Lions 2013 Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

Grimebox · 01-07-2013 04:25PM

A lot of other sites are saying Alun Wyn Jones for captain

.ak · 01-07-2013 04:33PM

subfreq wrote: »

Agreed, but in the new findings they are opening themselves up to interesting ground there because it is a whole new can of worms.

Under that ruling you could revise the Healy decision;

In Healy's case it was clearly accidental biting but the IRB would appeal on the grounds of recklessness as even though we all accept Healy's explanation you should never bite in any circumstances? (I think that would be ridiculous but it is the road this goes down)

It quickly becomes legally wonkish because It's not an isolated incident. It is the first time an independent decision in a citing to find a player innocent is being appealed and every innocent decision going forward or any incident regarding accidental head contact will be held up against how they word the ruling on this.

I think the ramifications of the ruling are quite broad for rugby going forward and I am certainly not making these points in defence of Horwill, I just think it is an important moment in how the IRB operate.

I don't think Healy bit at all... Is there such thing as accidental biting?

Anyway, the issue at hand is the issue of recklessness and how it's defined. Healy couldn't be reckless for letting someone else put their hand in his mouth. If anything the scrumhalf was reckless for his use of his hand around another players face. A couple of inches up and he could've been in the dock for accidental gouging.

.ak · 01-07-2013 04:33PM

Grimebox wrote: »

A lot of other sites are saying Alun Wyn Jones for captain

I'd be happy with that. Level headed chap who puts his body on the line.

... So long as BOD plays.

sydthebeat · 01-07-2013 04:34PM

subfreq wrote: »

In Healy's case it was clearly accidental biting .

without going back over old ground, but in healys case there was NO evidence of biting... accidential or otherwise.

subfreq wrote: »

It quickly becomes legally wonkish because It's not an isolated incident. It is the first time an independent decision in a citing to find a player innocent is being appealed and every innocent decision going forward or any incident regarding accidental head contact will be held up against how they word the ruling on this.

I think the ramifications of the ruling are quite broad for rugby going forward and I am certainly not making these points in defence of Horwill, I just think it is an important moment in how the IRB operate.

maybe... but i think its much more about the IRB bringing back in the ethos that the head is sacrosanct and every effort should be made to avoid contact. Horwills incident is just so blatently reckless (at best) that, in my opinion, they need to get this message to these independent adjudicators and they have chosen this method to do it.

wonderfullife · 01-07-2013 04:40PM

jamiedav2011 wrote: »

Was this after the second test?

By the way, Lydiate as captain?!

it was just after Halfpenny missed the kick to win the series.

Great image and shows the team spirit and speaks highly as to Sextons character.

As for Lydiate as Captain, i know it's a bit of a curveball but he was handed the captaincy last week and did well. If BOD isn't Captain, it would look a straight choice between AWJ and Lydiate (unless Sexton is the curveball).

.ak · 01-07-2013 04:43PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

it was just after Halfpenny missed the kick to win the series.

Great image and shows the team spirit and speaks highly as to Sextons character.

As for Lydiate as Captain, i know it's a bit of a curveball but he was handed the captaincy last week and did well. If BOD isn't Captain, it would look a straight choice between AWJ and Lydiate (unless Sexton is the curveball).

Parling was going to captain that team so it doesn't really translate into much. I would say it's a toss up between BOD and AWJ. No other stand outs.

Sexton may be considered as he's the only really nailed on starter now, aside from the back three but they never get the armband and rightly so.

wonderfullife · 01-07-2013 04:47PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

i wouldnt be in the least surprised if gatland drops BOD and reverts to a roberts / davies partnership.

add to that a back row of lydiate / tipuric and faletau....

I can't see it.

BOD will start, he will Captain and we'll probably win.

Fairytale stuff hopefully.

But no way he's being dropped.

Faletau i could see a case for, Tipuric less so.

It's time for the DOC and BOD to re-unite on the big stage and give it 1 more masterclass in the centre.

wonderfullife · 01-07-2013 04:48PM

.ak wrote: »

Parling was going to captain that team so it doesn't really translate into much. I would say it's a toss up between BOD and AWJ. No other stand outs.

Sexton may be considered as he's the only really nailed on starter now, aside from the back three but they never get the armband and rightly so.

Oh i know i just meant more the fact Lydiate did take the Captaincy and he led from the front, so he would have to enter the conversation if BOD is not given it (which i think is almost automatic).

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 04:51PM

fitz wrote: »

If that's what happens, I think it will be another instance of a coach letting Drico's legacy down. Kidney ruined BOD's last crack at the World Cup stage, and Gatland is doing his damnedest to make sure he does the same with this Lions tour.

If the Lions have are to have any chance, they need to stop trying to defend their way to a win.

