What the Six Nations taught us about the 2013 Lions

To show you how much better the Aus team looks on paper I will create 1 team picked on form of players from the Lions and Wallabies. 1.Jenkins - L 2. Moore -W 3 Alexander -W 4. Horwill -W 5. Gray -L 6. Lydiate -L 7. Pocock -W 8. Palu -W 9. Genia -W 10. Cooper - W 11. Ioane -W 12. OConner - W 13. Roberts - L 14. North - L 15. Beale - W The only good thing going for the Lions will be there depth on the bench. Could be close, but if the game hits a fast pace expect Tries to come thick and fast for the Wallbies.

Ford's throwing has been suspect in the past but hopefully he's put that behind him. I rate him in the tight and the loose. Do not underestimate the galvanising effect that a Lions tour has on the host nation, Henry was right when he talked about "Super-Test" level rugby. I think the Aussies will play above themselves and this will be an awesome series provided the Lions players turn up.

fast developing as the two best number 7's in the world. Richie ageing and Brussow hasn't really improved his game outside pilfering.

Matt Banahan who has some of the best off-loading and try scoring stats in the AP over the past few seasons or another Matt Banahan? Go on then, who should England select at 12 then?

The Lions ought to have decent players in the squad but it's another matter to produce competitive teams. The four different countries have been coached differently, so management has to find a style and combinations which makes use of what they already know, as well as addressing the quality of the opposition. After sharing the 2000 series against South Africa, England went undefeated against all Southern Hemisphere teams until the 2003 World Cup. However, the 2001 Lions under Graham Henry lost to the Wallabies in that period. It was not a happy ship by all accounts. The Welsh players felt abandoned by Henry while the English players felt misused and overtrained. Henry didn't find a way to gel the talents he had available. In the amateur era, tours were lengthy so everyone had a chance to get used to playing with each other. Now, with shorter tours, much more has to be done in pre-tour training. Some players, especially those in France, may not finish their season in time to join, so that can be a problem. The other issue with short tours is that management has to decide quickly who will be the Test team. In a national touring party, that's less of a problem because members usually already know the pecking order and some are in the party for experience. Not so with the Lions, where most players are used to being first choice. The 1993 Lions had a mid-week team with a pretty poor attitude. The 2005 squad had similar problems, partly brought on by the way Woodward actually split the party, creating a two-tier hierarchy instead of a unified group with a single purpose. All in all, far from being favourites, most coaches think the Lions are usually underdogs these days when they tour. Sure, some believe the Home unions don't have the players but most think the challenge of creating a team with so little preparation is the bigger handicap.

the Lions should always be strong, they have the luxury to pick the best of the best from 4countries to play against a single country so they should always be the favourites to win.

That's pretty much the team i would pick (at the moment!) manalien. Although i wouldn't rule out Ross Ford for starting hooker, he looks to have the best overall game to me.

The Wallabies aren't a great team. Great teams don't lose at home to Samoa and England, away to Scotland, Wales, Ireland, England, SA and NZ, and by record margins too. Their Grand Slam tours under Deans have often featured regular capitulations and they have a record 10-0 run to NZ. Great team? You can only make reference to a few games during a four year tenure, and even the away games in SA are heavily flawed as both side decided not to defend for 80 minutes. I've stated that the Wallaby backline has excellent individuals, but as a unit has been poor for four seasons now. Hardly an earth shattering observation. Stop misquoting me.

Aussie backline ran rampant against: France on the Spring tour, in a big big way, to the tune of 50 odd points in 40 mins of football. Sure, France capitulated badly, but that was due to the demoralising effect of constant pressure. How about the tri nations in 2010, the backline was unstoppable for extended periods of the game, only to lose their massive, early leads due to uncommitted and lazy forward play. Or the game in Bloem, the backs shredded the boks, only to throw the lead away and rely on Beale to kick the winner. If any team in the world switches off for even a minute, the WBs backs can score very quickly. See the Welsh game in the RWC. Although I do very much agree with you about the garbage the WBs serve up against inferior opposition. That has always been a problem for the WBs. They play to their opposition rather than playing their own game. While the Wallabies can beat anyone, they won't rack up the types of scores I would like them to rack up. But in answer to your question, yes, the WBs cvertainly have cut a few teams to pieces, however this tends to occur over a period of a match, rather than for whole matches at a time, which is the way it should be. But really, I don't think you're giving the WBs backline enough credit. The WBs are a great team, 2 in rankings and 3rd at the RWC. If their backs are garbage, how did they manage those two feats? How about

