Warren Gatland announced as Lions coach

First topic message reminder :

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

TJ wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Regardless of who is right about any of this, it speaks volumes that Gatland is so controversial among different fans.

.......................

I think that is for two reasons
1) many of us think he nearly lost the last series with poor selections and tactics
2) we think he will follow the same pattern this time meaning we will underperform badly

However - he hasn't made his selections yet so lets see.

He won with a record score. In the previous two seasons since he World Cup in 2011 Wales had easily been the best six nations team and therefore provided the bulk of players. Why can't people just get over it.

It's so frustrating when people moan about unfair Wales selections and when asked about it, the answer they give you is 'well cuthbert didn't deserve a lions spot' which I remember sin e said about 6 months ago when moaning about this same argument but fails to take into account that in the previous six nations in 2013 was top scorer and scored in the first test so did justify his place on the plane and in the team. The only player who was lucky was Mike Phillips and that is it.

And if I hear one more time about BOD being dropped.........

Actually on reflection ive decided that gatland was wrong in his selection for the first and second test and it was a travesty that he played heaslip instead of the in form faletau considering faletau proved in the third test and the last five years that his quality is far greater than heaslips.

Wales weren't head and shoulders above the rest, revisionist bit of writing there.

True Raven wrote:

TJ wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Regardless of who is right about any of this, it speaks volumes that Gatland is so controversial among different fans.

.......................

I think that is for two reasons
1) many of us think he nearly lost the last series with poor selections and tactics
2) we think he will follow the same pattern this time meaning we will underperform badly

However - he hasn't made his selections yet so lets see.  

He won with a record score.  In the previous two seasons since he World Cup in 2011 Wales had easily been the best six nations team and therefore provided the bulk of players.  Why can't people just get over it.

It's so frustrating when people moan about unfair Wales selections and when asked about it, the answer they give you is 'well cuthbert didn't deserve a lions spot' which I remember sin e said about 6 months ago when moaning about this same argument but fails to take into account that in the previous six nations in 2013 was top scorer and scored in the first test so did justify his place on the plane and in the team.  The only player who was lucky was Mike Phillips and that is it.

And if I hear one more time about BOD being dropped.........

Yeah but it was unfair the way he did it .....

No 7&1/2 wrote:Wales weren't head and shoulders above the rest, revisionist bit of writing there.

Results would suggest otherwise. From 2012 to 2013 the only 6n's game they lost was to Ireland. Grand Slammers in 2012 and champions in 2013. This would make you more inclined to pick mostly Welsh players because during that period, Wales were dominant 6N country.

Really? Level on points in 2013 suggests even with results they weren't easily the best. If you watched the games too you'd have seen that the top teams in the NH were all close together; as they still are. I'll give you that was Gatlands reasoning behind taking more Welsh players.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Wales weren't head and shoulders above the rest, revisionist bit of writing there.

I said easily the best six nations team and considering they got the furthest in the World Cup and won back to back six nations, kinda proves my point

Easily and head and shoulders are comparable to me, but fair enough, they weren't.

Not when I was talking in terms of win records and competition successes they're not. It's like me saying Glasgow are easily the best team in the pro12 as hey won it last year but doesn't mean they are head and shoulders above their competitors.

England had an opportunity to provide more players when they came to Cardiff for a grand slam win but bottled it and gave Gatland a reason not too pick them. If they had won that game, I'd imagine there would have been a lot more English players on that tour like there will be this tour to NZ as right now England are the best six nations team.

If the Welsh have the majority of players on this tour then I won't be arguing against 606 on selection policies

As I said even just basing it on results 2013 ended with level points. If you're saying they bottled it you'd be questioning why Gatland took so many Welsh players considering the amount of games they'd lost against Aus when they could/should have won. It's a cheap out saying x finished 1st so they should have more than y finishing 2nd, who should have more than z...etc.

Especially given the format of the 6Ns (it not being home and away) does not necessarily give us the best team.

Surely the team that wins back to back six nations disproves that theory

Don't think so when you then consider it's across 2 years and those results (and more importantly the actual performances and flow in the games) seemed to suggest that Wales, Ireland and England were close together. If we were to do that sort of analysis you would surely want to focus more on games of the home nations against Aus? I think it would be silly personally. England sit as GS champions at the moment and I wouldn't say they are easily the best team. The last 2 games against Wales could have gone either way easily, I'm always wary of Ireland (and Schmidt). Hell Scotland games normally give me the heebie jeebies.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't think so when you then consider it's across 2 years and those results (and more importantly the actual performances and flow in the games) seemed to suggest that Wales, Ireland and England were close together.

