Warren Gatland announced as Lions coach

by GunsGerms Tue 6 Sep - 11:52

First topic message reminder :

Apparently, according to Ian McGeechan anyway Gatland has been given the job again.

by R!skysports Wed 7 Sep - 13:09

I was thinking about sorting a trip to meet some friends over there for the Lions tour - but this has swung my thoughts to why bother. (I suffered 2005 - so why put myself through that again)

It will be a boring slug fest of no creativity (at least from one side)

People like Hogg are not going to be wasted and if Halfpenny comes near this tour (Unless he comes back like a superman), then it will mean I will probably not even watch it

We won in Australia - Yeah - but I can not remember people being so disappointed in a win

It was dire...

by Guest Wed 7 Sep - 13:10

No 7&1/2 wrote:Better balance in the backrow and Warburton was off form. Should never have been picked.

Are you a badger? Stop moving the goalposts. My point had very little to do with the merits of whether Warburton should have played, and everything to do with you releshing the fact a player was seriously injured for the apparent marginal (and debatable) improvement of the team, and in doing so you can wind up the partisan Welsh posters on here. That's it. I've said my part, you need to own your statements, not look to backtrack.

Cyril wrote:Blimey, this miaow character takes himself very seriously

https://youtu.be/beN7FftWNCM?t=1m45s

Na, but in all seriousness, aren't you bored of three year old arguments being repeated over and over and over and over and over, all under the basis of "well, it's my opinion, man"?

mikey_dragon wrote:
Cyril wrote:Blimey, this miaow character takes himself very seriously

Tell me about it.

I think this might be the best post you've ever made on this forum. Limit yourself to four word posts, and we might get along.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 7 Sep - 13:13

LordDowlais wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Better balance in the backrow and Warburton was off form. Should never have been picked.

So, nothing to do with not picking BOD ?

Do you think Warburton going off in the second test cost us ? It must have made a difference, as you have already implied.

I think it was more down to not picking the following players BOD,Mako Vunipola,Tom Youngs, Jamie Heaslip.

Yet you seem to think the sole contributing fact was the "fortunate" injury of Sam Warburton.

You sir a a true class act.

Eh? I think SOB for Wrburton improved us as a team but yes there were other selections I disagreed with; always going to happen with the amount of quality players available. The 2nd test as the first was a little disappointing as I honestly thought we'd win them pretty comfortably. Even with Warburton off the pitch in the 2nd there were weaknesses. And no not the sole reason and you sound like a bit of a troll saying that as I already replied to you as such...

by fa0019 Wed 7 Sep - 13:14

If you were a coach what way would you go

a) have a strategy which will probably alienate some players causing loss of form/confidence and group harmony. Perhaps it will break the camp i.e. 2001.
b) keep a tight knit collective group but which subsequently weakens the test side development and thus your chance of series victories.

For this series I really think that decisions have to be made early and coaches should be transparent from the very beginning i.e. wk 1 meetings... player x is my no.1. player y is my no.2. Maybe the transparency will improve the issue of 5 players 2 positions fight.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 7 Sep - 13:14

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yup very. Good player but picked on rep not performance at the time or what was best for the team. Thought that 3rd test was a real step up. Led by Corbs and SOB. Pack really on top enabled us to win handsomely ignoring the fact that in midfield (avoiding it as it'll lead to a load of waffle) that Roberts was coming back from injuryand BOD outplayed Davies in the 1st and 2nd tests (return of the national combo sillyness).

by No 7&1/2 Wed 7 Sep - 13:16

miaow wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Better balance in the backrow and Warburton was off form. Should never have been picked.

Are you a badger? Stop moving the goalposts. My point had very little to do with the merits of whether Warburton should have played, and everything to do with you releshing the fact a player was seriously injured for the apparent marginal (and debatable) improvement of the team, and in doing so you can wind up the partisan Welsh posters on here. That's it. I've said my part, you need to own your statements, not look to backtrack.

Cyril wrote:Blimey, this miaow character takes himself very seriously

https://youtu.be/beN7FftWNCM?t=1m45s

Na, but in all seriousness, aren't you bored of three year old arguments being repeated over and over and over and over and over, all under the basis of "well, it's my opinion, man"?

mikey_dragon wrote:
Cyril wrote:Blimey, this miaow character takes himself very seriously

Tell me about it.

I think this might be the best post you've ever made on this forum. Limit yourself to four word posts, and we might get along.

