No Wilko, as predicted by me yonks back. The return of Dallyglo, Dawson, Hill and Back.
Backs: I Balshaw (England and Leeds) - it's official - he's SCW's love child G Murphy (Ireland and Leinster) J Robinson (England and Sale Sharks) G Thomas (Wales and Toulouse) S Williams (Wales and Neath-Swansea Ospreys) J Lewsey (England and Wasps) S Horgan (Ireland and Leinster) D Hickie (Ireland and Leinster) T Shanklin (Wales and Cardiff Blues) B O'Driscoll (Ireland and Leinster, capt) G Henson (Wales and Neath-Swansea Ospreys) O Smith (England and Leicester) G D'Arcy (Ireland and Leinster) W Greenwood (England and Harlequins) S Jones (Wales and Clermont Auvergne) R O'Gara (Ireland and Munster) C Hodgson (England and Sale Sharks) M Dawson (England and Wasps) - oh goody. A Marshall wannabee. D Peel (Wales and Llanelli Scarlets) G Cooper (Wales and Newport Gwent Dragons) C Cusiter (Scotland and Borders)
Forwards: G Rowntree (England and Leicester) A Sheridan (England and Sale Sharks) M Stevens (England and Bath) G Jenkins (Wales and Cardiff Blues) J White (England and Leicester) J Hayes (Ireland and Munster) G Bulloch (Scotland and Glasgow) S Thompson (England and Northampton) - A Titterrell (England and Sale Sharks) S Byrne (Ireland and Leinster) D Grewcock (England and Bath) - has he ever NOT been sent off in a test in NZ? B Kay (England and Leicester) M O'Kelly (Ireland and Leinster) D O'Callaghan (Ireland and Munster) P O'Connell (Ireland and Munster) M Owen (Wales and Newport Gwent Dragons) R Hill (England and Saracens) - charity case N Back (England and Leicester) M Williams (Wales and Cardiff Blues) L Moody (England and Leicester) S Taylor (Scotland and Edinburgh) M Corry (England and Leicester) L Dallaglio (England and Wasps).
So that's 20 Poms, 11 Paddies, 10 Welsh and 3 Scotch.
At least we're saved from the front page pictures of Back looking all forlorn, little chipmonk cheeks aquiver as he whines about being passed over. Does anybody seriously think Dallaglio, Hill and Back can still foot it with the likes of McCaw, Collins, Soialo, Holah, Mose etc? SCW has played the safety card and has in effect scuppered his chances from the off.
"Greig Blanchett" <greigb@nzrfu.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message news:gank51lto4gfi8ri4tnc0tlecbpghq954v@4ax.com... and has in effect scuppered his> chances from the off.>
--> greig
And the English are arrogant....
Actually I've already said the Lions will win 3 nil, which they will. But Woody will make hard work of what should be an easy task.
"didgerman" <aw990012@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:wrt6e.16067$JO6.3121@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...>
"Greig Blanchett" <greigb@nzrfu.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message > news:gank51lto4gfi8ri4tnc0tlecbpghq954v@4ax.com...> and has in effect scuppered his>> chances from the off.>>
-->> greig>
And the English are arrogant....>
Actually I've already said the Lions will win 3 nil, which they will. But > Woody will make hard work of what should be an easy task.>
I would like to make a wager on this but I guess you are just full of wind
"Will S" <wlsuttonrenove@gmail.com> wrote in message news:425a661c$0$27857$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...>
"didgerman" <aw990012@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:wrt6e.16067$JO6.3121@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...>>
"Greig Blanchett" <greigb@nzrfu.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message >> news:gank51lto4gfi8ri4tnc0tlecbpghq954v@4ax.com...>> and has in effect scuppered his>>> chances from the off.>>>
-->>> greig>>
And the English are arrogant....>>
Actually I've already said the Lions will win 3 nil, which they will. But >> Woody will make hard work of what should be an easy task.>>
I would like to make a wager on this but I guess you are just full of wind>
I'll be betting as usual, I suggest you do the same...
At least we're saved from the front page pictures of Back looking all> forlorn, little chipmonk cheeks aquiver as he whines about being> passed over. Does anybody seriously think Dallaglio, Hill and Back can> still foot it with the likes of McCaw, Collins, Soialo, Holah, Mose> etc? SCW has played the safety card and has in effect scuppered his> chances from the off.
O'Connor the suprise omission for me. He's the best openside they've got, from what I've seen -- granted, that's a tenth of what those resident in the creaking old isles would have seen.
