Lions 2017 [MOD WARNING IN OP]

.ak

Maybe it was just the lack of sleep, but I thought AWJ had a horror show? Surprised Kruise is being the one that's dropped.

Buer

.ak wrote: »

Maybe it was just the lack of sleep, but I thought AWJ had a horror show? Surprised Kruise is being the one that's dropped.

They both did. AWJ had a poor game and was rightly called ashore probably even earlier than planned. Kruis was having an equally poor game. Very loose and error filled. But he was running the line out and remained on the field.

It will be a big issue if they're dropping Kruis and POM. It will be interesting to see who is running the line out tomorrow morning. If it's Lawes, I hope that's an indication that he's coming straight into the test side.

Jump_In_Jack

https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2017/0625/885454-gatland/

Gatland' view on where they need to improve, basically need more direct and physical players.
Reading between the lines,
Warburton and Itoje will start.
Lions are looking for more physical players in lock and back row, Tuesday is an opportunity to put a hand up.
Sounds like Henderson, Lawes, Haskell, Stander are the types of players he might be looking to bring in.
Wyn Jones is the least fit of the second rows, so that should rule him out.

No problem with Itoje coming in anyway.

POM, would find it interesting. Thought he'd a much better game against NZ than against the Maori, but the latter gets him test captaincy while the former gets him dropped.

sydthebeat

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2017/0625/885454-gatland/

Gatland' view on where they need to improve, basically need more direct and physical players.
Reading between the lines,
Warburton and Itoje will start.
Lions are looking for more physical players in lock and back row, Tuesday is an opportunity to put a hand up.
Sounds like Henderson, Lawes, Haskell, Stander are the types of players he might be looking to bring in.
Wyn Jones is the least fit of the second rows, so that should rule him out.

i though that was the basis on which he selected most of his forward pack to go on tour in the first place?
perhaps he is looking for something he doesnt have.

BoardsMember

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2017/0625/885454-gatland/

Gatland' view on where they need to improve, basically need more direct and physical players.
Reading between the lines,
Warburton and Itoje will start.
Lions are looking for more physical players in lock and back row, Tuesday is an opportunity to put a hand up.
Sounds like Henderson, Lawes, Haskell, Stander are the types of players he might be looking to bring in.
Wyn Jones is the least fit of the second rows, so that should rule him out.

And therein is the problem with the Lions having a midweek match after the tests start. Ideally Lawes, Stander, Tipuric and Henderson would not be in any way involved midweek. All focus should be on playing a game against New Zealand on Saturday, not some meaningless game on Tuesday.

So you have a fresh NZ team resting Sunday and Monday, then training all week to peak against Lions next weekend. Against a Lions squad that is at the end of a long gruelling season, and they can't focus on the next test until Wednesday. Not only that, but they have two players on the bench that played 80 minutes against the best team in the world 4 days earlier. It's bananas.

Professor Moriarty

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2017/0625/885454-gatland/

Gatland' view on where they need to improve, basically need more direct and physical players.
Reading between the lines,
Warburton and Itoje will start.
Lions are looking for more physical players in lock and back row, Tuesday is an opportunity to put a hand up.
Sounds like Henderson, Lawes, Haskell, Stander are the types of players he might be looking to bring in.
Wyn Jones is the least fit of the second rows, so that should rule him out.

Itoje and Lawes in the second row with Henderson on the bench. Probably won't happen but if Gatland wants athleticism and aggression then that's what should happen.

If POM isn't considered to be direct and physical then Gatland won't pick him considering they are his main attributes. Again, if he's looking for athleticism and aggression then Stander should start with Warburton on the bench. Tough on POM but radical changes might make a difference. Probably won't happen either.

letowski

I don't think Warburton is that much more of a physical player that POM. He is not the type that will be dominant in contact in the tight exchanges either where the Lions were beaten. He will make more of a contribution around the breakdown alright, where Cane was on top. But with the Lions so blunt in attack they need a good line out, so there's going to be trade off's especially in Kruis loses out too.

It doesn't matter now, but Launchbury's omission is looking like a bad one, he is one of the best players in the British Isles in the tight. Anyway, I think Lawes should be under serious consideration next weekend.

irishbucsfan

letowski wrote: »

I don't think Warburton is that much more of a physical player that POM. He is not the type that will be dominant in contact in the tight exchanges either where the Lions were beaten.