I rest my case. What you're saying is that if the Lions lose it's all Gatland's fault for letting BOD down. Gatland has a lot to answer for with his turgid tactics in the weekend, but the players have to bear some responsibility too: they have the option to play what's in front of them, and not stick rigidly to some pre-defined plan.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 04:57PM

Podge_irl wrote: »

If players can appeal bans I see no reason why the IRB shouldn't be able to.

Yes Podge...except that it was the IRB (as far as I understand) who appointed the original citing commissioner in the first place. It's a bit like if we met on the street and you recognized me as the annoying prick from boards and landed me a punch. I lay a complaint, but the judge rules that given the above the punch was justified. I cop it on the chin (so to speak), and move on, but the court that appointed the judge doesn't like his decision, so appoints a new judge. How on earth can the new judge be impartial?

The aggrieved party wasn't the IRB it was AWJ & the Lions who asked the citing commissioner to review the incident in the first place. It should have been AWJ & the Lions to appeal the decision IMO, not the IRB.

I just can't possibly see how Horwill can get a fair hearing, when the decision seems preordained by the IRB.

.ak · 01-07-2013 05:00PM

Le vieux renard wrote: »

Yes Podge...except that it was the IRB (as far as I understand) who appointed the original citing commissioner in the first place. It's a bit like if we met on the street and you recognized me as the annoying prick from boards and landed me a punch. I lay a complaint, but the judge rules that given the above the punch was justified. I cop it on the chin (so to speak), and move on, but the court that appointed the judge doesn't like his decision, so appoints a new judge. How on earth can the new judge be impartial?

The aggrieved party wasn't the IRB it was AWJ & the Lions who asked the citing commissioner to review the incident in the first place. It should have been AWJ & the Lions to appeal the decision IMO, not the IRB.

I just can't possibly see how Horwill can get a fair hearing, when the decision seems preordained by the IRB.

I dunno, if said court felt the judge was incompetent somehow then I would feel a lot better that they did appoint a new judge.

subfreq · 01-07-2013 05:02PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

without going back over old ground, but in healys case there was NO evidence of biting... accidential or otherwise.

It was almost too annoying to type it myself but it is the can of worms I believe this opens.

sydthebeat wrote: »

maybe... but i think its much more about the IRB bringing back in the ethos that the head is sacrosanct and every effort should be made to avoid contact.

So we all agree here but then, Owen Farrell took half an ear off a player in the Reds game...

sydthebeat wrote: »

Horwills incident is just so blatently reckless (at best) that, in my opinion, they need to get this message to these independent adjudicators and they have chosen this method to do it.

I guess at the risk of boring all and sundry I really strongly agree with this but when you strip away the sentiment because of the heat of the series you have a precedent that I think will jump up more than we all might expect.

I'll leave it at that.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 05:05PM

.ak wrote: »

I dunno, if said court felt the judge was incompetent somehow then I would feel a lot better that they did appoint a new judge.

Well, did the IRB actually release how they critiqued the original report? If they got a qualified lawyer to write a report, fine, but if a few of the lads sat round drinking Johnnie Walker and muttering that they didn't very much like this colonial lad getting off, and well best call up our mate from British Colombia to make the right ruling...then I wouldn't be too pleased.

As an aside, unlike a few on this forum, I would have exactly the same opinion if Brian or Sean were up for a second hearing.

wonderfullife · 01-07-2013 05:08PM

I think it's very important to put any criticism of BOD in context.

Apart from North, how many of our backline made linebreaks across the 2 Tests? Very few i can recall off hand.

If the backline was getting lots of go-forward ball and BOD was playing poorly in a functioning backline, then ok i'd get it. That's not the case here.

He's collossal in defence as well.

What we need is a change at 12 or a change of game plan if he's intent on sticking with JD-BOD.

I'd go with:

15 Halfpenny
14 Bowe
13 BOD
12 Roberts
11 North
10 Sexton
9 Phillips (if fit - Murray if not)
8 Heaslip
7 SOB
6 Lydiate
5 Parling
4 AWJ
3 AJ
2 Youngs
1 Corbisiero

We simply need some variation off the bench as well and there has to be some sort of big call made on the 23 shirt. Whether it's Zebo, Kearney, even Wade - we need something different if the game is on the line with 10 mins to go and we need pace, guile, creativity. A man to put his hand up and do something brilliant.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 05:12PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

I think it's very important to put any criticism of BOD in context.

Apart from North, how many of our backline made linebreaks across the 2 Tests? Very few i can recall off hand.

If the backline was getting lots of go-forward ball and BOD was playing poorly in a functioning backline, then ok i'd get it. That's not the case here.

He's collossal in defence as well.

What we need is a change at 12 or a change of game plan if he's intent on sticking with JD-BOD.