At least we're saved from the front page pictures of Back looking all>> forlorn, little chipmonk cheeks aquiver as he whines about being>> passed over. Does anybody seriously think Dallaglio, Hill and Back can>> still foot it with the likes of McCaw, Collins, Soialo, Holah, Mose>> etc? SCW has played the safety card and has in effect scuppered his>> chances from the off. >
O'Connor the suprise omission for me. He's the best openside they've > got, from what I've seen -- granted, that's a tenth of what those > resident in the creaking old isles would have seen.>
-- rick boyd
I am afraid that the age and experience vs. youth and ethusiasm might have worked in 2003 [just] but it won't work in 2005.
<Does anybody seriously think Dallaglio, Hill and Back can still foot> it with the likes of McCaw, Collins, Soialo, Holah, Mose etc? >>
Your trouble is you subscribe too easily to the ludicrous NZ doctrine> of recent times which seems to be that players are over the hillonce> they reach 25, let alone 30. The proof of the pudding will be in the> eating...
"Greig Blanchett" <greigb@nzrfu.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message news:gank51lto4gfi8ri4tnc0tlecbpghq954v@4ax.com...> No Wilko, as predicted by me yonks back. The return of Dallyglo,> Dawson, Hill and Back.>
Backs:> I Balshaw (England and Leeds) - it's official - he's SCW's love child> G Murphy (Ireland and Leinster)
"Greig Blanchett" <greigb@nzrfu.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message >news:gank51lto4gfi8ri4tnc0tlecbpghq954v@4ax.com...>> No Wilko, as predicted by me yonks back. The return of Dallyglo,>> Dawson, Hill and Back.>>
Backs:>> I Balshaw (England and Leeds) - it's official - he's SCW's love child>> G Murphy (Ireland and Leinster)>
When did Murphy leave Leicester??>
Something I don't know ?? >
Cheers,>TJ>
Cut and pasted from BBC website. Don't shoot the messenger!
In message <gank51lto4gfi8ri4tnc0tlecbpghq954v@4ax.com>, Greig Blanchett <greigb@nzrfu.NOSPAM.com> writes>Does anybody seriously think Dallaglio, Hill and Back can still foot it >with the likes of McCaw, Collins, Soialo, Holah, Mose etc?
NO!!!!!!
SCW has played the safety card and has in effect scuppered his chances >from the off.
It's an effin joke. -- Pete Devlin [{//////news03//////at\\\\\secondrow/////co\\\\\uk}] "Mind the oranges Marlon!"
"rick boyd" <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote in message news:425a752a@quokka.wn.com.au...> Greig Blanchett wrote:
At least we're saved from the front page pictures of Back looking all>> forlorn, little chipmonk cheeks aquiver as he whines about being>> passed over. Does anybody seriously think Dallaglio, Hill and Back can>> still foot it with the likes of McCaw, Collins, Soialo, Holah, Mose>> etc? SCW has played the safety card and has in effect scuppered his>> chances from the off.
O'Connor the suprise omission for me. He's the best openside they've got, > from what I've seen -- granted, that's a tenth of what those resident in > the creaking old isles would have seen.
On what equally relatively little I've seen, O'Connor is THE glaring omission. Not that I'd drop Back for him. That would still leave the squad with only two genuine opensiders. Admittedly, Moody & Hill have worn 7; Hill with distinction for the Lions, but that was 4 years ago. If Back & Williams were both clearly superior to O'Connor then maybe his omission could be defended, but that's a brave judgment given NZ's array of backrow talent. Williams has thrived recently with Wales who play a wide opensider-friendly game while O'Connor had injury problems with Ireland who disappointed.
Perhaps Clive was inspired by the backrow the Bulls fielded against the Crusaders (Wannenburg/Cronje/Leonard) but an oppositely unbalanced backrow (like one contaning Smith & Waugh or Betsen & Magne) would be a preferable imbalance with the ABs in mind. It's not as if the Lions will lack height or grunt at tight 5 and no.8.
In article "didgerman" <aw990012@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Greig Blanchett" <greigb@nzrfu.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message > news:gank51lto4gfi8ri4tnc0tlecbpghq954v@4ax.com...> and has in effect scuppered his chances from the off.>
And the English are arrogant....>
Actually I've already said the Lions will win 3 nil, which they will.
Given your record of predictions I'd be worried if I was a Lions supporter. At least you were right about BOD!
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:49:17 +1200, Paul Kendall <paulkendall@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
In article "didgerman" <aw990012@hotmail.com> wrote:>
"Greig Blanchett" <greigb@nzrfu.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message >> news:gank51lto4gfi8ri4tnc0tlecbpghq954v@4ax.com...>> and has in effect scuppered his chances from the off.>>
And the English are arrogant....>>
Actually I've already said the Lions will win 3 nil, which they will. >
Given your record of predictions I'd be worried if I was a Lions >supporter. At least you were right about BOD!