Think you need to go back and re read the thread. I haven't changed any goal posts. It's all there for everyone to see.

by TightHEAD Wed 7 Sep - 13:20

So Low.

by mikey_dragon Wed 7 Sep - 13:20

Riskysports wrote:I was thinking about sorting a trip to meet some friends over there for the Lions tour - but this has swung my thoughts to why bother. (I suffered 2005 - so why put myself through that again)

It will be a boring slug fest of no creativity (at least from one side)

People like Hogg are not going to be wasted and if Halfpenny comes near this tour (Unless he comes back like a superman), then it will mean I will probably not even watch it

We won in Australia - Yeah - but I can not remember people being so disappointed in a win

It was dire...

Maybe you've been away but:
1. Scotland still aren't that good, although that shouldn't prevent their standout players going on tour.
2. Halfpenny is one of the best players in the Top14 right now.
3. Only bitter and idiotic fools are still displeased with the 2013 tour and we all know it was due to the Welsh players winning it in the third test Run

by LordDowlais Wed 7 Sep - 13:22

No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought that 3rd test was a real step up. Led by Corbs and SOB.

But according to many media outlets, SOB had an average game. Like myself, I did not see him do anything outstanding that the "fortunate" injury to Warburton would not have done. You just seemed to revel in the fact that Warburton was injured and SOB played instead.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And no not the sole reason and you sound like a bit of a troll saying that as I already replied to you as such...

I think the troll is you. You know how you behave on this forum and you continually poke and provoke until you get your goal. I know, others know and I would suggest you know exactly what you meant when you claimed an injury to a player to be "fortunate".

Anyway, back to this "balance" in the back row you are banging on about. Is this because Warburton was injured, or because Heaslip was not picked ?

by mikey_dragon Wed 7 Sep - 13:23

Anyway, moving on slightly, we know who the coach is (and a mighty fine choice it is) but who will be captain? The lions captain should be a world class performer, and a natural leader who is assured of his place in the test team.

The clear and obvious choice is AWJ thumbsup

by TightHEAD Wed 7 Sep - 13:23

From the BBC website - Former Wales fly-half Jonathan Davies says he has "a sneaky feeling" the Lions could run Steve Hansen's world champions close next year.

Laugh

by **Rugby Fan** Wed 7 Sep - 13:25

Fran Cotton furious with the tour schedule.

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/featured-post/26715/lions-tour-schedule-crazy-says-Johnny-Five-fran-cotton/

“I’m afraid it’s all about money. It seems to me that some think it’s more important to have the Lions as a cash cow rather than preserve them as a unique touring team with a real chance of beating the best in the world.

“For the future of the Lions, it is important that they are seen as being really competitive. As it stands, they are not being given the chance to be competitive.

“All the management and players can ask for is to be given a reasonable amount of preparation time. This problem has not suddenly emerged over the last few months. It’s been there for 12 years. They’ve had that long to think about it and nothing has been done.

“It only needed a small compromise on both sides. But nobody is willing to make one. It’s as if certain elements – and I’m not naming names – would prefer not to have the Lions.

by fa0019 Wed 7 Sep - 13:26

the 3rd test is a too easy for people to say... simples - SOB, Faletau, Corbs should have started. blah blah blah.

AUS hardly changed their side and don't have 45 players to choose from. Come the 3rd test they were smashed up and the fact the Lions were able to bring in fresh players was hugely beneficial. It was a little like a matador sticking in the final sword after he'd been stabbed a dozen times and was punch drunk.

The lions have their benefits in that their are 70-80 odd quality players to choose form who have significant test match experience. Single countries can only test the odd 30 and experience counts for a lot. Doesn't mean their first XV are better but Gatland calculated that he had a very strong squad and drop off in skill was acceptable compared to the drop off in fatigue of those who had played in test 1 & 2.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 7 Sep - 13:28

Thought the whole pack really stepped up in the 3rd and SOB was a big part of that. Personally thought we were carrying an struggling Warburton who was well below par. I would suggest that people ask what others mean if you don't understand (as you did but then ignored the response until pages later).

by munkian Wed 7 Sep - 13:30

Riskysports wrote:I was thinking about sorting a trip to meet some friends over there for the Lions tour - but this has swung my thoughts to why bother. (I suffered 2005 - so why put myself through that again)

It will be a boring slug fest of no creativity (at least from one side)

People like Hogg are not going to be wasted and if Halfpenny comes near this tour (Unless he comes back like a superman), then it will mean I will probably not even watch it

We won in Australia - Yeah - but I can not remember people being so disappointed in a win

It was dire...

