All Blacks' slow starts make Lions favourites for the first Test

My criticism was not aimed toward you T-Man but towards Warren Gatland. Garland knows only one very narrow style of rugby- Warrenball. It is good for the Lions because it does not involve elaborate back moves with decoys and skill. It is completely based on choosing a bigger, heavier side than your opponent and bludgeoning them to death. Unfortunately for the Lions, the All Blacks play the Springboks twice every season so they are quite use to this tactic. Result: Black wash 3-0.

I think the Lions will be a victim of the relative success of each of the four nations that will be supplying players to the side. That might seem counter-intuitive when it's hard to remember a time when all four Home Unions were so strong. Obviously England with their super streak are leading the way but they are closely followed by the other three: Wales, who could have easily beaten them in their last outing, the All Black-slaying Irish and a resurgent Scotland. This makes for a Lions squad full of quality and real depth across the board. This will also make it doubly hard for Gatland and co to come to terms with who to leave out of the match day 23s in the three Tests. A good problem to have on the face of it but such a surfeit of talent could mean that national combinations are broken up in favour of individual ability, which could prove more trouble than its worth. And it will also invariably have the odd World Class player left right out which could effect squad unity and harmony given the big egos that will be trampled upon. Better a star team than a team full of stars and all that. This series is anything but the Lions to lose.

My point was they'll need to learn about them because the side will be like no side that's played before because of the nature of the Lions. That must provide opportunities to pick weaknesses, especially where combinations are new. Take the backs. The backs will all be learning new calls, new moves and lines in a short space of time. They won't be as rehearsed at them at they'll have little experience of having used them successfully. Where the ABs will pluck several of many proven fine tuned and test winning test plays the Lions will not. The most competitive advantage the ABs have is the uniqueness of what makes the Lions...the need to fit four countries into one team and form a winning combination at short notice. I'd say to suggest there is nothing to learn about a new side that today has never even played together is bordering on naive, but if you think there's nothing to learn here, that's fine.

There is not much to learn T-Man from a Gatland coached team: Big forwards- heavy front row, heavy second row, heavy back row full of big ball carriers. Scrum half and fly half selected for tactical kicking. Big, heavy centers to take crashballs. Outside backs good at high balls and chasing kicks. Scrum for penalties. Lineout drive for penalties. Kick and chase all possession in Lions half. One off forward carriers in All Blacks half. Farrell kicking goals. The End.

Yes I agree, and think that's the biggest consideration, and by giving them the full Blues and Crusaders sides and as you say below, the Maori side, it should help them even more. I think the first test is the only real chance the Lions have. Once the ABs have got their first 80 for the year in they will learn so much about the Lions but even more about themselves, and will be able to apply the screws from there. The every four year thing with the Lions mean they always only ever get one shot with the same team. If they played every year I'd say they'd be a stronger side because then they get some continuity, where now everyone drops the subject for the three years in betwee, and start again.

Looks like the Blues and Crusaders both get their All Blacks for their Lions matches on the 3 and 7 June, the second and third matches of the tour. The remaining three teams do not. With the first test on the 24th it gives the Lions a good couple of outings yet they're too close together to play the same 23 twice, so he could take a probables and possibles approach. The key thing is he should play the likely test key combinations in the same match. Some might think it's a case of the NZ sides trying to wear the Lions down early, but this is a good opportunity for them as well. Best thing for the ABs is probably the Lions win both matches, so an ambush is not on the cards. With the late arrival of some players Gatland will probably play his main side in the later of the two, the Crusaders.

Does look like that but I still agree with the article and much of it really emirates from the on field performances where even in the matches we won convincingly their was so much about the individual Performances and particularly combinations, ball handling etc that were lacking that had we played the average in form Wallabies, Boks or leading NH side we would just as easily have lost. During most of those matches they just looked so out of sorts, despite a sometimes convincing scoreline. it's relevant here because the Lions represent by far the toughest first up test for the season plus they will have had more recent form with the 6 N matches and the leadups to the first test. No other first test up for the year test that much of a jump on the ABs. England should have won that first test a couple of years ago and they had several top players out. So yes they do win ugly but I don't think it's the same sort of ugly as the hanging on there type of ugly you normally get. This is where the side is in top fitness from Super rugby, have been playing very well in terms of skill levels, combinations etc then in the test everything doesn't hang together. Passes get dropped, timing is off, but enthusiasm is high and frustration with not being able to execute as they have been in Super kicks in.

So the poor starting All Blacks are 9 wins and 1 loss in their first test of the season, for a 90% win ratio, the last decade. Am I the only one not getting why this thread even exists? The All Blacks will win ugly in the first test and then win playing champagne rugby the second and third. That is the trend the last decade shows.