Yep. First time the Lions will be captained from the bench, apparently.
<Does anybody seriously think Dallaglio, Hill and Back can still foot>>it with the likes of McCaw, Collins, Soialo, Holah, Mose etc? >>>
Your trouble is you subscribe too easily to the ludicrous NZ doctrine>>of recent times which seems to be that players are over the hillonce>>they reach 25, let alone 30. The proof of the pudding will be in the>>eating...>
Will you want custard with that humble pie?
Come on Sean. It's only Uncle Dave. Remember "England will dominate international rugby in the forseeable future"?
Uncle Dave wrote:> FOR the foreseeable future. And they will. Jeez Rick at least our> blip has only lasted a year or so - yours has been going on since 1987> so cut us some slack willya?
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:01:21 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote:
Uncle Dave wrote:>> FOR the foreseeable future. And they will. Jeez Rick at least our>> blip has only lasted a year or so - yours has been going on since 1987>> so cut us some slack willya?>
Who's world number one again?>
...and all of a sudden, IRB rankings are important again.
...and all of a sudden, IRB rankings are important again.
IRB rankings are AN indicator. They are not the world championship, they are not the world cup. But they do require a demonstrated record of success over a lengthy period.
Can't make up your mind, can you, rick?
Don't worry about my mind, A Dave, you've got plenty on your hands with your own.
Seeing issues in simplistic black and white would be the area I recommend you deal with first.
The Plague decimated rugby playing populations across Europe> necessitating drastic measures. The average age of the forwards was 63> and the backs 7. Meanwhile, in New Zealand, the government was brought> down when it passed an unpopular law which meant sheep could be named> as co-respondents in divorce cases.
Very good Dave. I recommend this as a template for all future posts. Entertaining reading and so silly that even the most humourless and sensitive Kiwi (anyone hear the tintinnabulation of a penny dropping onto a titanium skull?) could not react with nationalistic outrage.
And in keeping with your immense rugby knowledge, I might add.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:01:21 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au>> wrote:>
Uncle Dave wrote:>>> FOR the foreseeable future. And they will. Jeez Rick at least our>>> blip has only lasted a year or so - yours has been going on since>>> 1987 so cut us some slack willya?>>
Who's world number one again?>>
...and all of a sudden, IRB rankings are important again.>
Greig Blanchett 13 April 2005 15:56:10 [ permanent link ]
On 13 Apr 2005 03:54:12 -0700, "Uncle Dave" <davidcovey@t-online.de> wrote:
[...]>
P.P.S. If I write "Matua" here - he will answer this post even though>he hasn't contributed this far. He searches on his name - isn't that>just too sad for words?
Christ. A begging troll. You've bottomed out, Unc.
Bruce Anderson 14 April 2005 00:23:19 [ permanent link ]
John Cawston wrote:> Bruce Anderson wrote:>
John Cawston wrote:>>
pete devlin wrote:>>>
In message <gank51lto4gfi8ri4tnc0tlecbpghq954v@4ax.com>, Greig >>>> Blanchett <greigb@nzrfu.NOSPAM.com> writes>>>>
Does anybody seriously think Dallaglio, Hill and Back can still >>>>> foot it with the likes of McCaw, Collins, Soialo, Holah, Mose etc?>>>>
NO!!!!!!>>>>
SCW has played the safety card and has in effect scuppered his >>>>> chances from the off.>>>>
It's an effin joke.>>>
So whats he going to do.. get them to lie on the ball all day?>>>
You didn't think they could foot it with you last time either. You >> never do. The series is already won. Start selling the ties and t-shirts.>
Last time I looked it was 34 years since the Lions won a series against NZ.>
JC
this was in response to Hill, Back, Dallaglio not being able to match their NZ counterparts. They seemed to manage when playing in white. You had the same opinion of them then.
In article Bruce Anderson <andersb@f2s.com> wrote:
this was in response to Hill, Back, Dallaglio not being able to match > their NZ counterparts. They seemed to manage when playing in white. You > had the same opinion of them then.
Hill and Dallaglio both played against the ABs in NZ last year with mixed success. Only one of that AB loose forward trio (McCaw) will be playing against the Lions this year. Back will be 2 years older since he last played against McCaw and he's not going to be able to compete with him for speed. I expect Woodward will want to keep the game closer to the forwards where the English trio will be most effective.