No one in the mixed bunch of people I watched it with thought it was 'dire' - you must have been with a real bitter crowd.

And it was a better Aussie team than the current crop too.

by lostinwales Wed 7 Sep - 13:31

mikey_dragon wrote:
Riskysports wrote:I was thinking about sorting a trip to meet some friends over there for the Lions tour - but this has swung my thoughts to why bother. (I suffered 2005 - so why put myself through that again)

It will be a boring slug fest of no creativity (at least from one side)

People like Hogg are not going to be wasted and if Halfpenny comes near this tour (Unless he comes back like a superman), then it will mean I will probably not even watch it

We won in Australia - Yeah - but I can not remember people being so disappointed in a win

It was dire...

Maybe you've been away but:
1. Scotland still aren't that good, although that shouldn't prevent their standout players going on tour.
2. Halfpenny is one of the best players in the Top14 right now.
3. Only bitter and idiotic fools are still displeased with the 2013 tour and we all know it was due to the Welsh players winning it in the third test

He might turn out to be but he hasn't played for so long he has everything to prove (See also Tuilagi. M. for England)

by fa0019 Wed 7 Sep - 13:32

No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought the whole pack really stepped up in the 3rd and SOB was a big part of that. Personally thought we were carrying an struggling Warburton who was well below par. I would suggest that people ask what others mean if you don't understand (as you did but then ignored the response until pages later).

If you were watching a boxing match say Tyson vs. Holyfield and then Lewis tagged in Holyfield in round 8 and knocked out Tyson in round 9 wouldn't you say he got a slight advantage?

I too think SOB was unlucky not to test earlier but I do think his performance was in part due to AUS being smashed up by 2 back to back tests beforehand.

by munkian Wed 7 Sep - 13:32

No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought the whole pack really stepped up in the 3rd and SOB was a big part of that. Personally thought we were carrying an struggling Warburton who was well below par. I would suggest that people ask what others mean if you don't understand (as you did but then ignored the response until pages later).

Warburton was in fine form in the 2nd test - I even remember an English mate (who is particularly anti Welsh rugby) cheering him on when a large group of us met up.

by munkian Wed 7 Sep - 13:33

fa0019 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought the whole pack really stepped up in the 3rd and SOB was a big part of that. Personally thought we were carrying an struggling Warburton who was well below par. I would suggest that people ask what others mean if you don't understand (as you did but then ignored the response until pages later).

If you were watching a boxing match say Tyson vs. Holyfield and then Lewis tagged in Holyfield in round 8 and knocked out Tyson in round 9 wouldn't you say he got a slight advantage?

I too think SOB was unlucky not to test earlier but I do think his performance was in part due to AUS being smashed up by 2 back to back tests beforehand.

I think Hibbard being made of concrete and putting George on his arse played a part too.

by Guest Wed 7 Sep - 13:34

No 7&1/2 wrote:Think you need to go back and re read the thread. I haven't changed any goal posts. It's all there for everyone to see.

Yeah, fortunately it is.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But there were a few areas where the combos etc from Wales were taken as they knew each other etc. We were fortunate for example that Warburton was injured.

You regularly and repeatedly have shown a complete disregard for a player's welfare, celebrating their injury by declaring it 'fortunate' for the dubious and subjective claim that it may have slightly benefited the team. Which is the point I initially made and criticised you for making, the point you asked me to elaborate upon, and the point which continues to stand. No re-reading is necessary, but thank you for the patronising advice.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yup very. Good player but picked on rep not performance at the time or what was best for the team.

There were several players picked on 'reputation'/expected performance, who may not have been at the level of their best form, but that's the balance you pick as a squad, they pick those bang in form, and those who may come into form on the basis of past experience, and those who are good enough to be there even when out of form, and impart other things even when not hitting the heights of 9/10 every game.

As if you really can compare and conclude as definitive two 80 minute games to deduce one player was obviously better than the other, in games where the Lions were much more dominant in one than the other. You cannot, and thus your attempt to portray as fact that Warburton hindered his team will only ever be subjective, and flimsily at best. Warburton's performance in the second Test alone should be evidence that your opinion is probably on shaky ground to begin with, and absolutely in no way justifies the sort of Machiavellian justification of declaring an injury 'fortunate' because it benefits the team as a whole (which it doesn't).

In short, there's two things here:

1. Nobody involved with the game would declare a serious injury 'fortunate', in any circumstances whatsoever, when they know the effects such an injury can have, particularly when it is a person's livelihood.
2. Your justification for declaring it fortunate- that the team was better without Warburton, for varying reasons- is in no way obvious nor uncontestable, in fact many would hold the opposite to be true, that the team suffered in the second Test as a result of his removal from the field of play, and would have been as well placed if not better had he been fit for the third Test.

