there were 16 unanswered and un-contentious points that took it from 24-24 to 40-24 in the 2nd half.  16 unanswered points is not tight!!!  Although admittedly we may have different definitions of 'tight'.

Yes, I think it was a relatively tight game. Wales deserved the win, despite the 2 ref blunders but the scoreline flattered them somewhat. I thought this was widely accepted?

Either way, England were the best NH side in 2019 & 2020, that's without question. They've had a poor 6N with some mitigating factors. Do you wipe out the last 2 years because of a few poor games?

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you? ok.

Sarcasm.  

Ah. Makes more sense. A normal loss and one where the offcials didn't know the laws/rules is quite different.

So you won that game, yes?  

No. As I said I just discount it as it was such a bizarre performance from the officials. It still sits there in the record books as does the bizarre 1999 game (which I also discount).

Dare I ask what issues you have with the 1999 game?

We didn't play Wales.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

The Oracle wrote:40-24 is tight?!  Even ignoring for a minute the referee (because that's bound to be brought up) there were 16 unanswered and un-contentious points that took it from 24-24 to 40-24 in the 2nd half.  16 unanswered points is not tight!!!  Although admittedly we may have different definitions of 'tight'.

Yes, I think it was a relatively tight game. Wales deserved the win, despite the 2 ref blunders  but the scoreline flattered them somewhat. I thought this was widely accepted?

Either way, England were the best NH side in 2019 & 2020, that's without question. They've had a poor 6N with some mitigating factors. Do you wipe out the last 2 years because of a few poor games?

Tight for me is a game that goes to the wire. England didn't do anything really in the 2nd half. Hence Wales running away with it. Didn't see it as tight. But just personal opinion I suppose.

On your 2nd point. Why were England 'without question' the best NH side in 2019? Surely you'd have won the 6N that year if you were? Would the grand slam winners not get at least some accolade in 2019 (although I'd never have the audacity to claim that Wales were undoubtedly the best NH team in 2019!). Are you just referring to getting to the WC final? If so, kudos. But I don't think, you can claim the whole year as your own. Did well in that tournament though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you? ok.

Sarcasm.  

Ah. Makes more sense. A normal loss and one where the offcials didn't know the laws/rules is quite different.

So you won that game, yes?  

No. As I said I just discount it as it was such a bizarre performance from the officials. It still sits there in the record books as does the bizarre 1999 game (which I also discount).

Dare I ask what issues you have with the 1999 game?

We didn't play Wales.

Can't tell if you're being funny or no. But, yes you did.

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you? ok.

Sarcasm.  

Ah. Makes more sense. A normal loss and one where the offcials didn't know the laws/rules is quite different.

So you won that game, yes?  

No. As I said I just discount it as it was such a bizarre performance from the officials. It still sits there in the record books as does the bizarre 1999 game (which I also discount).

Dare I ask what issues you have with the 1999 game?

We didn't play Wales.

Can't tell if you're being funny or no.  But, yes you did.

Not being funny. We played a world select 15 that day.

The Oracle wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

The Oracle wrote:40-24 is tight?!  Even ignoring for a minute the referee (because that's bound to be brought up) there were 16 unanswered and un-contentious points that took it from 24-24 to 40-24 in the 2nd half.  16 unanswered points is not tight!!!  Although admittedly we may have different definitions of 'tight'.

Yes, I think it was a relatively tight game. Wales deserved the win, despite the 2 ref blunders  but the scoreline flattered them somewhat. I thought this was widely accepted?

Either way, England were the best NH side in 2019 & 2020, that's without question. They've had a poor 6N with some mitigating factors. Do you wipe out the last 2 years because of a few poor games?

Tight for me is a game that goes to the wire.  England didn't do anything really in the 2nd half.  Hence Wales running away with it.  Didn't see it as tight.  But just personal opinion I suppose.

On your 2nd point.  Why were England 'without question' the best NH side in 2019?  Surely you'd have won the 6N that year if you were?  Would the grand slam winners not get at least some accolade in 2019 (although I'd never have the audacity to claim that Wales were undoubtedly the best NH team in 2019!).  Are you just referring to getting to the WC final?  If so, kudos.  But I don't think, you can claim the whole year as your own.  Did well in that tournament though.

There was another championship that year, at which the favorites were annihilated by England, who came 2nd overall