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:37:41 +1200, Paul Kendall <paulkendall@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
In article Bruce Anderson <andersb@f2s.com> wrote:>
this was in response to Hill, Back, Dallaglio not being able to match >> their NZ counterparts. They seemed to manage when playing in white. You >> had the same opinion of them then.>
Hill and Dallaglio both played against the ABs in NZ last year with >mixed success. Only one of that AB loose forward trio (McCaw) will be >playing against the Lions this year. Back will be 2 years older since >he last played against McCaw and he's not going to be able to compete >with him for speed. I expect Woodward will want to keep the game closer >to the forwards where the English trio will be most effective.
There seems to be a huge assumption that the back row in tests will be Hill, Back, Dallaglio. Dallaglio's best slot looks to be midweek captain to me, and Hill has a lot of work to do to show he's up to test standard, and very few games to do it in. Corry, Moody and Owen look more likely to start than Hill or Dallaglio to me, and it's an open question whether Woodward and co will go for the more attacking openside skills of Williams, or even the athleticism of Moody.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:54:47 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote:
DaveyWavey wrote:>
...and all of a sudden, IRB rankings are important again.>
IRB rankings are AN indicator. They are not the world championship, they >are not the world cup. But they do require a demonstrated record of >success over a lengthy period.>
Indeed. And they do tend to be "an indicator" of the relative strengths of international teams.
Can't make up your mind, can you, rick?>
Don't worry about my mind, A Dave, you've got plenty on your hands with >your own.>
Seeing issues in simplistic black and white would be the area I >recommend you deal with first.>
In article John Williams <tigerphileNOSPAM@THANKSntlworld.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:37:41 +1200, Paul Kendall> <paulkendall@paradise.net.nz> wrote:>
Hill and Dallaglio both played against the ABs in NZ last year with > >mixed success. Only one of that AB loose forward trio (McCaw) will be > >playing against the Lions this year. Back will be 2 years older since > >he last played against McCaw and he's not going to be able to compete > >with him for speed. I expect Woodward will want to keep the game closer > >to the forwards where the English trio will be most effective.>
There seems to be a huge assumption that the back row in tests will be> Hill, Back, Dallaglio. Dallaglio's best slot looks to be midweek> captain to me, and Hill has a lot of work to do to show he's up to> test standard, and very few games to do it in. Corry, Moody and Owen> look more likely to start than Hill or Dallaglio to me, and it's an> open question whether Woodward and co will go for the more attacking> openside skills of Williams, or even the athleticism of Moody.
Very true, John. All hypotheticals at this stage. The selection of the Lions loose forward trio will indicate how Woodward intends to play against the ABs. I still expect he'll go for size over speed because the ABs will be more than happy playing a wider, fast-paced game. The Otago match might be the first time we see the shadow Lions test XV.
Indeed. And they do tend to be "an indicator" of the relative> strengths of international teams.
They also tend to be, like all statistics, damned lies. To rely on the IRB rankings to say one team is "better" than another is foolish, when the lower ranked team has a recent winning record over the higher ranked team.
In article <paulkendall-E8D022.20595014042005@news.clear.net.nz>, Paul Kendall <paulkendall@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
In article John Williams <tigerphileNOSPAM@THANKSntlworld.com> wrote:
<stuff deleted>>
There seems to be a huge assumption that the back row in tests will be> > Hill, Back, Dallaglio. Dallaglio's best slot looks to be midweek> > captain to me, and Hill has a lot of work to do to show he's up to> > test standard, and very few games to do it in. Corry, Moody and Owen> > look more likely to start than Hill or Dallaglio to me, and it's an> > open question whether Woodward and co will go for the more attacking> > openside skills of Williams, or even the athleticism of Moody.>
Very true, John. All hypotheticals at this stage. The selection of the > Lions loose forward trio will indicate how Woodward intends to play > against the ABs.
I can't believe people seem genuinely surprised that Woodward wants these experienced guys along. Of course we have to hope that he'll be skeptical, and ultimately base his judgment of their merits for Test places on the games in NZ, not on things they did two years ago. But Woodward's insistance on a larger squad allows him more leeway to have a few players who end up being mainly along for the ride. Perhaps they can't cut it, but better to find that out in struggling in a midweek game than to head into the Test match wishing that out of the 44 people, you'd brought along players who could provide more experience.
One only has to look at the longevity of Jason Leonard in the England squad to see the benefits of this approach. Woodward is happy to have people in his squad who can be influential in training and provide input for the coaches and other players, even if their contribution on the field may then be limited to doing a specific job (such as trotting into a RWC Final where England are giving away needless penalities in the scrums and being wise enough to not try anything too clever).
I still expect he'll go for size over speed because > the ABs will be more than happy playing a wider, fast-paced game.
The problem for Woodward in the backrow is that while lots of players have their merits, not one player is certain enough of selection for Woodward to begin to try to figure out which other players to select around them to get the right blend.