As far as I'm concerned that's the matter over and done with, and as I said, I don't really think what appears to be an armchair fan's point of view on rugby- where they have so little investment or knowledge of what they are talking about- should be listened to.

by LordDowlais Wed 7 Sep - 13:34

fa0019 wrote:the 3rd test is a too easy for people to say... simples - SOB, Faletau, Corbs should have started. blah blah blah.

AUS hardly changed their side and don't have 45 players to choose from. Come the 3rd test they were smashed up and the fact the Lions were able to bring in fresh players was hugely beneficial. It was a little like a matador sticking in the final sword after he'd been stabbed a dozen times and was punch drunk.

The lions have their benefits in that their are 70-80 odd quality players to choose form who have significant test match experience. Single countries can only test the odd 30 and experience counts for a lot. Doesn't mean their first XV are better but Gatland calculated that he had a very strong squad and drop off in skill was acceptable compared to the drop off in fatigue of those who had played in test 1 & 2.

Did you not know ? You can't do, as you are completely wrong. The third test was won, because of the fortunate injury to Sam Warburton allowed Gatland to pick SOB thus it restored the balnce in the back row, even though only one member of the back row started the last test and the the two before.

There were TWO changes to the back row for the final test, yet it was fortunate that Warburton was injured and balance was resumed. Rolling Eyes

by No 7&1/2 Wed 7 Sep - 13:34

fa0019 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought the whole pack really stepped up in the 3rd and SOB was a big part of that. Personally thought we were carrying an struggling Warburton who was well below par. I would suggest that people ask what others mean if you don't understand (as you did but then ignored the response until pages later).

If you were watching a boxing match say Tyson vs. Holyfield and then Lewis tagged in Holyfield in round 8 and knocked out Tyson in round 9 wouldn't you say he got a slight advantage?

I too think SOB was unlucky not to test earlier but I do think his performance was in part due to AUS being smashed up by 2 back to back tests beforehand.

I've just been reading countless posts that the Lions are beat up over a longer period on the tour and are therefore at a disadvantage though!

by No 7&1/2 Wed 7 Sep - 13:35

munkian wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought the whole pack really stepped up in the 3rd and SOB was a big part of that. Personally thought we were carrying an struggling Warburton who was well below par. I would suggest that people ask what others mean if you don't understand (as you did but then ignored the response until pages later).

Warburton was in fine form in the 2nd test - I even remember an English mate (who is particularly anti Welsh rugby) cheering him on when a large group of us met up.

Some are able to put their countries aside and cheer the Lions.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 7 Sep - 13:36

miaow wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Think you need to go back and re read the thread. I haven't changed any goal posts. It's all there for everyone to see.

Yeah, fortunately it is.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But there were a few areas where the combos etc from Wales were taken as they knew each other etc. We were fortunate for example that Warburton was injured.

You regularly and repeatedly have shown a complete disregard for a player's welfare, celebrating their injury by declaring it 'fortunate' for the dubious and subjective claim that it may have slightly benefited the team. Which is the point I initially made and criticised you for making, the point you asked me to elaborate upon, and the point which continues to stand. No re-reading is necessary, but thank you for the patronising advice.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yup very. Good player but picked on rep not performance at the time or what was best for the team.

There were several players picked on 'reputation'/expected performance, who may not have been at the level of their best form, but that's the balance you pick as a squad, they pick those bang in form, and those who may come into form on the basis of past experience, and those who are good enough to be there even when out of form, and impart other things even when not hitting the heights of 9/10 every game.

As if you really can compare and conclude as definitive two 80 minute games to deduce one player was obviously better than the other, in games where the Lions were much more dominant in one than the other. You cannot, and thus your attempt to portray as fact that Warburton hindered his team will only ever be subjective, and flimsily at best. Warburton's performance in the second Test alone should be evidence that your opinion is probably on shaky ground to begin with, and absolutely in no way justifies the sort of Machiavellian justification of declaring an injury 'fortunate' because it benefits the team as a whole (which it doesn't).

In short, there's two things here:

1. Nobody involved with the game would declare a serious injury 'fortunate', in any circumstances whatsoever, when they know the effects such an injury can have, particularly when it is a person's livelihood.
2. Your justification for declaring it fortunate- that the team was better without Warburton, for varying reasons- is in no way obvious nor uncontestable, in fact many would hold the opposite to be true, that the team suffered in the second Test as a result of his removal from the field of play, and would have been as well placed if not better had he been fit for the third Test.

