whatisthejava wrote:Haskell fits the style,
can carry,
can ruck
can run straight into contact
Job done
The only chance the scots of next call ups are hooker and fly half
You're way off the mark Java. Russell has been shocking second half of the season - George Ford next cab off the rank. Brown failed at sarries & failed at Twickenham - he is nowhere near the squad. Hartley next.
I think you have some fair points but my reasoning is the following
RE Russel
Gatland has picked big tacklers over small skilled every time, why would he go for George Ford over Finn Russel, i agree Russel hasnt had a brilliant second half of the season but at the end of the day between him and George Ford one of them will stand in a channel and tackle and the other will get run over, the rest of the squad has been picked to tackle , skill has been removed in favour of tackle grunt
Re Brown v hartley - Gatland doesnt like hartley and Brown fits the mould as much as Hartley, if Owens (only hooker left with a game to play) gets on the plane; Beown has the advantage of being in Oz rather than Argentina, Gatland has used this before, mind u he may well opt for the welsh 3rd choice hooker as he will be in NZ
whatisthejava wrote:Haskell fits the style,
can carry,
can ruck
can run straight into contact
Job done
The only chance the scots of next call ups are hooker and fly half
You're way off the mark Java. Russell has been shocking second half of the season - George Ford next cab off the rank. Brown failed at sarries & failed at Twickenham - he is nowhere near the squad. Hartley next.
I think you have some fair points but my reasoning is the following
RE Russel
Gatland has picked big tacklers over small skilled every time, why would he go for George Ford over Finn Russel, i agree Russel hasnt had a brilliant second half of the season but at the end of the day between him and George Ford one of them will stand in a channel and tackle and the other will get run over, the rest of the squad has been picked to tackle , skill has been removed in favour of tackle grunt
Re Brown v hartley - Gatland doesnt like hartley and Brown fits the mould as much as Hartley, if Owens (only hooker left with a game to play) gets on the plane; Beown has the advantage of being in Oz rather than Argentina, Gatland has used this before, mind u he may well opt for the welsh 3rd choice hooker as he will be in NZ
George Ford is the starting 10 for the best team in the NH over the last two years. He is the next call up. Either way Ford is a smaller guy but the stats do not suggest he's a bad tackler. I've never seen him run over. He's a big game player, when the pressure is on he performs better than Russell.
Same applies to Hartley. Along with George he's been both the captain and the first choice hooker for the best team in the NH for the last couple of years. Brown, like Russell, has crumbled in the big games.
We're far more likely to have a back row (Watson, Barclay), prop (Fagerson) or lock (Gray, Gray) called up before.
Wow. You really do hate some of our players don't you? Hartley is just totally average at everything, though manages to still be average when the pressure is on so I guess that is something.
Ford is also pretty erratic in his own way, though incredibly talented. Hard to say whether having the kicking duties taken away from him avoids seeing some of the issues that Russell gets slated for, like missing touch from penalties.
It's worth bearing in mind Farrel is allowed to miss as many tackles or touchfinders as he likes without any criticism.
Not that I actually disagree with your run down of how Gatland will view potential call ups.
I don't think you know what the word 'hate' means... I think Brown is excellent but the two tests he needed to come through were Eng away & Sarries away. He failed both. Russell is world class one week and awful the next - I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
For the record I think Brown is better than Hartley. I don't think Russell deserves to tour though.
I think once the players are in NZ and the welsh lads are so close at hand Gatland will just keep choosing welshies unless its a second row which will be launchbery
Launch and Robshaw could get the call. Probably will.
If Robshaw gets a Lions call the England are in serious trouble in Arg. If they both get the call,......
Yeah, in retrospect, the fact that the 2005 Lions struggled so hard against what was basically a 3rd choice Argentine side and were lucky to get a draw should've sent alarm bells, but the fact that they were far from convincing against the Bay of Plenty and Taranaki in their first two matches pretty much cemented that it was going to be a shit-show of a tour.
Last edited by cashead on Wed May 31, 2017 8:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
hugh_woatmeigh wrote:Forgot Kyle Sinckler was a lion. Lmao.
I'm a big Sinkler fan (large parts of that are simply for potential ability and for novelty value) but it does seem a bit crazy to me still. It feels like Fagerson is further down the same path, but suffered from actually staring enough games to show his inexperience, at times, while Sinkler got to play the super-sub role in a largely dominant team.
Either way, I'd be much more worried about Fagerson holding up over the course of the tour v Sinkler with the amount of rugby they've played this season. Sinkler should provide some comedy value too.
cashead wrote:Yeah, in retrospect, the fact that the 2005 Lions struggled so hard against what was basically a 3rd choice Argentine side and were lucky to get a draw should've sent alarm bells, but the fact that they were far from convincing against the Bay of Plenty and Taranaki in their first two matches pretty much cemented that it was going to be a shit-show of a tour.
This Barbarians side is pretty weak and very young. It's got no regular Super Rugby players, just a couple of national age group and 7s players.
In contrast in 2005, the BOP team against the Lions featured at least 7 past, future or current test players (2 All Blacks, 3 Tongans and a Fijian). Taranaki put out at least 5 (4 All Blacks, 1 Samoan) as well as a handful of national 7s, age group and Maori reps.
______________________
Dominating the SHMB
======================
I know it's the first game and all and the Lions have only had possession for 1 min but this 'style' is concerning if the goal is to beat the ABs in a few weeks.
cashead wrote:Yeah, in retrospect, the fact that the 2005 Lions struggled so hard against what was basically a 3rd choice Argentine side and were lucky to get a draw should've sent alarm bells, but the fact that they were far from convincing against the Bay of Plenty and Taranaki in their first two matches pretty much cemented that it was going to be a shit-show of a tour.
This Barbarians side is pretty weak and very young. It's got no regular Super Rugby players, just a couple of national age group and 7s players.
In contrast in 2005, the BOP team against the Lions featured at least 7 past, future or current test players (2 All Blacks, 3 Tongans and a Fijian). Taranaki put out at least 5 (4 All Blacks, 1 Samoan) as well as a handful of national 7s, age group and Maori reps.
Regardless of that, the BoP team and the Naki boys at the time were teams that a side with the talent that the '05 Lions had at their disposal should have beaten fairly comfortably.
Can't say I've been impressed with the first 10 minutes of this Lions side either. They're going to have to work hard to even be mediocre.
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