Contrast that with midfield, for example, where you have to work out who to pair with O'Driscoll -- and you can then take a look in training and in the early games whether Henson or Greenwood, with their very different attributes, offer more than his familiar partner D'Arcy.
I can't believe people seem genuinely surprised that Woodward wants> these experienced guys along. Of course we have to hope that he'll be> skeptical, and ultimately base his judgment of their merits for Test> places on the games in NZ, not on things they did two years ago. But> Woodward's insistance on a larger squad allows him more leeway to have> a few players who end up being mainly along for the ride. Perhaps they> can't cut it, but better to find that out in struggling in a midweek> game than to head into the Test match wishing that out of the 44> people, you'd brought along players who could provide more experience.
That argument doesn't hold water, because he's left two very experienced campaigners at home in Tom Smith (for two inexperienced props) and Patterson (for a flaky fullback). It's hard to believe that anything else other than nationality was the deciding factor.
One only has to look at the longevity of Jason Leonard in the England> squad to see the benefits of this approach. Woodward is happy to have> people in his squad who can be influential in training and provide> input for the coaches and other players, even if their contribution on> the field may then be limited to doing a specific job (such as> trotting into a RWC Final where England are giving away needless> penalities in the scrums and being wise enough to not try anything too> clever).
Without doubt experience will be a huge benefit on a tour such as this, but as above, it appears that this experience is only valued in English players.
In article <d3m7ka$89e$1$830fa7b3@news.demon.co.uk>, Sean Byrne <byrne_sean_spamtrap_@hotmail.com> wrote:
<<stuff deleted>>
That argument doesn't hold water, because he's left two very experienced> campaigners at home in Tom Smith (for two inexperienced props) and> Patterson (for a flaky fullback). It's hard to believe that anything> else other than nationality was the deciding factor.
I'm not suggesting that Woodward hasn't fallen back on people he is familiar with, I'm just pointing out that the are reasons for him doing so that really shouldn't be too surprising.
As for Smith, he has a long-term injury that means he isn't fit right now and can't be certain when he'll return. There aren't any players in that situation in the squad.
Without doubt experience will be a huge benefit on a tour such as this,> but as above, it appears that this experience is only valued in English> players.
Well I'd guess Woodward's argument would be that as RWC winners and previously successful tourists to the SH, these guys have a different type of experience that he wants to be able to call on.
Ben Clegg wrote:> In article <d3m7ka$89e$1$830fa7b3@news.demon.co.uk>,> Sean Byrne <byrne_sean_spamtrap_@hotmail.com> wrote:>
<<stuff deleted>>>
That argument doesn't hold water, because he's left two very experienced>>campaigners at home in Tom Smith (for two inexperienced props) and>>Patterson (for a flaky fullback). It's hard to believe that anything>>else other than nationality was the deciding factor.>
I'm not suggesting that Woodward hasn't fallen back on people he is > familiar with, I'm just pointing out that the are reasons for him doing > so that really shouldn't be too surprising.>
As for Smith, he has a long-term injury that means he isn't fit right > now and can't be certain when he'll return. There aren't any players in > that situation in the squad.>
Without doubt experience will be a huge benefit on a tour such as this,>>but as above, it appears that this experience is only valued in English>>players.>
Well I'd guess Woodward's argument would be that as RWC winners and > previously successful tourists to the SH, these guys have a different > type of experience that he wants to be able to call on.>
Cheers,>
Ben
Here's a good one. Then why not [hypothetically] recall Neil Jenkins, Scott Gibbs and if they proved their fitness [implausibly] Scott Quinnell and Rob Howley? You'd be thought of as crazy because the torch had long been passed to a new generation of player. Yet if you are a RWC03 and Siege of Wellington *winner* you get on the plane.
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:59:51 +1200, Paul Kendall <paulkendall@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
In article John Williams <tigerphileNOSPAM@THANKSntlworld.com> wrote:
There seems to be a huge assumption that the back row in tests will be>> Hill, Back, Dallaglio.
[...]
Very true, John. All hypotheticals at this stage. The selection of the >Lions loose forward trio will indicate how Woodward intends to play >against the ABs. I still expect he'll go for size over speed because >the ABs will be more than happy playing a wider, fast-paced game. The >Otago match might be the first time we see the shadow Lions test XV.
You might not have seen the following snippets from Gareth Jenkins. It's all media stuff of course, but it might give food for thought:-
"Nationality did not come into it," said Jenkins [selections]. "We did not finalise the squad until last weekend and had numerous meetings. We could consider up to eight players in each position and we did not talk about their countries. It was all a matter of what we were looking for."
Jenkins pointed out that Wales's all-action style took three years to evolve, whereas the Lions have only three months to gel. [...]