That's exactly the type of player that Warburton is

aloooof

Buer wrote: »

The Independent and IT both reporting this morning that POM is set to be one of the fall guys for the second test with Warburton coming in to the team.

Harsh on POM but it makes sense. Warburton is the superior breakdown player and that was a problem for the Lions. I'd be concerned about losing out at the line out though. Itoje will have to come in and I'm not sure if AWJ is retained either. I'd bring Lawes straight in given his athleticism and aggression/borderline illegality.

If POM is dropped, there's a big question mark over whether it's from the starting side or the 23. He isn't a massive bench player and that area could be better served by Stander or Tipuric who is being completely overlooked by many. NZ clearly decided to not contest and instead focus on neutralising our maul threat.

I'm going to guess the front row survives in tact which is somewhat fortunate for Furlong who really needs to step up his performance levels after a very underwhelming opening test showing.

I'd agree with this, thought POM played well but with NZ not contesting (m)any lineouts, he becomes less important to have on the pitch in that regard. NZ clearly decided to not contest our lineouts and instead go after our maul threat. Though I seem to remember him disrupting some of their lineout ball as well.

Lions seemed to struggle to slow down NZ ball (whether that was down to NZ being off their feet alot is open to debate) but Warburton probably offers more there.

BoardsMember

letowski wrote: »

I don't think Warburton is that much more of a physical player that POM. He is not the type that will be dominant in contact in the tight exchanges either where the Lions were beaten. He will make more of a contribution around the breakdown alright, where Cane was on top. But with the Lions so blunt in attack they need a good line out, so there's going to be trade off's especially in Kruis loses out too.

It doesn't matter now, but Launchbury's omission is looking like a bad one, he is one of the best players in the British Isles in the tight. Anyway, I think Lawes should be under serious consideration next weekend.

Lawes will presumably be missing out at least one day of crucial pre-game training session while resting after Tuesday's game. And it would mean him playing two games in 5 days.

Also, if POM makes way for Warburton & Kruis also missing (or playing 3 games in 8 days?), we then have 2 new players in the lineout. One of the few things that went well last Saturday could implode with 2 changes and one player not available to train til Thursday.

I'm not at all confident. Always felt that last Saturday was Lions best chance at a win. I can see Lions losing by 25+ this time around as fatigue inevitably takes a toll, and NZ improve.

Jump_In_Jack

letowski wrote: »

I don't think Warburton is that much more of a physical player that POM. He is not the type that will be dominant in contact in the tight exchanges either where the Lions were beaten. He will make more of a contribution around the breakdown alright, where Cane was on top. But with the Lions so blunt in attack they need a good line out, so there's going to be trade off's especially in Kruis loses out too.

It doesn't matter now, but Launchbury's omission is looking like a bad one, he is one of the best players in the British Isles in the tight. Anyway, I think Lawes should be under serious consideration next weekend.

Agree there,
Looking up the big second rows around Britain and Ireland,
These 3 are all injured, but would hqave been options otherwise.
Luke Charteris
Richie Gray
Jake Ball

These three would really have helped up the physical stakes.
Jonny Gray
Joe Launchbury
Devin Toner

Edit: Quinn Roux is another big lump too.

aloooof

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Agree there,
Looking up the big second rows around Britain and Ireland,
These 3 are all injured, but would hqave been options otherwise.
Luke Charteris
Richie Gray
Jake Ball

These three would really have helped up the physical stakes.
Jonny Gray
Joe Launchbury
Devin Toner

Dev was in a poor run of form so understandable omission, but nothing of the like can be said of Launchbury.

Webbs

As a collective the front five had a pretty off day.
Kruis lost ball at crucial times and that can knock any go forward or continuity. The impact of both second rows at ruck time didnt seem to be there and I dont think Itoje improved this when he came on.
They will keep one of either Kruis or AWJ, (who I thought got a knock early on and didnt look right afterwards) for the second test.

I was dubious of Henderson before the tour but I think he has got better and better his physicality has been really noticeable, I would think it will be a toss up between him and Lawes for a bench spot next week.

The lack of impact from the front five put the backrow on the backfoot pretty much all the time, its hard to compete if you have to run around the back of a ruck first. Maybe Warburton would edge this facet of play over POM and slow ball down getting him a start next week.

so for me a back 5 of

Itoje,
AWJ/Kruis,
SOB,
Warburton,
Faletau.