As far as I'm concerned that's the matter over and done with, and as I said, I don't really think what appears to be an armchair fan's point of view on rugby- where they have so little investment or knowledge of what they are talking about- should be listened to.

Ok so no one is allowed to comment on a player who replaces another due to injury...or it's a forum and we can debate whether the change benefitted the team. I think it did.

by fa0019 Wed 7 Sep - 13:37

LordDowlais wrote:
fa0019 wrote:the 3rd test is a too easy for people to say... simples - SOB, Faletau, Corbs should have started. blah blah blah.

AUS hardly changed their side and don't have 45 players to choose from. Come the 3rd test they were smashed up and the fact the Lions were able to bring in fresh players was hugely beneficial. It was a little like a matador sticking in the final sword after he'd been stabbed a dozen times and was punch drunk.

The lions have their benefits in that their are 70-80 odd quality players to choose form who have significant test match experience. Single countries can only test the odd 30 and experience counts for a lot. Doesn't mean their first XV are better but Gatland calculated that he had a very strong squad and drop off in skill was acceptable compared to the drop off in fatigue of those who had played in test 1 & 2.

Did you not know ? You can't do, as you are completely wrong. The third test was won, because of the fortunate injury to Sam Warburton allowed Gatland to pick SOB thus it restored the balnce in the back row, even though only one member of the back row started the last test and the the two before.

There were TWO changes to the back row for the final test, yet it was fortunate that Warburton was injured and balance was resumed.

To be fair though LD....

pretty much every pundit alive said BOD dropped was case closed in terms of controversy due to the victory... regardless of the fact Davies hardly featured and the match was won by a dominant forward pack. Gatland could have played Tom Youngs down the 13 channel and I think they would have limped home.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 7 Sep - 13:37

And because I think it did and he wasn't going to be dropped through choice the injury benefitted the team.

by mikey_dragon Wed 7 Sep - 13:38

lostinwales wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Riskysports wrote:I was thinking about sorting a trip to meet some friends over there for the Lions tour - but this has swung my thoughts to why bother. (I suffered 2005 - so why put myself through that again)

It will be a boring slug fest of no creativity (at least from one side)

People like Hogg are not going to be wasted and if Halfpenny comes near this tour (Unless he comes back like a superman), then it will mean I will probably not even watch it

We won in Australia - Yeah - but I can not remember people being so disappointed in a win

It was dire...

Maybe you've been away but:
1. Scotland still aren't that good, although that shouldn't prevent their standout players going on tour.
2. Halfpenny is one of the best players in the Top14 right now.
3. Only bitter and idiotic fools are still displeased with the 2013 tour and we all know it was due to the Welsh players winning it in the third test

He might turn out to be but he hasn't played for so long he has everything to prove (See also Tuilagi. M. for England)

It seems you've misread the post. I responded to something which seemed to suggest Halfpenny is off form. I know we're only 3 games into the Top14 but he's been one of the leagues top players in that time. If his form continues in this vein then it's obvious he'll be on the plane.

by munkian Wed 7 Sep - 13:38

No 7&1/2 wrote:
munkian wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought the whole pack really stepped up in the 3rd and SOB was a big part of that. Personally thought we were carrying an struggling Warburton who was well below par. I would suggest that people ask what others mean if you don't understand (as you did but then ignored the response until pages later).

Warburton was in fine form in the 2nd test - I even remember an English mate (who is particularly anti Welsh rugby) cheering him on when a large group of us met up.

Some are able to put their countries aside and cheer the Lions.

Unlike you.

by fa0019 Wed 7 Sep - 13:39

No 7&1/2 wrote:
fa0019 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought the whole pack really stepped up in the 3rd and SOB was a big part of that. Personally thought we were carrying an struggling Warburton who was well below par. I would suggest that people ask what others mean if you don't understand (as you did but then ignored the response until pages later).

If you were watching a boxing match say Tyson vs. Holyfield and then Lewis tagged in Holyfield in round 8 and knocked out Tyson in round 9 wouldn't you say he got a slight advantage?

I too think SOB was unlucky not to test earlier but I do think his performance was in part due to AUS being smashed up by 2 back to back tests beforehand.

I've just been reading countless posts that the Lions are beat up over a longer period on the tour and are therefore at a disadvantage though!