"There will not just be one style of play," said Jenkins. "You have to give yourself a number of options. What I would say is that anyone who thinks that the tour will be divided between Saturday and midweek sides, with the Test team operating every weekend, is in for a surprise.
"There will be two teams and pundits will be challenged when they see the first selection and realise how players have been grouped. There will be no clear identification as far as the first Test goes and, if the tour is going to be successful, players have to consider that they have a shout of playing in the internationals until the week before the first one."
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:52:53 -0600, Ben Clegg <b.a.c.l.e.g.g@y.a.h.o.oc.o.m> wrote:
In article <paulkendall-E8D022.20595014042005@news.clear.net.nz>,> Paul Kendall <paulkendall@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
The selection of the >> Lions loose forward trio will indicate how Woodward intends to play >> against the ABs.
[...]
I still expect he'll go for size over speed because >> the ABs will be more than happy playing a wider, fast-paced game.
The problem for Woodward in the backrow is that while lots of players >have their merits, not one player is certain enough of selection for >Woodward to begin to try to figure out which other players to select >around them to get the right blend.
What did you think about the omission of O'Connor, Ben? He looked the most likely candidate to me. Well worth a chance on tour, at least. He doesn't seem to have appeared on (m)any people's list of "most unlucky to miss out", which is a mild surprise to me.
In article <r9ht51puaqvv8m97ar3vp6h9iuv6ofubsq@4ax.com>, John Williams <tigerphileNOSPAM@THANKSntlworld.com> wrote:
<<stuff deleted>>
What did you think about the omission of O'Connor, Ben? He looked the> most likely candidate to me. Well worth a chance on tour, at least. He> doesn't seem to have appeared on (m)any people's list of "most unlucky> to miss out", which is a mild surprise to me.
I wasn't that surprised. I think he's a fine player, but using the type of logic that Woodward seems to have adopted, once Williams hit such tremendous form for Wales the issue becomes exactly what O'Connor offers. If you aren't the form openside from the championship then you need to fit some gamplan better than anyone else.
So under which scenario would he have made the Test side? If it is form alone then Williams gets in, likewise an open gameplan will also see Williams get the call over him, if the key is seen as slowing down All Black ball and organizing the defense then Back will get the place, ball carrying will probably see Moody asked to do a job.
I think O'Connor might even have paid the price because when Woodward ditched Back the replacements like Lipman, and, after Woodward stepped down, Hazell have made so little impact where Back had been so influential.
Plus Ireland didn't exactly give O'Connor a ringing endorsement when they dropped him for Leamy at the start of the championship.
Rationally speaking, I can't say I agree with Hill going, because it usually takes at least a year for a player to hit anything like top form after that type of major knee stuff. But no matter what, Hill has always in Woodward's backrow permutations, and Woodward is probably expecting a repeat of the RWC with Hill slotting straight back in as if he'd never missed a game (conveniently missing the fact that this is not the same thing at all). I just hope Hill defies the odds, but that does seem to be an odd way to select a squad -- but at the same time classic Clive.
It will be really interesting to see what happens at Wasps if O'Connor and Rees are both available next year, though.
Here's a good one. Then why not [hypothetically] recall Neil Jenkins, > Scott Gibbs and if they proved their fitness [implausibly] Scott > Quinnell and Rob Howley? You'd be thought of as crazy because the torch > had long been passed to a new generation of player. Yet if you are a > RWC03 and Siege of Wellington *winner* you get on the plane.
You can't replace experience, not even with silliness. Woodward wants the veterans, the experienced, cunnning old dogs who did the job for him in New Zealand in 2003 with <English mode> gamesmanship, professionalism and playing the ref</English mode> <NZ mode>cheating and foul play</NZ mode>.
In view of the six nations, he'd be mad if he didn't. They've done the job before.
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:36:57 -0600, Ben Clegg <b.a.c.l.e.g.g@y.a.h.o.oc.o.m> wrote:
In article <r9ht51puaqvv8m97ar3vp6h9iuv6ofubsq@4ax.com>,> John Williams <tigerphileNOSPAM@THANKSntlworld.com> wrote:>
<<stuff deleted>>>
What did you think about the omission of O'Connor, Ben? He looked the>> most likely candidate to me. Well worth a chance on tour, at least. He>> doesn't seem to have appeared on (m)any people's list of "most unlucky>> to miss out", which is a mild surprise to me.>
I wasn't that surprised. I think he's a fine player, but using the type >of logic that Woodward seems to have adopted, once Williams hit such >tremendous form for Wales the issue becomes exactly what O'Connor >offers. If you aren't the form openside from the championship then you >need to fit some gamplan better than anyone else.