Bench
POM
Henderson

Jump_In_Jack

Would be great to see the physicality of this pack,
Vunipola, Best, Furlong,
Lawes, Kruis,
Itoje, O'Brien, Stander,

George, McGrath, Sinckler, Henderson, Haskell

Buer

There's a very distinct trend in the second row options that Gatland brought. They're all big guys who are extremely athletic and mobile, able to play a fast paced game. The one notable exception is AWJ who is the only one who falls into the work horse category. He's a Gatland favourite and, on his day, is a world class player but not in the same mould as the others.

I suspect guys like Toner, Launchbury and Gray were never in the mix for selection. They're massive units and have good hands but they simply don't have the speed or mobility to play a fast rucking, quick ball game. Itoje and Lawes are the men for such a job.

Whether that's right or wrong, I don't know. We've seen what a Toner type player can bring against NZ with big work rate and a maul/line out specialist. Gatland has elected to go a different route and to try and fight fire with fire. The problem on Saturday was that the Lions were simply out muscled. Of all teams, you cannot beat NZ if you do not dominate them physically and make next to no mistakes. The Lions were physically beaten up and made multiple straightforward errors. Other teams will fluff those chances (see Australia blowing several against Ireland in November); NZ will not.

BoardsMember

Buer wrote: »

There's a very distinct trend in the second row options that Gatland brought. They're all big guys who are extremely athletic and mobile, able to play a fast paced game. The one notable exception is AWJ who is the only one who falls into the work horse category. He's a Gatland favourite and, on his day, is a world class player but not in the same mould as the others.

I suspect guys like Toner, Launchbury and Gray were never in the mix for selection. They're massive units and have good hands but they simply don't have the speed or mobility to play a fast rucking, quick ball game. Itoje and Lawes are the men for such a job.

Whether that's right or wrong, I don't know. We've seen what a Toner type player can bring against NZ with big work rate and a maul/line out specialist. Gatland has elected to go a different route and to try and fight fire with fire. The problem on Saturday was that the Lions were simply out muscled. Of all teams, you cannot beat NZ if you do not dominate them physically and make next to no mistakes. The Lions were physically beaten up and made multiple straightforward errors. Other teams will fluff those chances (see Australia blowing several against Ireland in November); NZ will not.

This was when they were without Brodie Retallick & Sam Whitelock, our pack would have had very different challenge on their hands if they had been available. These guys are immense, two all-time quality second rows. The idea seemed to be doing the rounds that Lions could dominate NZ in the tight/front 5 was fairly ambitious.

molloyjh

BoardsMember wrote: »

This was when they were without Brodie Retallick & Sam Whitelock, our pack would have had very different challenge on their hands if they had been available. These guys are immense, two all-time quality second rows. The idea seemed to be doing the rounds that Lions could dominate NZ in the tight/front 5 was fairly ambitious.

He went pretty well against them in 2013 too. 4 years ago I know, but the same opposition.

CatFromHue

Just thinking back but I don't think Dev has ever had a bad game against the AB's, even when he got his first caps he played well against them

Jump_In_Jack

Buer wrote: »

There's a very distinct trend in the second row options that Gatland brought. They're all big guys who are extremely athletic and mobile, able to play a fast paced game. The one notable exception is AWJ who is the only one who falls into the work horse category. He's a Gatland favourite and, on his day, is a world class player but not in the same mould as the others.

I suspect guys like Toner, Launchbury and Gray were never in the mix for selection. They're massive units and have good hands but they simply don't have the speed or mobility to play a fast rucking, quick ball game. Itoje and Lawes are the men for such a job.

Whether that's right or wrong, I don't know. We've seen what a Toner type player can bring against NZ with big work rate and a maul/line out specialist. Gatland has elected to go a different route and to try and fight fire with fire. The problem on Saturday was that the Lions were simply out muscled. Of all teams, you cannot beat NZ if you do not dominate them physically and make next to no mistakes. The Lions were physically beaten up and made multiple straightforward errors. Other teams will fluff those chances (see Australia blowing several against Ireland in November); NZ will not.

Joe Launchbury and Jonny Gray are both very energetic locks though.
Either one could have been brought instead of AWJ.

