Warren Gatland announced as Lions coach

by GunsGerms Tue 06 Sep 2016, 11:52 am

First topic message reminder :

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

by True Raven Tue 20 Sep 2016, 11:00 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:
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.

Well the Pfa team of the year which was voted for by fellow professionals contained 4 Leicester players and 1 arsenal player. So even people who play the sport can see that form dictates previous history

by LordDowlais Tue 20 Sep 2016, 11:06 am

No 7&1/2 wrote: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.

It had nothing to do with finishing level on points with England. It had everything to do with being the stand out best team in the 6N for the two years leading up to the Lions tour. Yes Wales were the stand out best team as they had won back to back title whilst only losing one game. The one year where they won on points difference, they blew their nearest rivals off the park.

That is why, along with the better players from other nations, the Lions went on to secure their first series win since 1997. I would wager, it would have been a whitewash as well, if Gatland picked more of the players he did for the 3rd test in the second test.

That's it. I'm done with you. You must be getting one hell of a kick out of this. Rolling Eyes

by No 7&1/2 Tue 20 Sep 2016, 11:07 am

True Raven wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
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.

Well the Pfa team of the year which was voted for by fellow professionals contained 4 Leicester players and 1 arsenal player. So even people who play the sport can see that form dictates previous history

Yes, there are limitations to that also. One that they have picked Ryan Giggs as their player of the year for sentimental reasons! The other is that they were picking from all teams and not a makeup of arsenal and Leicester.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 20 Sep 2016, 11:10 am

LordDowlais wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote: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.

It had nothing to do with finishing level on points with England. It had everything to do with being the stand out best team in the 6N for the two years leading up to the Lions tour. Yes Wales were the stand out best team as they had won back to back title whilst only losing one game. The one year where they won on points difference, they blew their nearest rivals off the park.

That is why, along with the better players from other nations, the Lions went on to secure their first series win since 1997. I would wager, it would have been a whitewash as well, if Gatland picked more of the players he did for the 3rd test in the second test.

That's it. I'm done with you. You must be getting one hell of a kick out of this.

2013, they finished on level points so not really the stand out team for me even if you were purely going on placings, which I've said I don't agree with. I would also hope that any coach would look at more than the 6Ns here, which I'm sure Gatland would have done. My point still stands 6Ns placings have (or should ahve) very little to do with picking players.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 20 Sep 2016, 11:11 am

I never really get a kick out of discussing anything with you LD as you seem to stubborn to take on points that are made and go down different routes.

by SecretFly Tue 20 Sep 2016, 11:21 am

It's the Lions, you ruffians!

Show a bit of respect and bathe in the 'Unity of Purpose' and the 'Love' we have for each other. Wink

At least that's the motto....ain't it??!!

by mikey_dragon Tue 20 Sep 2016, 11:27 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:
2013, they finished on level points so not really the stand out team for me even if you were purely going on placings, which I've said I don't agree with. I would also hope that any coach would look at more than the 6Ns here, which I'm sure Gatland would have done. My point still stands 6Ns placings have (or should ahve) very little to do with picking players.

They were the best team in the 6N for two years running though and that counts for a lot. Ireland were poor in 2013, whilst England started well but weren't very good in their final two games of that year's tournament. Bound to have an impact on selection... I'd argue that Wales had a few more individual standouts than some others as well which might also be the case this year. We're not that good a team but you could argue that Wales will provide definite starters such as (injuries permitting) AWJ, Faletau, Webb, Biggar, North, Williams/Halfpenny - not bad eh.

by LordDowlais Tue 20 Sep 2016, 11:30 am

England find themselves in the same position as Wales were leading up to the Lions last time. A grand slam in the bag, now lets see if the same players can back it up like Wales did in the past. If they do, then I would expect the majority of the Lions will be English.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 20 Sep 2016, 11:31 am

Look, I've made my points if people do want to look at the 6Ns and focus on standings they can do, but I don't think it's a good way of judging how many (and who) players go on a tour. I do agree with your point on individual standouts whole heartedly. Think you're taking the mess a little with your choice of definite starters!

by mikey_dragon Tue 20 Sep 2016, 11:42 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Look, I've made my points if people do want to look at the 6Ns and focus on standings they can do, but I don't think it's a good way of judging how many (and who) players go on a tour. I do agree with your point on individual standouts whole heartedly. Think you're taking the mess a little with your choice of definite starters!