For me, Williams and Back are at two extremes as attacking and defending 7s. O'Connor fits nicely in the middle with better linking than Back manages (a surprise given his early career), but superior defence to Williams.
[...]
Plus Ireland didn't exactly give O'Connor a ringing endorsement when >they dropped him for Leamy at the start of the championship.
That's the trouble with Woodward, it's extremely hard to follow his thought processes sometimes. Maybe it's his inside information and experience as a coach, but as in the past I often wonder.
[...]
I just hope Hill defies the odds, but that does seem to >be an odd way to select a squad -- but at the same time classic Clive.
It certainly is.
It will be really interesting to see what happens at Wasps if O'Connor >and Rees are both available next year, though.
Rees has looked an excellent prospect when I've seen him this year. It's definitely time for the new wave of opensides to hit town.
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:40:39 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote:
DaveyWavey wrote:>
Indeed. And they do tend to be "an indicator" of the relative>> strengths of international teams.>
They also tend to be, like all statistics, damned lies. To rely on the >IRB rankings to say one team is "better" than another is foolish, when >the lower ranked team has a recent winning record over the higher ranked >team.
Hmmm. So what were you referring to when you said "who's world number one again"? I inferred from that that you meant the IRB world rankings.
But they are one indicator. That is all.>
Seeing issues in simplistic black and white would be the area I >>>recommend you deal with first.>>
Here's a good one. Then why not [hypothetically] recall Neil Jenkins, >> Scott Gibbs and if they proved their fitness [implausibly] Scott >> Quinnell and Rob Howley? You'd be thought of as crazy because the >> torch had long been passed to a new generation of player. Yet if you >> are a RWC03 and Siege of Wellington *winner* you get on the plane.>
You can't replace experience, not even with silliness. Woodward wants > the veterans, the experienced, cunnning old dogs who did the job for him > in New Zealand in 2003 with> <English mode> gamesmanship, professionalism and playing the > ref</English mode>> <NZ mode>cheating and foul play</NZ mode>.>
In view of the six nations, he'd be mad if he didn't. They've done the > job before.>
-- rick boyd
If SCW can claim that for some players a hiatus during 04 and/or 05 is just what the doctor ordered prior to the first Lions vs. NZ tour in 12 years and the first in the fully professional, calendar stuffed era - then so be it. It is too late now. He can't un-select them. I think the inevitable *replacement* players are going to have a much larger say in how the series will be played out than most other factors. I can't see the likes of Titterell and Sheridan stepping up. It is shades of 1993 where the Dirt Trackers are really going to struggle.
"There will be two teams and pundits will be challenged when they see> the first selection and realise how players have been grouped. There> will be no clear identification as far as the first Test goes and, if> the tour is going to be successful, players have to consider that they> have a shout of playing in the internationals until the week before> the first one." >
We'll see!
Exactly. All fine in theory but a top XV will have to emerge by the Otago match (a week before the 1st test - Jenkins says so above) unless Woodward and co expect some players to play twice in a week, or new combinations not to be fully tested on the field prior to the 1st test. The Lions squad members have to believe they all have a chance of playing the ABs but the consensus on here is that some players are destined for the midweek team only. The midweek team in 1993 was very average so putting more emphasis on winning those matches can only be good for squad moral, and the rugby public.
In article Ben Clegg <b.a.c.l.e.g.g@y.a.h.o.oc.o.m> wrote:
I can't believe people seem genuinely surprised that Woodward wants > these experienced guys along. Of course we have to hope that he'll be > skeptical, and ultimately base his judgment of their merits for Test > places on the games in NZ, not on things they did two years ago.
An interesting snippet by John Dawes in my local newspaper on this subject:
"We're not talking about any ordinary test match but a series against the All Blacks. Dallaglio and Back were great players in their day but, having retired they will find it hard to get back in there. When the going gets tough, you wonder about an aging back row and whether they have the legs to meet the demands of a frantic tour. I fear there is a danger they won't be able to last the pace at their age."
History will determine who is right.
But Woodward's insistance on a larger squad allows him more leeway to have a > few players who end up being mainly along for the ride. Perhaps they > can't cut it, but better to find that out in struggling in a midweek > game than to head into the Test match wishing that out of the 44 people, > you'd brought along players who could provide more experience.
In some ways this is also an admission of a lack of faith in your selections. Surely the 6N provided enough evidence on whether a particular player could cut it or not. For example, Haye's scrummaging problems against the likes of France, in particular, seem to have been overlooked. I also find it interesting that Woodward has chosen some English players who were not regulars in Robinson's 6N squad (e.g. Smith over Noon) despite the latter being a member of his Lions coaching staff. I'm not saying that Woodward was wrong but that Robinson clearly thinks differently.