Well this dispels your home and way theory then. Over two years you get home and away. 2012 and 2013 Wales beat everybody except Ireland twice, both home and away.

No 7&1/2 wrote:England sit as GS champions at the moment and I wouldn't say they are easily the best team.

Yes, I agree. So why do you say Wales were not the best team in 2012 ? The fact that they then went on to win the 2013 6N would suggest that Wales were the best side in 2013 as well. Why is this concept lost on you ?

When Manchester UTD were winning the premier league year after year, they were not the best team because Liverpool beat them during their winning campaign. Is this the logic you are suggesting we base these things on ?

Hmm, as I've skirted around I've never been a big fan of looking purely at a result with no view on the actual games involved to make a definitive statement like that, but even so with it being split over 2 years you're normally going to get 2 different versions of teams. wasn't the 2012 Ireland game the one with the linesman for instance? Could well be wrong there just going off my fading memory of specifics.

In 2012 I would say Wales weren't easily the best team purely on watching all the games. The concept of the table isn't lost on me but the format doesn't bring out the best team every time. If we were to have home and away 6Ns every year you'd have a greater sense of who is the best but I'd still suggest watching the games, especially as the point is overall about choice of individual players. In the premier league a few years ago Man City won the league on goal difference; I don't think many would say they were easily the best team (though there could certainyl be that argument as I think player for player they were but Man U had far the better manager).

To summarise it's far to difficult to judge on a small sample of games.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't think so when you then consider it's across 2 years and those results (and more importantly the actual performances and flow in the games) seemed to suggest that Wales, Ireland and England were close together. If we were to do that sort of analysis you would surely want to focus more on games of the home nations against Aus? I think it would be silly personally. England sit as GS champions at the moment and I wouldn't say they are easily the best team. The last 2 games against Wales could have gone either way easily, I'm always wary of Ireland (and Schmidt). Hell Scotland games normally give me the heebie jeebies.

Maybe me putting the word easily in front of the best wasn't the right word but I still stand by it that over that two year period Wales deservedly provided the majority of players to the lions team as they had mopped up the silverware and then went on to a record breaking victory.

Yes I can say that England are he better team now as they have won the grand slam in the 2016 six nations. How do you define who is the best or are all teams in equal parity

I don't think it's easy to say definitively who is the best unless they are obviously so much better e.g. the team in black. I've said I personally think that the teams back now and today are pretty close together.

There was another record set about that time wasn't there? And the string of victories by Aus. If you care to look at my history you'll see at the time I thought Wales were pretty close to Aus at the time but looking purely on results wouldn't show it.

True Raven wrote:

TJ wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Regardless of who is right about any of this, it speaks volumes that Gatland is so controversial among different fans.

.......................

I think that is for two reasons
1) many of us think he nearly lost the last series with poor selections and tactics
2) we think he will follow the same pattern this time meaning we will underperform badly

However - he hasn't made his selections yet so lets see.  

He won with a record score.  In the previous two seasons since he World Cup in 2011 Wales had easily been the best six nations team and therefore provided the bulk of players.  Why can't people just get over it.

It's so frustrating when people moan about unfair Wales selections and when asked about it, the answer they give you is 'well cuthbert didn't deserve a lions spot' which I remember sin e said about 6 months ago when moaning about this same argument but fails to take into account that in the previous six nations in 2013 was top scorer and scored in the first test so did justify his place on the plane and in the team.  The only player who was lucky was Mike Phillips and that is it.

And if I hear one more time about BOD being dropped.........

You're absolutely spot on. Surprisingly, the Irish and Scots have always been a lot more bitter over it than the English - and apparently these Irish don't care about the Lions? They're a funny bunch, especially Sin.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The concept of the table isn't lost on me but the format doesn't bring out the best team every time.

Oh FFS, then whats the point. Let's just scrap the 6N format, that has been around for more than 100yrs, and give the trophy to who we think are the best, regardless of results.