I'm not wrong, and one of them will be captain Wink

.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 20 Sep 2016, 11:42 am

You've spelt Itoje wrong then!

by funnyExiledScot Tue 20 Sep 2016, 12:01 pm

LordDowlais wrote:England find themselves in the same position as Wales were leading up to the Lions last time. A grand slam in the bag, now lets see if the same players can back it up like Wales did in the past. If they do, then I would expect the majority of the Lions will be English.

I'm not sure if they'll have a majority (i.e. more than half of the touring squad), but it's hard, based on current performance, to see past the English contingent being the largest of the 4th constituent rugby nations.

by LordDowlais Tue 20 Sep 2016, 12:07 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:but it's hard, based on current performance, to see past the English contingent being the largest of the 4th constituent rugby nations.

Ummm, yeah. That's what I meant. They will have more than anyone else, thus they would have the majority.

by mikey_dragon Tue 20 Sep 2016, 12:26 pm

They need to make up more than 50% of the squad to have the majority, which I can't see happening. I suspect they'll have a largest contingent though.

by Gooseberry Tue 20 Sep 2016, 12:26 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:but it's hard, based on current performance, to see past the English contingent being the largest of the 4th constituent rugby nations.

Ummm, yeah. That's what I meant. They will have more than anyone else, thus they would have the majority.

Oh jesus wept this has reached new depths. The internet needs to be shut down now.

by **George Carlin** Tue 20 Sep 2016, 12:26 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:but it's hard, based on current performance, to see past the English contingent being the largest of the 4th constituent rugby nations.

Ummm, yeah. That's what I meant. They will have more than anyone else, thus they would have the majority.

Warren Gatland announced as Lions coach - Page 16 Mr-ped10

by SecretFly Tue 20 Sep 2016, 12:27 pm

Gooseberry wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:but it's hard, based on current performance, to see past the English contingent being the largest of the 4th constituent rugby nations.

Ummm, yeah. That's what I meant. They will have more than anyone else, thus they would have the majority.

Oh jesus wept this has reached new depths. The internet needs to be shut down now.

I second that motion!

I hear Labour are going to pass it...when they next get elected to govern............................. Whistle

by Poorfour Tue 20 Sep 2016, 12:29 pm

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.

It shouldn't mean anything automatically... my big issue with Gatland last time was that post he had a very fixed idea of what he wanted and some players were selected automatically regardless of actual form. Lydiate's a case in point - he did not look anywhere near his normal level of effectiveness, and was playing himself back to fitness over the course of the tour. The Lions got away with it, but they won't in NZ.

I like the mountaineering analogy, though I'd say:

Italy are like Kilimanjaro. You know you've faced a physical challenge but if you're fit, well organised and respect the danger you can conquer it.
Argentina, naturally, are like Aconcagua. Hard work but most people can overcome it. Disrespect it and it will kill you, though.
Australia are probably more like Cho Oyu - the easiest of the really big boys
South Africa are like Annapurna - not that technical, but easily the most dangerous.
New Zealand, I think, are most like Baintha Brakk, the Ogre. Not the biggest, but easily the most difficult.

For a bit more reading on 8,000ers: http://www.summitpost.org/8000m-peaks/171372

by SecretFly Tue 20 Sep 2016, 12:41 pm

The Lions are Snowdon - if you're under the weather with a bit of a chill or if you forgot your deerstalker or forgot your flask of tea, then you might not make it all the way to beat them. But otherwise........... just get the train.

by Poorfour Tue 20 Sep 2016, 12:46 pm

SecretFly wrote:The Lions are Snowdon - if you're under the weather with a bit of a chill or if you forgot your deerstalker or forgot your flask of tea, then you might not make it all the way to beat them. But otherwise........... just get the train.

My five year old climbed Snowdon in 60 mile per hour winds last month. I think the Lions are a little better than that.

by SecretFly Tue 20 Sep 2016, 12:48 pm

Do you?