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:35:19 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote:
DaveyWavey wrote:>
Why would I find your rhetoric comforting?>
Vague rhetoric by anyone would surely be familiar and comforting for >you, Wavey. It is your stock in trade. You avoid specifics like the plague.>
That's hilarious, rick. Absolute nonsense of course, as evidenced by ALL of the disputes I've ever had with you on this NG. The truth is actually more like the opposite, where I stick to facts, and you dance around judiciously snipping, evading the point in question, and bandying around insults. This thread is a classic example of all of these silly tactics from you.
That's hilarious, rick. Absolute nonsense of course, as evidenced by> ALL of the disputes I've ever had with you on this NG. The truth is> actually more like the opposite, where I stick to facts, and you dance> around judiciously snipping, evading the point in question, and> bandying around insults. This thread is a classic example of all of> these silly tactics from you.
Funny, that's the exact same opinion I hold of you. Perspective is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:48:21 +0800, rick boyd <boyd@comswest.net.au> wrote:
DaveyWavey wrote:>
That's hilarious, rick. Absolute nonsense of course, as evidenced by>> ALL of the disputes I've ever had with you on this NG. The truth is>> actually more like the opposite, where I stick to facts, and you dance>> around judiciously snipping, evading the point in question, and>> bandying around insults. This thread is a classic example of all of>> these silly tactics from you.>
Funny, that's the exact same opinion I hold of you. Perspective is a >wonderful thing, isn't it?>
Indeed. Fortunately the empirical evidence is on display in this NG, for all to see.
That's hilarious, rick. Absolute nonsense of course, as evidenced by>> ALL of the disputes I've ever had with you on this NG. The truth is>> actually more like the opposite, where I stick to facts, and you dance>> around judiciously snipping, evading the point in question, and>> bandying around insults. This thread is a classic example of all of>> these silly tactics from you.>
Funny, that's the exact same opinion I hold of you. Perspective is a > wonderful thing, isn't it?>
-- rick boyd>
Jeez that Boyd handles pressure like the ABs handle WCs. His only response options when the going gets tough are;
a) call you a poofter/female/both b) run awayyyyyyy c) "Infinity plus one! Nyah nyah!"
I'd easily vote with the DW perspective here. Bubby Boyd snips out more uncomfortable bits than a hospital full of surgeons.
In article <paulkendall-A53CEC.12261316042005@news.clear.net.nz>, Paul Kendall <paulkendall@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
<<stuff deleted>>
Surely the 6N provided enough evidence on whether a > particular player could cut it or not.
For many of the controversial selections (Hill, Back, Dallaglio, Greenwood) I guess the claim would be that they have consistently shown that they can perform at 6N levels and even higher, but that this year they didn't get the chance
For example, Haye's scrummaging > problems against the likes of France, in particular, seem to have been > overlooked.
Haven't you read the British papers? It is apparently a well known fact that they don't scrummage in New Zealand...
Having just watched the Brumbies vs NSW game, let's say you have Mark Lawrence as the referee. At that point you clearly don't need to worry too much about scrummaging because neither side would ever be able to sustain a straight clean drive. You can pick whoever you like at prop, because scrums are going to be lottery anyway.
I also find it interesting that Woodward has chosen some > English players who were not regulars in Robinson's 6N squad (e.g. Smith > over Noon) despite the latter being a member of his Lions coaching > staff. I'm not saying that Woodward was wrong but that Robinson clearly > thinks differently.
Not just thinks differently, but also have very different agendas. Robinson has to have a long term perspective -- thank goodness given his short term failures -- whereas Woodward doesn't have to care about anything but getting a successful team together right now. In your specific example, once Smith came back to fitness, Robinson had to consider continuity of selection and the potential benefits of allowing Noon to develop further.
In article Ben Clegg <b.a.c.l.e.g.g@y.a.h.o.oc.o.m> wrote:
In article <paulkendall-A53CEC.12261316042005@news.clear.net.nz>,> Paul Kendall <paulkendall@paradise.net.nz> wrote:>
<<stuff deleted>>>
Surely the 6N provided enough evidence on whether a > > particular player could cut it or not. >
For many of the controversial selections (Hill, Back, Dallaglio, > Greenwood) I guess the claim would be that they have consistently shown > that they can perform at 6N levels and even higher, but that this year > they didn't get the chance
I was thinking more the likes of Balshaw and Hodgson, in addition to the bolters.
For example, Haye's scrummaging > > problems against the likes of France, in particular, seem to have been > > overlooked. >
Haven't you read the British papers? It is apparently a well known fact > that they don't scrummage in New Zealand...
Only in Paris it appears. I don't expect either side to gain an advantage in the scrum.