The fact that Wales won the 6N two years on the trot, between 2012 and 2013 puts to bed all your theories, as they had to do it over a home and away basis, and they only lost once. During that period here are the amount of losses:-

Wales 1 loss
England 2 losses
France 5 losses
Ireland 5 Losses
Italy 7 losses
Scotland 8 losses

This would suggest that Wales were the best side in the NH for those two years. No matter how you try and skew it in your favour.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't think so when you then consider it's across 2 years and those results (and more importantly the actual performances and flow in the games) seemed to suggest that Wales, Ireland and England were close together. If we were to do that sort of analysis you would surely want to focus more on games of the home nations against Aus? I think it would be silly personally. England sit as GS champions at the moment and I wouldn't say they are easily the best team. The last 2 games against Wales could have gone either way easily, I'm always wary of Ireland (and Schmidt). Hell Scotland games normally give me the heebie jeebies.

Didn't Ireland come fourth or fifth and lose to Italy that year?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't think it's easy to say definitively who is the best unless they are obviously so much better e.g. the team in black. I've said I personally think that the teams back now and today are pretty close together.

There was another record set about that time wasn't there? And the string of victories by Aus. If you care to look at my history you'll see at the time I thought Wales were pretty close to Aus at the time but looking purely on results wouldn't show it.

We were close to beating Australia but they were the better team. Results show that. I was gutted about the circumstances in how we lost, Hibbards penatly, Beale running the length of the millenium in the last mintue but the fact is we fell short becasue we weren't quite good enough and were second best.

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Don't think so when you then consider it's across 2 years and those results (and more importantly the actual performances and flow in the games) seemed to suggest that Wales, Ireland and England were close together. If we were to do that sort of analysis you would surely want to focus more on games of the home nations against Aus? I think it would be silly personally. England sit as GS champions at the moment and I wouldn't say they are easily the best team. The last 2 games against Wales could have gone either way easily, I'm always wary of Ireland (and Schmidt). Hell Scotland games normally give me the heebie jeebies.

Didn't Ireland come fourth or fifth and lose to Italy that year?

Yes they did, and they drew twice with France and lost to Scotland over the two year period between 2012 and 2013.

mikey_dragon wrote:

True Raven wrote:

TJ wrote:

Poorfour wrote:Regardless of who is right about any of this, it speaks volumes that Gatland is so controversial among different fans.

.......................

I think that is for two reasons
1) many of us think he nearly lost the last series with poor selections and tactics
2) we think he will follow the same pattern this time meaning we will underperform badly

However - he hasn't made his selections yet so lets see.  

He won with a record score.  In the previous two seasons since he World Cup in 2011 Wales had easily been the best six nations team and therefore provided the bulk of players.  Why can't people just get over it.

It's so frustrating when people moan about unfair Wales selections and when asked about it, the answer they give you is 'well cuthbert didn't deserve a lions spot' which I remember sin e said about 6 months ago when moaning about this same argument but fails to take into account that in the previous six nations in 2013 was top scorer and scored in the first test so did justify his place on the plane and in the team.  The only player who was lucky was Mike Phillips and that is it.

And if I hear one more time about BOD being dropped.........

You're absolutely spot on. Surprisingly, the Irish and Scots have always been a lot more bitter over it than the English - and apparently these Irish don't care about the Lions? They're a funny bunch, especially Sin.

Obviously it's because BOD is an Irish legend.

Dan Lydiate was very lucky to be on the plane, still think he's one of the most overrated players in the world. Still believe Robshaw or Brown could have done better.

Just hope Moriarty isn't called up. I think he's an inferior version of Jackson Wray, Wray isn't close to England call up at the moment.

England were stand out the best in 97. They beat Scotland by 28 points, Ireland by 40 points and Wales by 21 points in the six nations... and their tight 5 dominance was huge yet they only contributed 1 player to the tight 5 and not through injuries either.

Come the 1st test they had only 6 players in the first test team with the other 9 coming from the other 3 home nations.  Would have been 5 had Howley not got injured, maybe 4 had Quinnell himself not gone home early.

There is probably a general trend i.e. better teams have better players but rugby is a complex game. Italy had a great forward pack in the last decade but didn't have the backs and in reality was more of a case of simply not having a good playmaker.  They were probably 3 players from going from a team that won 1-2 wins a season to being regular six nations title contenders.

fa0019 it's why Conor O Shea is trying to get Alex Lozoskwi to play to Italy. Would be a real coup if Italy can bring him in.