Buer

BoardsMember wrote: »

This was when they were without Brodie Retallick & Sam Whitelock, our pack would have had very different challenge on their hands if they had been available. These guys are immense, two all-time quality second rows. The idea seemed to be doing the rounds that Lions could dominate NZ in the tight/front 5 was fairly ambitious.

No doubt. They were a huge loss for NZ. They missed a trick by trying to stick a square peg into a round hole with Kaino at lock. It had a knock on impact of weakening their second row and their back row.

Anecdotally, a former test player was involved in a jolly over to Chicago for the game acting as a guest tour guide/dinner speaker etc. He had been speaking to those involved in the team and, supposedly, Chicago was the game they were targeting. The coaching team reckoned that game was their opportunity as they knew NZ were set to be weakened.

A couple of test careers died that day.

Webbs

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Would be great to see the physicality of this pack,
Vunipola, Best, Furlong,
Lawes, Kruis,
Itoje, O'Brien, Stander,

George, McGrath, Sinckler, Henderson, Haskell

Problem with that is they would get destroyed on the ground and with pace around the park. Not too mention the number of lost lineouts :-)

bilston

.ak wrote: »

Maybe it was just the lack of sleep, but I thought AWJ had a horror show? Surprised Kruise is being the one that's dropped.

Kruis was as bad as I've ever seen him. I thought AWJ was marginally better. The second row is an area of real strength so both players could be at risk.

bilston

Regards the breakdown Ferris did make a good point about Rory Best after the 1st test. It probably came from the wrong person though as he can be easily dismissed as being biased. However Best would make a big difference to the breakdown and the scrum as well. The downside is he is prone to the odd f*** up on the lineout and doesn't have the dynamism of George or Owens. But I can't help but feel he has been dismissed (re:the test side) a little too easily on this tour.

sydthebeat

bilston wrote: »

Kruis was as bad as I've ever seen him. I thought AWJ was marginally better. The second row is an area of real strength so both players could be at risk.

not with lawes and henderson starting this week

which ever one is hooked off after 45 mins could start on saturday

edit: if both AWJ and Kruis was in trouble of being dropped, we would have seen Hill starting with one of laws / hendo, and awj / kruis benching

Buer

bilston wrote: »

Regards the breakdown Ferris did make a good point about Rory Best after the 1st test. It probably came from the wrong person though as he can be easily dismissed as being biased. However Best would make a big difference to the breakdown and the scrum as well. The downside is he is prone to the odd f*** up on the lineout and doesn't have the dynamism of George or Owens. But I can't help but feel he has been dismissed (re:the test side) a little too easily on this tour.

Best would be a good addition to the team. It's not going to happen, though. It's a big loss given his strength in the tight. He's great at slowing the ball down, holding carriers up for a second and putting a little bit of hurt on the opposition.

George is dynamic and has a massive work rate but doesn't have that raw physicality to force an arm wrestle to his side.

Purely from a suitability perspective, I'd go with Best. It would require a very good line out performance though. If he had a wobbly day, he would be hammered by all.

Bazzo

Buer wrote: »

Best would be a good addition to the team. It's not going to happen, though. It's a big loss given his strength in the tight. He's great at slowing the ball down, holding carriers up for a second and putting a little bit of hurt on the opposition.

George is dynamic and has a massive work rate but doesn't have that raw physicality to force an arm wrestle to his side.

Purely from a suitability perspective, I'd go with Best. It would require a very good line out performance though. If he had a wobbly day, he would be hammered by all.

Ken Owens' lineout throwing has been pretty suspect several times throughout the tour and it's supposed to be an area of strength for him.

Jump_In_Jack

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Would be great to see the physicality of this pack,
Vunipola, Best, Furlong,
Lawes, Kruis,
Itoje, O'Brien, Stander,

George, McGrath, Sinckler, Henderson, Haskell

Webbs wrote: »

Problem with that is they would get destroyed on the ground and with pace around the park. Not too mention the number of lost lineouts :-)

Explain that one, how would any of that happen?
Certainly couldn't claim they'd lose more lineouts anyway.

George, Kruis, AWJ and POM out.
Best, Lawes, Henderson & Warburton in.

Keep the ball on the park, no lineouts.

Grand

The real mccoy 91

If pom is to be chopped then kruis has to start on Saturday for the lineouts regardless of what he was like last week he can't be that bad again though itoje and warburton in for awj and pom is probably logical