Lets be honest though, touring AUS is not difficult for midweek sides. They stroll them generally. SA & NZ are much more physically demanding (well SA was at least, probably not anymore)

by funnyExiledScot Wed 7 Sep - 13:39

It's the right appointment. He is the standout candidate, whatever naysayers may say.

The schedule is of serious concern however. The fact that it's NZ, the best side in the world by a distance, with a seriously talented pre-Test match roster of teams to face, is merely one of the issues. The interaction with the regular club season is the real beef. The Lions, in my opinion, is a truly wonderful concept and I love it all, but the powers that be seriously need to sit down and re-design the rugby calendar (and not just to accommodate the Lions).

What Gatland is faced with is massive. There's a huge amount of Tour design needed for this one, including:

1. Who his assistants are to be
2. The style of play they plan to coach (defensive systems etc.)
3. The number of players they plan to take
4. How they envisage those players rotating

Handily, there exists a core group who have won a Lions Test Series before and know what it takes to succeed in this format. That is important. Sadly the opposition is in a different league to the Australian team that we thrashed in the 3rd Test last time around and none of the players have experience of beating the ABs on home turf (who does??), but certainly the appointment of Gatland is the right starting point.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 7 Sep - 13:40

munkian wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
munkian wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought the whole pack really stepped up in the 3rd and SOB was a big part of that. Personally thought we were carrying an struggling Warburton who was well below par. I would suggest that people ask what others mean if you don't understand (as you did but then ignored the response until pages later).

Warburton was in fine form in the 2nd test - I even remember an English mate (who is particularly anti Welsh rugby) cheering him on when a large group of us met up.

Some are able to put their countries aside and cheer the Lions.

Unlike you.

Just for the record you think I'm only against Warburton or the Welsh players in general (discounting Hibbard who obviously doesn't count as Welsh for some reason)?

by LordDowlais Wed 7 Sep - 13:41

munkian wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought the whole pack really stepped up in the 3rd and SOB was a big part of that. Personally thought we were carrying an struggling Warburton who was well below par. I would suggest that people ask what others mean if you don't understand (as you did but then ignored the response until pages later).

Warburton was in fine form in the 2nd test - I even remember an English mate (who is particularly anti Welsh rugby) cheering him on when a large group of us met up.

Interesting, read the report from BBC:-

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/23111416

It seems to confirm what you are saying, and what I can remember. This bit in particular:-

The Lions appeared to have the edge at the breakdown, Australia conceding four penalties inside the opening eight minutes to earn an early warning from referee Craig Joubert.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 7 Sep - 13:41

munkian wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
munkian wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought the whole pack really stepped up in the 3rd and SOB was a big part of that. Personally thought we were carrying an struggling Warburton who was well below par. I would suggest that people ask what others mean if you don't understand (as you did but then ignored the response until pages later).

Warburton was in fine form in the 2nd test - I even remember an English mate (who is particularly anti Welsh rugby) cheering him on when a large group of us met up.

Some are able to put their countries aside and cheer the Lions.

Unlike you.

And are you anti Irish as you would have preffered Warburton ahead of SOB?

by No 7&1/2 Wed 7 Sep - 13:44

LordDowlais wrote:
munkian wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought the whole pack really stepped up in the 3rd and SOB was a big part of that. Personally thought we were carrying an struggling Warburton who was well below par. I would suggest that people ask what others mean if you don't understand (as you did but then ignored the response until pages later).

Warburton was in fine form in the 2nd test - I even remember an English mate (who is particularly anti Welsh rugby) cheering him on when a large group of us met up.

Interesting, read the report from BBC:-

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/23111416

It seems to confirm what you are saying, and what I can rememer. This bit in particular:-

The Lions appeared to have the edge at the breakdown, Australia conceding four penalties inside the opening eight minutes to earn an early warning from referee Craig Joubert.

Going into the first test who would you say was in better form Tipuric or Warburton?

by fa0019 Wed 7 Sep - 13:46

Warburton's merits aren't just his match play. He is an excellent captain and being able to communicate with the referee is very important. Having a meathead who simply says "ah ref come on" ain't going to do you any favours. Warburton is always very calm, an excellent reader of the game and is able to communicate this well.

No doubt sways matches on perhaps not overulling a situation but in the next breakdown/tackle etc the referee may take his words into consideration.

A guy like that is invaluable IMO. Some don't like him, its a competitive position but for me I think the potential drop off in positional prowess is offset by his captaincy.

by munkian Wed 7 Sep - 13:47

Lions are never just picked on the 'best' players - they are picked as who would fit best into the team.

by Guest Wed 7 Sep - 13:47

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ok so no one is allowed to comment on a player who replaces another due to injury...or it's a forum and we can debate whether the change benefitted the team. I think it did.