Very true, best players doesn't necessarily equal best team either.

England won the 6 nations this year IMO because they were better coached than under Lancaster. Jones made the changes when he felt necessarily, they were not regimented unlike under Lancaster. Borthwick and Gustard's influence can't be underestimated either.

Jones managed to turn an inconsistent Haskell into one of his key performers.

Gatland will need to do similar, get the best out of those he picks.

So the year the Lions toured Aus, Ireland did that badly, culminating in a loss to Italy where BOD was sin binned yet 7.5 thinks Ireland were as good as teams ranked above them and Sin thought dropping BOD was harsh. Bonkers people .

beshocked wrote:
Obviously it's because BOD is an Irish legend.

Dan Lydiate was very lucky to be on the plane, still think he's one of the most overrated players in the world. Still believe Robshaw or Brown could have done better.

Just hope Moriarty isn't called up. I think he's an inferior version of Jackson Wray, Wray isn't close to England call up at the moment.

Lydiate was a bit lucky, yeah. I think he did well enough on tour though. He might not even feature for Wales this year either. How can he be overrated if not many people rate him? Strange one that.

I doubt Moriarty will be on the plane unless he improves dramatically, so far he has good potential and not much else. He did okay in NZ but struggled with the tempo and made some bad errors.

Would a coach today look at a guy like Tom Smith again? Barely capped in 1997 and spent most of the match vs England marching backwards.

I recall that match well as it was the first time we saw the impact of professionalism on the pitch. 30 point drubbings were unheard of in those days. 10 point victories were seen as dominant ones.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The concept of the table isn't lost on me but the format doesn't bring out the best team every time.

Oh FFS, then whats the point. Let's just scrap the 6N format, that has been around for more than 100yrs, and give the trophy to who we think are the best, regardless of results.

The fact that Wales won the 6N two years on the trot, between 2012 and 2013 puts to bed all your theories, as they had to do it over a home and away basis, and they only lost once. During that period here are the amount of losses:-

Wales 1 loss
England 2 losses
France 5 losses
Ireland 5 Losses
Italy 7 losses
Scotland 8 losses

This would suggest that Wales were the best side in the NH for those two years. No matter how you try and skew it in your favour.

Back to swearing, calm down. Over Lancasters tenure weren't England top of the pile for results despite no 6Ns titles.

fa0019 wrote:They were probably 3 players from going from a team that won 1-2 wins a season to being regular six nations title contenders.

Who Italy ?

They have never been a team that wins 1-2 games a season. Once I think they won two games. Every other time they have been a 0-1 game a season. Also they have never, ever, been three players away from regular six nations title contenders.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Back to swearing, calm down. Over Lancasters tenure weren't England top of the pile for results despite no 6Ns titles.

No. Not during 2012 and 2013 as I shown you, or are you reading something totally different to suit your agenda again ?

Between 2012 and 2013 England lost twice as many 6N's games as Wales, so they were not top of the pile of anything.

In essence whoever wins the 6 nations this year, regardless of who whips who and who looks dominant, if Gatland and his coaches select players mainly from such team then the Lions will get destroyed.
England are a great example of how world class coaching can impact sides. Same with Wales in 2007 to 2008. The players were the same in almost both instances but the results were stark.

Was it that the players were that much fitter or on form... no. Jones had no time on fitness and no say on form. Same with Gatland when he took over in 2008. Say England won the GS again by a good margin... does it automatically mean that Sean O'Brien, Tommy Seymour, Conor Murray and Jack McGrath should not be selected over say Robshaw, Yarde, Care & Marler?

The difference between the 4 sides is not that large in terms of the quality of the first XVs. All 4 have good players within. AUS is mount Kilimanjaro (its doable and really the Lions should always beat AUS) compared to the Everest/K2 conquest that NZ poses. Gatlands wholesale changes policy simply won't work vs. NZ... the drop off in skill would be too great.

LordDowlais wrote:

fa0019 wrote:They were probably 3 players from going from a team that won 1-2 wins a season to being regular six nations title contenders.

Who Italy ?

They have never been a team that wins 1-2 games a season. Once I think they won two games. Every other time they have been a 0-1 game a season. Also they have never, ever, been three players away from regular six nations title contenders.