I'd go with:

15 Halfpenny
14 Bowe
13 BOD
12 Roberts
11 North
10 Sexton
9 Phillips (if fit - Murray if not)
8 Heaslip
7 SOB
6 Lydiate
5 Parling
4 AWJ
3 AJ
2 Youngs
1 Corbisiero

We simply need some variation off the bench as well and there has to be some sort of big call made on the 23 shirt. Whether it's Zebo, Kearney, even Wade - we need something different if the game is on the line with 10 mins to go and we need pace, guile, creativity. A man to put his hand up and do something brilliant.

Unless Gatland or the players take it into their hands to go out and play attacking rugby, choosing different players is just rearranging deckchairs on the titanic.

I was really hoping the cream of the NH players could show they can play attacking rugby, but so far no, and the Australians although better in this regard made handling errors last weekend that would make a schoolboy blush.

Hopefully, the 3rd test will be a much better quality affair.

wonderfullife · 01-07-2013 05:19PM

Le vieux renard wrote: »

Unless Gatland or the players take it into their hands to go out and play attacking rugby, choosing different players is just rearranging deckchairs on the titanic.

I was really hoping the cream of the NH players could show they can play attacking rugby, but so far no, and the Australians although better in this regard made handling errors last weekend that would make a schoolboy blush.

Hopefully, the 3rd test will be a much better quality affair.

To be honest i was just hoping they could go and win the series. Whatever style of rugby.

There's an argument to be made that we could actually do better playing a more traditional NH game. The maul has been under-used and when we have got it going it's been very effective.

Sexton playing flat and attacking the gainline isn't working because he's getting slow ball. So again, there's an argument for him dropping into the pocket and playing a territorial game more akin to O' Gara.

We either get quicker ball off better setpiece or we adapt. We're caught between 2 stools. We are trying to play an attacking, expansive game based on power yet the ball is too slow and the power game is easily shut down when a defence has time to line-up effectively.

So, yeah, quicker ball or play behind them. I'd take Sexton over O' Connor to win a territorial game.

Volvic12 · 01-07-2013 05:20PM

I'd go with the following on Saturday:

15 Halfpenny
14 Bowe
13 BOD (just)
12 Tualagi
11 North
10 Sexton
9 Phillips (if fit - Murray if not)
8 Falentau
7 SOB
6 Lydiate
5 Gray
4 AW Jones
3 Adam Jones
2 Hibbard
1 Corbisiero

16. Youngs 17. Vuinopola 18. Cole 19.Croft 20.Tipuric 21. Youngs 22. Farrell 23. Hogg/Zebo

We need an improvement in the scrum. Corbisiero and Hibbard should improve that. Also the lineout needs improvement. Gray might help here (I know he has alot of weaknesses but he can be good in the loose and he is a great lineout option.
Tualagi is needed to make punch holes and make breaks and Hogg or Zebo on the bench to offer a bit of pace with 20minutes to go.
I would also like to see us counter-attack now and again. Halfpenny just launches one kick after the next.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 05:24PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

To be honest i was just hoping they could go and win the series. Whatever style of rugby.

There's an argument to be made that we could actually do better playing a more traditional NH game. The maul has been under-used and when we have got it going it's been very effective.

Sexton playing flat and attacking the gainline isn't working because he's getting slow ball. So again, there's an argument for him dropping into the pocket and playing a territorial game more akin to O' Gara.

We either get quicker ball off better setpiece or we adapt. We're caught between 2 stools. We are trying to play an attacking, expansive game based on power yet the ball is too slow and the power game is easily shut down when a defence has time to line-up effectively.

So, yeah, quicker ball or play behind them. I'd take Sexton over O' Connor to win a territorial game.

NB: The maul can be attacking rugby...mindless Garyowens and aimless crash-ball from the ineffectual Davies is not.

Buer · 01-07-2013 05:25PM

The one guy I wouldn't leave out if we're looking to improve the line out is Parling. He took four line outs on his own ball and had a huge impact in two defensive line outs on our own 22. He got up in front of the catcher and got a good hand on both and the ball down to Genia was totally ruined. By the time the back line was passed the ball, they'd lost 20m each time. It's not stealing the line out but it's very effective and he has put more pressure on the Australian line out than the rest of the pack put together in two tests.

Buer · 01-07-2013 05:27PM

Le vieux renard wrote: »

NB: The maul can be attacking rugby...mindless Garyowens and aimless crash-ball from the ineffectual Davies is not.

The maul is one weapon they have got to use regularly. The Aussies don't know how to handle it and Horwill will be a big loss in the defence of it if he's gone. Australia have had to infringe on it nearly every time it has been used.

sydthebeat · 01-07-2013 05:29PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

To be honest i was just hoping they could go and win the series. Whatever style of rugby.

There's an argument to be made that we could actually do better playing a more traditional NH game. The maul has been under-used and when we have got it going it's been very effective.

