• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

(Very) early thoughts on the 2017 Lions

I think we risk thinking about props in binaries, good at scrum or loose and never both, nor somewhere in-between.

We don't risk doing it, we are doing it. Have been doing it for some time. Not sure I can be bothered with another go on this merry go round right now.

I am bemused by the idea that Ross is any different to Lee mind. Although, if you want your prop to scrummage and do nothing else, I think I'd prefer Ross over Lee. Problem is Ross is basically dead by now.


The half-backs are more interesting, largely because I've got no idea how the hell that one's going to shake out. Nobody at fly-half feels like they're bolted on to even be part of the squad. I can even see something totally mad like Paddy Jackson or Finn Russell getting the nod with a couple of injuries.

Murray is definitely in pole position for me at scrum-half though. The thing I want most from my half-backs against EnZed is a territorial game. We won't beat them if we're constantly fluffing our exits and struggling to play in the right areas of the pitch. I'm not prepared to sacrifice the ability to get the back line moving to get it but once a half-back has achieved basic competence at that, I'll take the guys with the best decision making and kicking. Which right now on top form is, I think, Murray and Ford.
 
XV

1. McGrath
2. Hartley
3. Nel
4. Itoje
5. Jones
6. Henderson
7. Warburton
8. Faletau
9. Murray
10. Farrell
11. North
12. Henshaw
13. Davies
14. Watson
15. Williams

16. George
17. Vunipola
18. Cole
19. Vunipola
20. O'Brien
21. Webb
22. Ford
23. Hogg
 
Before any decisions on individual players, the question has to be "How are we going to beat the All Blacks?". The coaching team can only pick their squad with a gameplan in mind.

I definitely don't have the answers, but for me a few things stick out:

* accuracy and calmness under pressure
* ability to disrupt opposition ball
* excellent set piece
* physicality
* powerful ball carrying

Of course you also need the athleticism and fitness to go toe to toe when they turn the heat up and a million other things, let's face it you basically have to be close to the perfect rugby team to have a chance! But in my opinion a combination of the above as first principals is a good place to start.
 
Before any decisions on individual players, the question has to be "How are we going to beat the All Blacks?". The coaching team can only pick their squad with a gameplan in mind.

Very wise words!

The ABs are the very best at turning mistakes and inaccuracies into points. So the emphasis has to be on simple, error free rugby, doing the basics well and taking chances when they arise, which is effectively the AB model albeit maybe with a more conservative style. Chucking the ball around willy nillly may result in a spectacular win once in every 100 games, but will get you murdered in the other 99.
 
For me, beating the All Blacks starts at the breakdown. If you can't at least gain parity there, you've lost already no matter what else happens. They'll get too much good ball and you won't get enough.

I also want a strong territorial game. I want two good and intelligent kickers at the half-back position and wingers with strong kick-chase games.

And I want as many outstanding athletes in the team as possible.
 
Going off of Peat's criteria I guess that means Murray-Ford/In-Form Sexton halfbacks and North-Nowell wings.
 
Murray's the 9 choice for me, in-form uninjured Sexton is a shoe-in but I can't see him lasting the season to be honest. I'd go for Ford, unfairly maligned last year and offers an intelligent kicking game along with the best playmaking.

Agree about the breakdown - not necessarily a "proper seven" (groundhog type) but everyone needs good technique, to make good decisions and as many as possible offering raw power. As many people who like to try and get hands on the ball would be nice too, so the likes of Best, Launch, Itoje, Warbs ... dare I say Armitage ... ?

You don't need to steal the ball to be effective at the breakdown, any disruption which slows the ball down and/or necessitates more attackers in the ruck is effective.
 
Are the assistant coaches also being announced on Wednesday?

Do we have any inside info in this regard? Would like to see Borthwick and Townsend involved.
 
Are the assistant coaches also being announced on Wednesday?

Do we have any inside info in this regard? Would like to see Borthwick and Townsend involved.

I think only the Lions head coach is being announced (likely Gatland going by press reports). I'm sure Gatland would then want time to build his team; he will take a sabbatical from the Wales job like he did in 2012-13. I think Townsend has gone on record to say he won't be part of the Lions tour as he is taking over the Scotland Job next June. So that would free up Vern Cotter. Personally would like to see him and Schmidt be Gatland's assistants. The Lions need as much inside knowledge as possible to play the best that they can.
 
If you give Aaron Smith crap ball. Like England has done the last two games we've played them. Then he just willy-nilly kicks away ball possession. He cannot handle ****, slow ball. And the All Blacks struggle when he struggles, mostly.
 
I think only the Lions head coach is being announced (likely Gatland going by press reports). I'm sure Gatland would then want time to build his team; he will take a sabbatical from the Wales job like he did in 2012-13. I think Townsend has gone on record to say he won't be part of the Lions tour as he is taking over the Scotland Job next June. So that would free up Vern Cotter. Personally would like to see him and Schmidt be Gatland's assistants. The Lions need as much inside knowledge as possible to play the best that they can.

I guess it will depend if Vern lands another role between now and then.

The committee also has to think about 'succession planning' especially if there is a good chance that this could be Gatland's last tour as head coach. He assisted Geechs with a view to him potentially taking the top job on the next tour so it'll be interesting if they do something similar this time around. I can see the sense in having a new head coach who has been on a tour and fully gets the whole Lions ethos. It is however difficult to predict who the form coach will be years in advance but it's something they may take into account.
 