They always had a very competitive pack in the last decade. Probably when Mallett was at the helm. During that time they had no 9 and no 10. They had decent centres and wings. From 07-13 they won 8 games and won 2 games in a series twice during which they beat France, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Only England were elusive even though they weren't the best 6N side of that period. Even though during that time they had no 9 and no 10 meaning they were rudderless.

This is the very problem of all smaller rugby nations. Look at Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Japan, Namibia.. even Canada during the Rees years. All their playmakers came/come from abroad. Scotland had to make do with Dan Parks for so long even. You can have as many tackle busting centre, turnover making flankers and brutal tight five players... but if you have no playmakers you will always struggle.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Back to swearing, calm down. Over Lancasters tenure weren't England top of the pile for results despite no 6Ns titles.

No. Not during 2012 and 2013 as I shown you, or are you reading something totally different to suit your agenda again ?

Between 2012 and 2013 England lost twice as many 6N's games as Wales, so they were not top of the pile of anything.

twice as many is correct... but its not like they lost 20 to Wales' 10 now is it.

losing 2 games vs. losing 1. Hardly a definer. They were the better team. Mentally they were much stronger. But player for player I think it was closer even with Ireland than win rates suggest.

As an Irish fan, I had zero issues with the amount of Welsh in the last Lions tour. They were the better team and had a good understanding between them. What made the Lions stronger was selecting players that were individually stronger but also could suit the game plan.

I am not sure why there is so much hassle about that tour, the Lions won.

Precisely fa. Even looking at wins across the patch during that time, over and above the 6Ns Wales weren't easily better. Looking at just the 6Ns, they weren't easily better. When you then consider the performances within all those games and not just the W/L against it, it's blatent. My 'agenda' here is to consider watching the games and players involved and not just simply who finished top as I don't think it'll tell you too much; certainly when you think Gatland had all that time off, if he had simply come to the conclusion Wales finished top twice, once with equal points therefore they have easily the better players (yes, not the same as easily the best team but logic follows on) you could accuse him on being on the fiddle.

fa0019 wrote:In essence whoever wins the 6 nations this year, regardless of who whips who and who looks dominant, if Gatland and his coaches select players mainly from such team then the Lions will get destroyed.
England are a great example of how world class coaching can impact sides. Same with Wales in 2007 to 2008. The players were the same in almost both instances but the results were stark.

Was it that the players were that much fitter or on form... no. Jones had no time on fitness and no say on form. Same with Gatland when he took over in 2008. Say England won the GS again by a good margin... does it automatically mean that Sean O'Brien, Tommy Seymour, Conor Murray and Jack McGrath should not be selected over say Robshaw, Yarde, Care & Marler?

The difference between the 4 sides is not that large in terms of the quality of the first XVs. All 4 have good players within. AUS is mount Kilimanjaro (its doable and really the Lions should always beat AUS) compared to the Everest/K2 conquest that NZ poses. Gatlands wholesale changes policy simply won't work vs. NZ... the drop off in skill would be too great.

whats the alternative.... pick players from a team that struggles to beat Italy? Surely the players that deserve to go will be the players that play well or are we going to discount form completely and pick out of a hat?

True Raven wrote:

fa0019 wrote:In essence whoever wins the 6 nations this year, regardless of who whips who and who looks dominant, if Gatland and his coaches select players mainly from such team then the Lions will get destroyed.
England are a great example of how world class coaching can impact sides. Same with Wales in 2007 to 2008. The players were the same in almost both instances but the results were stark.

Was it that the players were that much fitter or on form... no. Jones had no time on fitness and no say on form. Same with Gatland when he took over in 2008. Say England won the GS again by a good margin... does it automatically mean that Sean O'Brien, Tommy Seymour, Conor Murray and Jack McGrath should not be selected over say Robshaw, Yarde, Care & Marler?

The difference between the 4 sides is not that large in terms of the quality of the first XVs. All 4 have good players within. AUS is mount Kilimanjaro (its doable and really the Lions should always beat AUS) compared to the Everest/K2 conquest that NZ poses. Gatlands wholesale changes policy simply won't work vs. NZ... the drop off in skill would be too great.

whats the alternative.... pick players from a team that struggles to beat Italy?  Surely the players that deserve to go will be the players that play well or are we going to discount form completely and pick out of a hat?