Sexton playing flat and attacking the gainline isn't working because he's getting slow ball. So again, there's an argument for him dropping into the pocket and playing a territorial game more akin to O' Gara.

We either get quicker ball off better setpiece or we adapt. We're caught between 2 stools. We are trying to play an attacking, expansive game based on power yet the ball is too slow and the power game is easily shut down when a defence has time to line-up effectively.

So, yeah, quicker ball or play behind them. I'd take Sexton over O' Connor to win a territorial game.

we are????

how can we do that if our 10 only passes the ball 11 times during the game?

if thats the game plan we are trying to implement we are failing miserably... i see no game plan other than one which results in static one out runs and lumpy garryowens.

Volvic12 · 01-07-2013 05:30PM

Buer wrote: »

The one guy I wouldn't leave out if we're looking to improve the line out is Parling. He took four line outs on his own ball and had a huge impact in two defensive line outs on our own 22. He got up in front of the catcher and got a good hand on both and the ball down to Genia was totally ruined. By the time the back line was passed the ball, they'd lost 20m each time. It's not stealing the line out but it's very effective and he has put more pressure on the Australian line out than the rest of the pack put together in two tests.

I agree with you. He was the hardest person to leave out. He had a very good game the last day. Huge tackle count also. Can't see AWJ getting left out and just feel Gray could offer something different.
I think Heaslip has played well but Falentau could provide more go forward ball. Him and O'Brien could punch a few holes in the Aussie defence.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 05:31PM

Buer wrote: »

The maul is one weapon they have got to use regularly. The Aussies don't know how to handle it and Horwill will be a big loss in the defence of it if he's gone. Australia have had to infringe on it nearly every time it has been used.

NZ teams haven't been too flash in that regard either. SAs are probably the best maulers in the world.

As an aside this I see on the Guardian's website

Brian Moore
Don’t blame Vunipola for the penalties, blame the referee

Sigh: when the Aussie scrum gives away penalties it's because they're crap, when Vunipola does it, it's the refs fault. Phinging Wom.

sydthebeat · 01-07-2013 05:33PM

Buer wrote: »

The maul is one weapon they have got to use regularly. The Aussies don't know how to handle it and Horwill will be a big loss in the defence of it if he's gone. Australia have had to infringe on it nearly every time it has been used.

i wouldnt entirely agree ... i think rob simmons coming in is more than capable in defence.
horwills main absence, if hes out, will be his leadership.... his physicality will be well replaced by simmons.

Buer · 01-07-2013 05:40PM

Simmons is a big man but I don't think he has the level of impact that Horwill has nor the brain. It's a rough comparison but I'd liken Horwill's impact in the thinking aspect for Australia to Cullen for Leinster. Horwill knows when it's on, knows how to get away with things, slithers around the side with his puppy dog face (who? me?) and backs it all up with serious power. Simmons has the power and bulk in terms of stopping it front on but not sure he has the level of smarts that Horwill brings when it comes to disrupting.

Lelantos · 01-07-2013 05:46PM

Are we taking it as a foregone conclusion that Horwill gets banned? I'm not so sure he will.

Swiwi. · 01-07-2013 05:51PM

Lelantos wrote: »

Are we taking it as a foregone conclusion that Horwill gets banned? I'm not so sure he will.

And leave the IRB with egg on its face? What would they do - appeal again? I will be shocked if he gets off. I would love to know what is meant by "the IRB" in this instance.

Tox56 · 01-07-2013 05:56PM

Le vieux renard wrote: »

NB: The maul can be attacking rugby...mindless Garyowens and aimless crash-ball from the ineffectual Davies is not.

I haven't seen the game back but I thought tactical kicking was one of the better parts of the Lions performance. It was generally pinpoint accurate and Oz didn't handle it particularly well, the main issue that it seemed to be the only way we could gain territory

Thinking about it now how on earth were we leading with 5 mins to go? We offered nothing in attack, had a mediocre set-piece and Aussies were just as accurate with the boot as we were. Again without analysing it I'd say our tactical kicking was a big part in that.

Lelantos · 01-07-2013 06:00PM

Le vieux renard wrote: »

And leave the IRB with egg on its face? What would they do - appeal again? I will be shocked if he gets off. I would love to know what is meant by "the IRB" in this instance.

I think if they find him guilty it's probably worse. It looks bad because they didn't like the result the first officer gave them, it smacks of external pressure being brought to bear. And I cannot see the Aussies accepting it, they will appeal straight away, they have to imo

Rightwing · 01-07-2013 06:01PM

I'd say AWJ will be captain, Gatland has always gone with forwards.

Quinny had an interesting read on the Lions, basically saying most fans are only there for the beer and a party.

Lions 2013 Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

Comments