People keep referring to the number 2 ranking as if it's some sort of indication that Australia are the second best side in the world, when I think it's widely accepted (by the majority of rugby fans) that there is NZ and then a collection of other sides, hence the losses to England (record), SA (record), Ireland, Samoa and Scotland, not to mention the 10 game losing streak against NZ. When has the Australian backline cut any side to ribbons over the past few seasons? The Australian backline has excellent individuals but under Deans it has consistently failed to produce anything consistent or planned, relying on the individual brilliance of an Ioane, Beale or O'Connor. The 9-10-12-13 interplay has generally been very poor under Deans, and the counter attack has too. Since Deans has been in charge the NZ backline has been far better as a unit, and far more complete in all facets of play. Have people already forgotten the dross we saw against the USA and Italy in the WC, for example?

Ben, I don't think the Wallabies have attained a consistent number 2/3 ranking based on the strength of their forward pack. It is the balance between the forwards AND the backs that allows the Wallabies to succeed. The Aussie game is based on delivering reasonable ball to the backs and allowing them to do their thing, while ensuring the ball is won back and consistently served up well. When this happens, our backs cut anyone to ribbons. However, when the piggies can't serve up ball of sufficient quality, the backs will struggle to score tries, as was seen against Ireland and RSA in the world cup. This isn't a regular occurrence for the Wallabies, but just so happens to be the key to beating them. Take them on in the forwards and their glorious backline will not have a say in the game. So I would argue that Australia has a fairly balanced team as although we are reliant on our backs to win games, our backs are reliant on the piggies to win quality ball in order to play their front foot attacking game. Overall, our great strength is our backline, but this strength can't be utilised without a decent performance from our forwards. ....which all really seems like I'm stating the bleeding obvious here, but Ben S' comment appears to be implying that the Wallabies do not have a strong backline, which is just rubbish. It just vrequires a decent performance from the forwards to be effective. Obviously....

Not that old chestnut. If you think the Wallaby backline has been good under Deans then cool. I've watched them play. Not really sure what I need to say. It's hardly a new theory floating around the Roar. In the WC Australia only managed 3 tries against Ireland, SA, NZ and Wales.

Respectfully, what part of the Wallaby game has lead to a number 2 world ranking, if not the backline? Certainly not the scrummaging, nor the kicking.

The backline hasn't exactly been a shining light during Deans' tenure.

I thought Bowe was pretty exceptional, RF. Fitzgerald didn't set the world alight and was at fault for at least one of the tries off of a set piece during the second Test. 11 was a problem jersey on that tour.

Agreed in part. They're flawed in the areas I mentioned. If the forwards can hang the back will out bang.

The backs were one of the highlights of that 2009 Lions tour. Roberts and BOD gelled immediately as a partnership, Phillips made a real nuisance of himself and Kearney was immense at full back. Jones and O'Gara were workmanlike at flyhalf but slotted the goals and released the back line. We'll draw a veil over O'Gara's late stint as full back. The Lions weren't so lucky with wingers. Bowe was OK but Shane Williams seemed out of sorts and only got a run in the final Test. Monye was preferred but he couldn't finish a couple of crucial chances. I can't remember how Fitzgerald went on tour but Halfpenny was never fully fit.

If i look at it impartially I would seriously doubt the chances of the Wallabies. I feel more confident than I have in years, but granted there is a huge amount of rugby to be played. Technically the Lions could field some of the best forwards in the world, which should guarantee set-piece ball, and they also have a genuine and physical 7 in either Warburton, Barclay or Rennie for the first tour since 1989 (arguably). They will also have some hugely physical players and pace. Potentially this could be the most dynamic and powerful Lions side ever IMO with no journeymen like we saw in 01, 05 and 09. Conversely, going on what we saw during the WC Australia are still a heavily flawed side.

The backs like Phillips, Roberts, O'Driscoll, Bowe and Kearney who were the stars of the show? Must have missed it, I guess...

If he's found guilty then he is going to have a lot of spare time on his hands. As soon as I saw that in the news I just shook my head. Innocent until proven guilty, however.