Hmmm. I'll sleep a few nights thinking that over and get back to you, Poofour.

by lostinwales Tue 20 Sep 2016, 1:21 pm

Poorfour wrote:
SecretFly wrote:The Lions are Snowdon - if you're under the weather with a bit of a chill or if you forgot your deerstalker or forgot your flask of tea, then you might not make it all the way to beat them. But otherwise........... just get the train.

My five year old climbed Snowdon in 60 mile per hour winds last month. I think the Lions are a little better than that.

The little so and so's stay closer to the ground and don't feel so much wind...

by Tattie Scones RRN Tue 20 Sep 2016, 1:30 pm

SecretFly wrote:The Lions are Snowdon - if you're under the weather with a bit of a chill or if you forgot your deerstalker or forgot your flask of tea, then you might not make it all the way to beat them. But otherwise........... just get the train.

Compared to the All Blacks, the Lions are like the Malverns.

by Tattie Scones RRN Tue 20 Sep 2016, 1:32 pm

mikey_dragon wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
2013, they finished on level points so not really the stand out team for me even if you were purely going on placings, which I've said I don't agree with. I would also hope that any coach would look at more than the 6Ns here, which I'm sure Gatland would have done. My point still stands 6Ns placings have (or should ahve) very little to do with picking players.

They were the best team in the 6N for two years running though and that counts for a lot. Ireland were poor in 2013, whilst England started well but weren't very good in their final two games of that year's tournament. Bound to have an impact on selection... I'd argue that Wales had a few more individual standouts than some others as well which might also be the case this year. We're not that good a team but you could argue that Wales will provide definite starters such as (injuries permitting) AWJ, Faletau, Webb, Biggar, North, Williams/Halfpenny - not bad eh.

AWJ will not start. He'd unlikely start now, so next year is definitely a no no.

by True Raven Tue 20 Sep 2016, 1:41 pm

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
2013, they finished on level points so not really the stand out team for me even if you were purely going on placings, which I've said I don't agree with. I would also hope that any coach would look at more than the 6Ns here, which I'm sure Gatland would have done. My point still stands 6Ns placings have (or should ahve) very little to do with picking players.

They were the best team in the 6N for two years running though and that counts for a lot. Ireland were poor in 2013, whilst England started well but weren't very good in their final two games of that year's tournament. Bound to have an impact on selection... I'd argue that Wales had a few more individual standouts than some others as well which might also be the case this year. We're not that good a team but you could argue that Wales will provide definite starters such as (injuries permitting) AWJ, Faletau, Webb, Biggar, North, Williams/Halfpenny - not bad eh.

AWJ will not start. He'd unlikely start now, so next year is definitely a no no.

Im biased being an Ospreys fan but I think he'll be captain. However, I know in the minority on that one

by BamBam Tue 20 Sep 2016, 1:41 pm

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
2013, they finished on level points so not really the stand out team for me even if you were purely going on placings, which I've said I don't agree with. I would also hope that any coach would look at more than the 6Ns here, which I'm sure Gatland would have done. My point still stands 6Ns placings have (or should ahve) very little to do with picking players.

They were the best team in the 6N for two years running though and that counts for a lot. Ireland were poor in 2013, whilst England started well but weren't very good in their final two games of that year's tournament. Bound to have an impact on selection... I'd argue that Wales had a few more individual standouts than some others as well which might also be the case this year. We're not that good a team but you could argue that Wales will provide definite starters such as (injuries permitting) AWJ, Faletau, Webb, Biggar, North, Williams/Halfpenny - not bad eh.

AWJ will not start. He'd unlikely start now, so next year is definitely a no no.

Warren Gatland announced as Lions coach - Page 16 1347041234

by mikey_dragon Tue 20 Sep 2016, 1:57 pm

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
2013, they finished on level points so not really the stand out team for me even if you were purely going on placings, which I've said I don't agree with. I would also hope that any coach would look at more than the 6Ns here, which I'm sure Gatland would have done. My point still stands 6Ns placings have (or should ahve) very little to do with picking players.