So if country X has a worldclass loosehead but he gets marched because everyone is poor. Does that mean his individual merits should be dismissed?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Precisely fa. Even looking at wins across the patch during that time, over and above the 6Ns Wales weren't easily better. Looking at just the 6Ns, they weren't easily better. When you then consider the performances within all those games and not just the W/L against it, it's blatent. My 'agenda' here is to consider watching the games and players involved and not just simply who finished top as I don't think it'll tell you too much; certainly when you think Gatland had all that time off, if he had simply come to the conclusion Wales finished top twice, once with equal points therefore they have easily the better players (yes, not the same as easily the best team but logic follows on) you could accuse him on being on the fiddle.

But thats not what happened though!!!!!

It wasnt the Welsh team that went on the lions tour. The Welsh had the largest representation adn rightly so but there were other nationalities on that lions team

No 7&1/2 wrote:Looking at just the 6Ns, they weren't easily better

No, before the last Lions tour, Wales were not easily the best. But they were the best. Being the best is not easy.

fa0019 wrote:

True Raven wrote:

fa0019 wrote:In essence whoever wins the 6 nations this year, regardless of who whips who and who looks dominant, if Gatland and his coaches select players mainly from such team then the Lions will get destroyed.
England are a great example of how world class coaching can impact sides. Same with Wales in 2007 to 2008. The players were the same in almost both instances but the results were stark.

Was it that the players were that much fitter or on form... no. Jones had no time on fitness and no say on form. Same with Gatland when he took over in 2008. Say England won the GS again by a good margin... does it automatically mean that Sean O'Brien, Tommy Seymour, Conor Murray and Jack McGrath should not be selected over say Robshaw, Yarde, Care & Marler?

The difference between the 4 sides is not that large in terms of the quality of the first XVs. All 4 have good players within. AUS is mount Kilimanjaro (its doable and really the Lions should always beat AUS) compared to the Everest/K2 conquest that NZ poses. Gatlands wholesale changes policy simply won't work vs. NZ... the drop off in skill would be too great.

whats the alternative.... pick players from a team that struggles to beat Italy?  Surely the players that deserve to go will be the players that play well or are we going to discount form completely and pick out of a hat?

So if country X has a worldclass loosehead but he gets marched because everyone is poor. Does that mean his individual merits should be dismissed?

No and thats never been the case but I wouldnt select a large proportion of players from that team. The bulk of my lions team would consist of players from teams performing with select 'world class' individuals.

E.g I would pick Hogg in a back three with North and Watson based on last years six nations but i wouldnt be picking 7-8 scottish player sin my lions team until they compete for the six nations title

eirebilly wrote:As an Irish fan, I had zero issues with the amount of Welsh in the last Lions tour. They were the better team and had a good understanding between them. What made the Lions stronger was selecting players that were individually stronger but also could suit the game plan.

I am not sure why there is so much hassle about that tour, the Lions won.

Exactly. Some sanity on this forum at last.

You see, it is easy to find the agenda's in most people. 7&1/2 clearly has an anti Welsh agenda. I saw through his smoke and mirrors a long time ago, only know he is being more obvious.

True Raven wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Precisely fa. Even looking at wins across the patch during that time, over and above the 6Ns Wales weren't easily better. Looking at just the 6Ns, they weren't easily better. When you then consider the performances within all those games and not just the W/L against it, it's blatent. My 'agenda' here is to consider watching the games and players involved and not just simply who finished top as I don't think it'll tell you too much; certainly when you think Gatland had all that time off, if he had simply come to the conclusion Wales finished top twice, once with equal points therefore they have easily the better players (yes, not the same as easily the best team but logic follows on) you could accuse him on being on the fiddle.

But thats not what happened though!!!!!

It wasnt the Welsh team that went on the lions tour.  The Welsh had the largest representation adn rightly so but there were other nationalities on that lions team

I differ from the view that that would follow on. Look at Leicester City. Some key individuals but if I were picking a combined team of them and Aresenal from last season, I think I'd be coming out with more Arsenal players.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Looking at just the 6Ns, they weren't easily better

No, before the last Lions tour, Wales were not easily the best. But they were the best. Being the best is not easy.

Cool, so at least that's acknowledged. I'd still have a hard time separating teams out back then; and still now.