You're free to debate, of course, and I look forward to you positing a more in depth justification for your opinion than "Warburton bad, SOB good", using, you know, examples, facts...anything more than just "it's my opinion, therefore it's valid".

Equally, I'm free to point out when you're either defending a pretty uneducated point of view and- in my opinion- misinterpretation of events.

I'll also, as is the case here, point out when you're goading Welsh posters by using language that revels in the serious injury of a rugby player, whenI really don't know anybody involved in the game who would deem that acceptable.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I said, internet forums encourage the loss of perspective, but just be more aware of the connotations and implications of the language you use, and the point you're making. You may well have meant that it was solely beneficial to the team, but there is a way of saying that which doesn't show not just disregard for a player's welfare, but actively celebrates its demise. Again, that's what I took issue with. Instead of trying to defend your position, just accept that several people have branded you as crossing the line, and try to work out why that is, why I've taken the time to illuminate it for you.

by LordDowlais Wed 7 Sep - 13:47

No 7&1/2 wrote:Going into the first test who would you say was in better form Tipuric or Warburton?

There was not much in it if I'm honest, but Warburton is Gatlands captain, so that would nudge him ahead.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 7 Sep - 13:48

Prely from the 2nd row you had AWJ and POC though.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 7 Sep - 13:49

miaow wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Ok so no one is allowed to comment on a player who replaces another due to injury...or it's a forum and we can debate whether the change benefitted the team. I think it did.

You're free to debate, of course, and I look forward to you positing a more in depth justification for your opinion than "Warburton bad, SOB good", using, you know, examples, facts...anything more than just "it's my opinion, therefore it's valid".

Equally, I'm free to point out when you're either defending a pretty uneducated point of view and- in my opinion- misinterpretation of events.

I'll also, as is the case here, point out when you're goading Welsh posters by using language that revels in the serious injury of a rugby player, whenI really don't know anybody involved in the game who would deem that acceptable.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. As I said, internet forums encourage the loss of perspective, but just be more aware of the connotations and implications of the language you use, and the point you're making. You may well have meant that it was solely beneficial to the team, but there is a way of saying that which doesn't show not just disregard for a player's welfare, but actively celebrates its demise. Again, that's what I took issue with. Instead of trying to defend your position, just accept that several people have branded you as crossing the line, and try to work out why that is, why I've taken the time to illuminate it for you.

Warburton didn't look fit and wasn't playing well. Tipuric outplayed him im the warm ups and SOB at the time was better.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 7 Sep - 13:51

And to be honest miow I was asked to explain and did. I have no problem with my view that the team was better without Warburton adn the acknowledgement it wouldn't have happened without the injury.

by LordDowlais Wed 7 Sep - 13:53

No 7&1/2 wrote:Warburton didn't look fit and wasn't playing well. Tipuric outplayed him im the warm ups and SOB at the time was better.

And that is your opinion, and one you are entitled to. But I would rather agree with the numerous media outlets and professionals who thought different.

by TightHEAD Wed 7 Sep - 13:54

Stop living in the past 2013 has been and gone.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 7 Sep - 13:55

Fair enough, it's your opinion. But going back to Gatland learning from the last tour for this is that there were favourites who were picked and played on rep.

by munkian Wed 7 Sep - 13:56

fa0019 wrote:Warburton's merits aren't just his match play. He is an excellent captain and being able to communicate with the referee is very important. Having a meathead who simply says "ah ref come on" ain't going to do you any favours. Warburton is always very calm, an excellent reader of the game and is able to communicate this well.

No doubt sways matches on perhaps not overulling a situation but in the next breakdown/tackle etc the referee may take his words into consideration.

A guy like that is invaluable IMO. Some don't like him, its a competitive position but for me I think the potential drop off in positional prowess is offset by his captaincy.

Exactly. Robshaw wasn't picked as he struggles to put three words together and isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, not because he can't play rugby.

by LordDowlais Wed 7 Sep - 13:57

TightHEAD wrote:Stop living in the past 2013 has been and gone.

Ok, let's just hope there are not any "fortunate" injuries during the next Lions tour. Rolling Eyes

by No 7&1/2 Wed 7 Sep - 13:59

munkian wrote:
fa0019 wrote:Warburton's merits aren't just his match play. He is an excellent captain and being able to communicate with the referee is very important. Having a meathead who simply says "ah ref come on" ain't going to do you any favours. Warburton is always very calm, an excellent reader of the game and is able to communicate this well.