They were the best team in the 6N for two years running though and that counts for a lot. Ireland were poor in 2013, whilst England started well but weren't very good in their final two games of that year's tournament. Bound to have an impact on selection... I'd argue that Wales had a few more individual standouts than some others as well which might also be the case this year. We're not that good a team but you could argue that Wales will provide definite starters such as (injuries permitting) AWJ, Faletau, Webb, Biggar, North, Williams/Halfpenny - not bad eh.

AWJ will not start. He'd unlikely start now, so next year is definitely a no no.

Yawn another bitter Scotsman that doesn't watch rugby. AWJ is the starter and captain, it's a no brainer. The captain needs to be world class, be a good leader and be the first choice in his position - as far as I can see AWJ is the only one to fit the bill.

by yappysnap Tue 20 Sep 2016, 1:59 pm

The Lions are Table Mountain; impressive looking, historically and culturally significant. But when you actually get up close, you realise any one can get over it.

by Gooseberry Tue 20 Sep 2016, 2:11 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:but it's hard, based on current performance, to see past the English contingent being the largest of the 4th constituent rugby nations.

Ummm, yeah. That's what I meant. They will have more than anyone else, thus they would have the majority.

Oh jesus wept this has reached new depths. The internet needs to be shut down now.

I second that motion!

I hear Labour are going to pass it...when they next get elected to govern.............................

Britain and Ireland? Erm

by Tattie Scones RRN Tue 20 Sep 2016, 2:24 pm

mikey_dragon wrote:
Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
2013, they finished on level points so not really the stand out team for me even if you were purely going on placings, which I've said I don't agree with. I would also hope that any coach would look at more than the 6Ns here, which I'm sure Gatland would have done. My point still stands 6Ns placings have (or should ahve) very little to do with picking players.

They were the best team in the 6N for two years running though and that counts for a lot. Ireland were poor in 2013, whilst England started well but weren't very good in their final two games of that year's tournament. Bound to have an impact on selection... I'd argue that Wales had a few more individual standouts than some others as well which might also be the case this year. We're not that good a team but you could argue that Wales will provide definite starters such as (injuries permitting) AWJ, Faletau, Webb, Biggar, North, Williams/Halfpenny - not bad eh.

AWJ will not start. He'd unlikely start now, so next year is definitely a no no.

Yawn another bitter Scotsman that doesn't watch rugby. AWJ is the starter and captain, it's a no brainer. The captain needs to be world class, be a good leader and be the first choice in his position - as far as I can see AWJ is the only one to fit the bill.

Aye course he is.

He'll go...I'm pretty confident of that, but I reckon he'll be pairing Gray Jnr in the midweek side.

by R!skysports Tue 20 Sep 2016, 2:48 pm

mikey_dragon wrote:
Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
2013, they finished on level points so not really the stand out team for me even if you were purely going on placings, which I've said I don't agree with. I would also hope that any coach would look at more than the 6Ns here, which I'm sure Gatland would have done. My point still stands 6Ns placings have (or should ahve) very little to do with picking players.

They were the best team in the 6N for two years running though and that counts for a lot. Ireland were poor in 2013, whilst England started well but weren't very good in their final two games of that year's tournament. Bound to have an impact on selection... I'd argue that Wales had a few more individual standouts than some others as well which might also be the case this year. We're not that good a team but you could argue that Wales will provide definite starters such as (injuries permitting) AWJ, Faletau, Webb, Biggar, North, Williams/Halfpenny - not bad eh.

AWJ will not start. He'd unlikely start now, so next year is definitely a no no.

Yawn another bitter Scotsman that doesn't watch rugby. AWJ is the starter and captain, it's a no brainer. The captain needs to be world class, be a good leader and be the first choice in his position - as far as I can see AWJ is the only one to fit the bill.

Not sure what Halfpenny has done to deserve a starting place recently either

Run

by fa0019 Tue 20 Sep 2016, 2:51 pm

Riskysports wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
2013, they finished on level points so not really the stand out team for me even if you were purely going on placings, which I've said I don't agree with. I would also hope that any coach would look at more than the 6Ns here, which I'm sure Gatland would have done. My point still stands 6Ns placings have (or should ahve) very little to do with picking players.