On paper 2005 was stronger? No it wasnt. In 2016 4 of the Lions squad was on the short list for player of the year. In 2004 & 2005 there was a combined total of 1. You are looking at names and acting as if greats past their prime and quite frankly out of form made the team better. But 4 Lions being named in the shortlist in 2016 doesnt register? The home nations excelling doesnt register? Maybe if, like in 2005, a player like POC came out of retirement and was selected you would think this team stronger but the truth is that would probably make the team weaker. Maybe if they selected a 36 year old Wilkinson or if they picked Tommy Bowe youd go on name recognition. This Lions squad will have better players. All the evidence suggests that. This team is going to be much stronger on paper because the 2005 squad was one of the worst Ive seen. Old out of sorts greats coming back from retirement and then getting injured doesnt make a team better on paper or in reality. A team full of some of the best in the world that are in their prime and in form trumps name recognition and rose coloured glasses every single time.

Disasterous mitchell era? The Mitchell era was very good and he had an extremely good record. The team had issues but his era was clearly the start of the ABs success. Mitchell took over from Smith and left the team in his last year as good as it was under Henry. 82% is not "disasterous" its excellent considering what he got from Smith (70%). And seriously? 2005 they were recovering from 2003 in which they won the 3 nats and beat SA 3-0 and Aus 2-1? Mitchell ruffled feathers, youre acting as if that was something that it wasnt. Mitchell left the team in a great spot on the park but people didnt like how he did that or that NZ lost to Aus in Aus at the end of the WC. So they label his era as a disaster. It was excellent in terms of history and in terms of turning the team around.

Yes I knew you were picking particular games. That was my point.

Clearly I need to repeat myself. The team sent in 2005 was not good. It had old players past their best that didnt end up contributing much at all. Some came out of retirement or put retirement off because there were no quality players to replace them. But, as I said, most of the players listed got injured and hardly played a match let alone a test. Their individual nations were losing badly and often to anyone out of the 6 nats. Today the nations involved are beating SANZAR teams unlike in 2004. They were great players but they were not in 2005. This year you have Farrell, Vunipola and Itoje who all featured on world player of the year lists. The team is stacked with depth and quality in most positions with players in their prime. They dont need to pick players like a 36 year old Back because they have more options. The squad will be better and the team will be better. I picked Eng to clean sweep Aus, I picked Ire to win a test in SA too. Im wondering, did either of you or did you look at history and quote that? Thats right, the squad hasnt been named....neither has the ABs squad so lets not start having 2 sets of rules here.

Based on what NZ have lost so many 1st tests of the season? There is 0 statistical evidence to back this up

Yep totally agree Tman. Your comment about the Lions side being picked on representation to please all nations, rather than building on a already successful team (England) and making changes to only the positions where the class difference is obvious is on point. Jones would have to be coach in this scenario as you say, because he is the clear point of difference to the success of the team. In saying that, I think the Lions should have good representation of all nations, so Wales, Scotland, Ireland fell a stake it it as well, but reality is, this does not make a better team. It is like uniting NZ/SA/AUS as a team where there is a attempt to be fair to all 3 nations, and expect them to play as well as the ABs and AUS/SA in the years they have been on top of their game. Won't happen. The unity from club level to international, good coaching as well as the pride in your country, will always be a greater force to be reckoned with. Well that my opinion anyway, but no matter what side of the fence you sit on, the Lions series is going to be awesome.

Yes agree with the England comment Pinetree. England AND Jones I believe would make a stronger case because they have learnt some hard lessons, have learned to toil with the edge and have stuck through the tough areas together, batting deep with the injury levels. Jones simply has a belief based on real results that Gatland never has had. His biggest victory was the Lions over Oz when they could have easily ben down 2-0, and that wasnt a very stron Wallaby side. Jones has knocked the ABs out of a World cup, has defied the odds with japan over the Boks and did what NO ONE predicted last year- an unbeaten run with England. Thats why I like Neutrals 'England' or 'Ireland' Lions side. I would pick the English squad, then only replace one or more players with a non English player if the other candidate were 'clearly' superior and would fit in ideally to an England based squad not only in playing ability but in his ability to gel and thrive with the team under Jones.. I would also limit the number I'd replace to about 8 or 9 at most, otherwise you lose the core of what England have achieved in 12 months. Now I dont expect many to go along with that, particularly Irish, Scottish or Welsh fans, understandably so, but fairness in selection across the board to appease the fans is no way to select a side, and no matter who you select, you get disharmony somewhere anyway. Also, I'd have Jones as well... :-)