True Raven wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

True Raven wrote:

fa0019 wrote:In essence whoever wins the 6 nations this year, regardless of who whips who and who looks dominant, if Gatland and his coaches select players mainly from such team then the Lions will get destroyed.
England are a great example of how world class coaching can impact sides. Same with Wales in 2007 to 2008. The players were the same in almost both instances but the results were stark.

Was it that the players were that much fitter or on form... no. Jones had no time on fitness and no say on form. Same with Gatland when he took over in 2008. Say England won the GS again by a good margin... does it automatically mean that Sean O'Brien, Tommy Seymour, Conor Murray and Jack McGrath should not be selected over say Robshaw, Yarde, Care & Marler?

The difference between the 4 sides is not that large in terms of the quality of the first XVs. All 4 have good players within. AUS is mount Kilimanjaro (its doable and really the Lions should always beat AUS) compared to the Everest/K2 conquest that NZ poses. Gatlands wholesale changes policy simply won't work vs. NZ... the drop off in skill would be too great.

whats the alternative.... pick players from a team that struggles to beat Italy?  Surely the players that deserve to go will be the players that play well or are we going to discount form completely and pick out of a hat?

So if country X has a worldclass loosehead but he gets marched because everyone is poor. Does that mean his individual merits should be dismissed?

No and thats never been the case but I wouldnt select a large proportion of players from that team.   The bulk of my lions team would consist of players from teams performing with select 'world class' individuals.

E.g I would pick Hogg in a back three with North and Watson based on last years six nations but i wouldnt be picking 7-8 scottish player sin my lions team until they compete for the six nations title

In 97 Geechs choose 9 players from the celtic nations in his first XV (would have been nail on 10 and perhaps 11 bar for injuries) even though England smashed all 3 sides by no less than a 21 points margin with an average margin of 30 in that 5N championship... and that was possibly up there as one of the toughest tours in history with certainly the most surprising result. It was beyond a miracle.

Maybe the best Xv players come from one nation be it England, Ireland, Wales or heaven forbid Scotland but regardless of that its far more complex than best team = best players.. and it would be very easy to suggest that the team with the most players in the 1st test won't be from the team which wins the 6N or even wins it at a canter.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I differ from the view that that would follow on. Look at Leicester City. Some key individuals but if I were picking a combined team of them and Aresenal from last season, I think I'd be coming out with more Arsenal players.

Yeah, and you would also be saying that Arsenal were better than them as well, even though they finished behind them. Some logic that.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Looking at just the 6Ns, they weren't easily better

No, before the last Lions tour, Wales were not easily the best. But they were the best. Being the best is not easy.

Cool, so at least that's acknowledged. I'd still have a hard time separating teams out back then; and still now.

So you should understand, and accept, why Wales had the majority of players on the last Lions tour then ?

fa0019 wrote:In 97 Geechs choose 9 players from the celtic nations in his first XV (would have been nail on 10 and perhaps 11 bar for injuries) even though England smashed all 3 sides by no less than a 21 points margin with an average margin of 30 in that 5N championship... and that was possibly up there as one of the toughest tours in history with certainly the most surprising result. It was beyond a miracle.

Maybe the best Xv players come from one nation be it England, Ireland, Wales or heaven forbid Scotland but regardless of that its far more complex than best team = best players.. and it would be very easy to suggest that the team with the most players in the 1st test won't be from the team which wins the 6N or even wins it at a canter.

England had the biggest % of any nation on that tour, and in the starting line up, which nobody could argue with as they were the best side in the NH.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I differ from the view that that would follow on. Look at Leicester City. Some key individuals but if I were picking a combined team of them and Aresenal from last season, I think I'd be coming out with more Arsenal players.

Yeah, and you would also be saying that Arsenal were better than them as well, even though they finished behind them. Some logic that.

Would I? I would say it would be much more debateable if they only played each other once a year. Hence the discussion about the format of the tournament.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Looking at just the 6Ns, they weren't easily better

No, before the last Lions tour, Wales were not easily the best. But they were the best. Being the best is not easy.

Cool, so at least that's acknowledged. I'd still have a hard time separating teams out back then; and still now.

So you should understand, and accept, why Wales had the majority of players on the last Lions tour then ?

I think I can understand why Wales had the majority of players and don't believe much would be down to finishing on level points with England.