No doubt sways matches on perhaps not overulling a situation but in the next breakdown/tackle etc the referee may take his words into consideration.

A guy like that is invaluable IMO. Some don't like him, its a competitive position but for me I think the potential drop off in positional prowess is offset by his captaincy.

Exactly. Robshaw wasn't picked as he struggles to put three words together and isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, not because he can't play rugby.

Quite harsh, do you not rate POC and AWJ as captains?

by No 7&1/2 Wed 7 Sep - 13:59

LordDowlais wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:Stop living in the past 2013 has been and gone.

Ok, let's just hope there are not any "fortunate" injuries during the next Lions tour.

Good to see you're over it already LD.

by Guest Wed 7 Sep - 14:03

funnyExiledScot wrote:
1. Who his assistants are to be
2. The style of play they plan to coach (defensive systems etc.)
3. The number of players they plan to take
4. How they envisage those players rotating

Good points.

1. I think we may well see English coaches picked en masse, particularly for the defence, as Farrell and Edwards' stars have waned whilst Gustard's has risen.
2. It'll definitely be more structured around the set piece and ball retention in open play than NZ will be. Effectively, it'll be Warrenball, but with the excitement of having to run it, because they won't compete with NZ without scoring tries.
3 & 4. I expect a large squad. Gatland publicly bemoaned the size he took last time, and the number of players he drafted in last minute (Shane Williams!) suggests he won't make the same mistake. We're in dangerous territory of splitting the squad in two like Woodward did in 2005 if it's too large, but I feel there is genuine comeptition this time around, there are no 'stand out' players or combinations that would seemingly be favoured from the off (but who knows if that will change in the coming season). With Scotland having genuine contenders across the 15, and more than a few star players, unlike in the past, it definitely helps in that regard.

fa0019 wrote:Warburton's merits aren't just his match play. He is an excellent captain and being able to communicate with the referee is very important. Having a meathead who simply says "ah ref come on" ain't going to do you any favours. Warburton is always very calm, an excellent reader of the game and is able to communicate this well.

No doubt sways matches on perhaps not overulling a situation but in the next breakdown/tackle etc the referee may take his words into consideration.

A guy like that is invaluable IMO. Some don't like him, its a competitive position but for me I think the potential drop off in positional prowess is offset by his captaincy.

Also good points, as were your previous ones regarding player burnout across the squad, and the ability to swap a XV with relatively little drop off in standard (in theory), which few, if any, nations can do, even NZ.

He has his weaknesses, even as a captain I feel, but his whiter-than-white approach, and sort of manager's son attitude on the pitch, will work. NZ will not suffer from poor refereeing decisions at home, and may well have a slight advantage, such is the way of the world (See the ref during Wales' tour this Summer ask Kieran Read whether Naholo conceding a penalty "was alright", when it could have been a red, more probably a yellow card. Whether a slip of the tongue or not, it shows the reverence and perhaps even fear refs have of the All Blacks, and the repurcussions of being seen to have treated them harshly on the pitch: refs have to look after their livelihoods in this day and age as well.)

If the Lions are to beat NZ, they'll obviously have to box clever, and one of the ways of doing that is to pick their battles. They need to dictate the pace of the game as much as they can, and that means attacking in short sharp bursts, but then playing it safe for the majority of the time they have the ball, and hope to draw penalties from NZ, to gain territory, and to kick goals. They NZ will have periods where they will overrun the Lions, it's about containing that, and limiting the chances they have of doing that, and by denying them the ball- amongst other tactical choices- they do that. One of those is staying on the right side of the ref, and I cannot think of a player, let alone a captain, who endears himself better to a referee than Warburton in that regard.

by Guest Wed 7 Sep - 14:06

No 7&1/2 wrote:Warburton didn't look fit and wasn't playing well. Tipuric outplayed him im the warm ups and SOB at the time was better.

And that's why you're not a coach, as Gatland is paid the big bucks to know that Warburton could and would have the ability and pedigree to play himself back into Test form, as was the case by the time the Tests arrived, which is what really matters when talking about results. Warburton also added a lot more than simply performance on the pitch, and as a captain brings a lot more to the equation. Nevertheless- despite the fact that you haven't actually backed up your claims with any sort of analysis or evidence- none of that proves that his absence was beneficial come the Tests (quite the opposite, as I said), and it certainly doesn't justify celebrating his injury.

by Sponsored content