Last edited:
The British Lions have the best player base to choose from since i can't remember when.
This will be a very different tour to 2005.
This time around the Lions will be looking for the series victory rather than just surviving the tour.
 
Seems this tour could be even tougher than first thought - it now seems that in the early games against the Super Rugby sides (Blues, Crusaders & Highlanders), the franchises will have access to their All Blacks.
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11703794

I think this might be good for everyone concerned.

The Lions - well, okay, the tour matches will be tougher, but tougher matches are better preparation. In recent years there's been a bit of an untested feel going into the first test, hopefully we'll have a better idea this time round.

Fans - Great for them!

Franchises - Great for them!

All Blacks - Again, match readiness counts. Seeing the enemy before hand will also help.
 
I think this might be good for everyone concerned.

The Lions - well, okay, the tour matches will be tougher, but tougher matches are better preparation. In recent years there's been a bit of an untested feel going into the first test, hopefully we'll have a better idea this time round.

Fans - Great for them!

Franchises - Great for them!

All Blacks - Again, match readiness counts. Seeing the enemy before hand will also help.

Tougher matches also increase the risk of injury and fatigue. Sorry but the tour schedule is just to intense and should never have been agreed.
 
Tougher matches also increase the risk of injury and fatigue. Sorry but the tour schedule is just to intense and should never have been agreed.

I imagine they'll take a larger squad for a tougher tour. Gats is pretty canny, he won't mind putting out a weaker squad and taking a couple of defeats to preserve his best.
 
I imagine they'll take a larger squad for a tougher tour. Gats is pretty canny, he won't mind putting out a weaker squad and taking a couple of defeats to preserve his best.

I hope and don't think Gatland would make the same mistake Woodward made in 2005 when Sir Clive took 45 players and split them between those he would be the mid week team and those who would play for the test side. It was too many and all players chosen should have a chance to play before the 1st test to give them the opportunity to make the test squad of 23. Not doing so would destroy the Lions squad ethos.

37 players is plenty as per last Lions tour. And when injuries/suspensions arise players can be flown in as cover or replacements. For the last one 3 replacements were called in and 6 were called in as cover only; one of those was Shane Williams who was only called in for one of the mid week matches v the Brumbies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_British_and_Irish_Lions_tour_to_Australia.
 
Last edited:
I hope and don't think Gatland would make the same mistake Woodward made in 2005 when Sir Clive took 45 players and split them between those he would be the mid week team and those who would play for the test side. It was too many and all players chosen should have a chance to play before the 1st test to give them the opportunity to make the test squad of 23. Not doing so would destroy the Lions squad ethos.

37 players is plenty as per last Lions tour. And when injuries/suspensions arise players can be flown in as cover or replacements. For the last one 3 replacements were called in and 6 were called in as cover only; one of those was Shane Williams who was only called in for one of the mid week matches v the Brumbies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_British_and_Irish_Lions_tour_to_Australia.

Well that's not entirely true. The midweek side of 2005 was undefeated and played some great rugby. The theory about taking 40 odd players with 2 split sides isn't unthinkable given the crazy tour schedule. Where it can go wrong and where Woodward got it wrong was the selection of the players. If he had got that right the tour might have gone very differently...although he was facing one of the most awesome NZ sides in history.
 
Well that's not entirely true. The midweek side of 2005 was undefeated and played some great rugby. The theory about taking 40 odd players with 2 split sides isn't unthinkable given the crazy tour schedule. Where it can go wrong and where Woodward got it wrong was the selection of the players. If he had got that right the tour might have gone very differently...although he was facing one of the most awesome NZ sides in history.

They in fact drew the 1st warm up match with Argentina and lost one to the NZ Maori; they won the other games but regardless any Lions side is judged on the test matches and the early/mid week matches clearly did not set them up to even compete in the test matches.

3-0 to an awesome NZ aside, I do remember that squad was deeply divided because Sir Clive went in at the beginning with a pre-ordained thinking that the some players were there just to play in the mid week side with no prospect of making the test side. That was a big mistake.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ru...mpbell-Clive-Woodwards-team-left-tatters.html

Interesting perspective from Geech, who was one of the assistant coaches back in 2005.

A Lion himself, Clive was keen to retain some of the old elements of the tour and, to his credit, when he could easily have demanded simply a few Saturday games, plus three Saturday Tests, he decided to retain the midweek games. This immediately created difficulties because he did not want his Test players travelling all over the country in midweek. His answer was bold, effectively creating two Lions parties, with the players dividing into two groups, one for weekend games, the other travelling for midweek fixtures.

There were 51 Lions who played on tour and two enormous management teams. In theory it sounded good but it missed the boat by being far too cumbersome for a five-week buildup to the Tests.

....

Paul O'Connell, who four years later was my captain for the 2009 tour to South Africa, has said that the players never really got to know each other properly because they were always going their separate ways. He also remarked that they were never sure who was who and who did what among the management team.

Some Lions hardly saw each other and others hardly played. The outcome was disastrous — a kind of Test series we had never seen before. It was bitterly disappointing The All Blacks were not as good as we made them look.

The odd thing was we never set down a tour policy, which meant differences in the way the weekend and midweek teams were coached and played. We went through a
number of management strategies, team stuff and flip-chart exercises. Cards kept arriving in the post to motivate us — 'They'll be ready, will you?' was one of many motivational messages.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top