They were the best team in the 6N for two years running though and that counts for a lot. Ireland were poor in 2013, whilst England started well but weren't very good in their final two games of that year's tournament. Bound to have an impact on selection... I'd argue that Wales had a few more individual standouts than some others as well which might also be the case this year. We're not that good a team but you could argue that Wales will provide definite starters such as (injuries permitting) AWJ, Faletau, Webb, Biggar, North, Williams/Halfpenny - not bad eh.

AWJ will not start. He'd unlikely start now, so next year is definitely a no no.

Yawn another bitter Scotsman that doesn't watch rugby. AWJ is the starter and captain, it's a no brainer. The captain needs to be world class, be a good leader and be the first choice in his position - as far as I can see AWJ is the only one to fit the bill.

Not sure what Halfpenny has done to deserve a starting place recently either

Why have him if Farrell/Sexton can kick the goals.

Take the tee away from him and I'm not sure he'd get into the Wales team... and given Biggar probably has a longer range, just as accurate and is a true clutch player why would you?

by beshocked Tue 20 Sep 2016, 2:59 pm

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
2013, they finished on level points so not really the stand out team for me even if you were purely going on placings, which I've said I don't agree with. I would also hope that any coach would look at more than the 6Ns here, which I'm sure Gatland would have done. My point still stands 6Ns placings have (or should ahve) very little to do with picking players.

They were the best team in the 6N for two years running though and that counts for a lot. Ireland were poor in 2013, whilst England started well but weren't very good in their final two games of that year's tournament. Bound to have an impact on selection... I'd argue that Wales had a few more individual standouts than some others as well which might also be the case this year. We're not that good a team but you could argue that Wales will provide definite starters such as (injuries permitting) AWJ, Faletau, Webb, Biggar, North, Williams/Halfpenny - not bad eh.

AWJ will not start. He'd unlikely start now, so next year is definitely a no no.

Yawn another bitter Scotsman that doesn't watch rugby. AWJ is the starter and captain, it's a no brainer. The captain needs to be world class, be a good leader and be the first choice in his position - as far as I can see AWJ is the only one to fit the bill.

Aye course he is.

He'll go...I'm pretty confident of that, but I reckon he'll be pairing Gray Jnr in the midweek side.

Probably quite accurate to be fair.

by fa0019 Tue 20 Sep 2016, 3:05 pm

actually I think Lock is a very very competitive position. Fighting for places and those with genuine realistic touring shots are

Itoje (probably would walk into any side in the world at the moment)
Kruis (management of England's lineout has been exemplery).
Gray jnr (better than his brother and great workrate).
Jones (decent player, toured twice before)
Toner (what's not to like, the best in the world to have defending a maul)
Charteris (far stronger than some state, excellent in lineout and mauls)

then

Gray, Launchbury, Lawes, McCarthy etc

Pick 4 from that. Its Tough.

by Guest Tue 20 Sep 2016, 3:16 pm

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.

I think that's been a big part of the problem that you've failed to put aside when we've been discussing selection, this sort of FIFA, computer game kind of numerical and quantitative comparison between players. This kind of "I know better than the professional coach because I do fantasy football/rugby" mentality is encouraged because engagement with sport-as-entertainment equates to money for all the invested parties, which are many now. But to genuinely hold that belief is really blinkered.

In theory, yeah, few people would see the problem with this: Arsenal have excellent techincal footballers. Yet they've continually flattered to deceive, bottled the big games, and haven't won a significant trophy for years, all whilst spending a lot of money on wages and transfer fees. In short, they have underachieved for the techinical talent that has been amassed at the club. Leicester are a team of less techinical players, but are evidently better coached for success, and coached in a way that is conducive to the players' talents. Their transfer strategy was also better managed: not simply signing more technical players like Arsenal do, but an awareness of the need for grit- both mental and physical- to player in the Premier League. That they won it is only slightly short of a miracle, but the point still stands: there are elements of Leicester that are evidently better than Arsenal, so you would want to replicate those things.

Your comparison actually works nicely, but not in the way you hoped: Leicester played counter attacking, "non-attractive" pragmatic football, that led them to winning against the odds. Does that feel like a similar criticism that is persistently levelled at Gatland, for both the Lions and Wales? Now, there isn't a 6Ns team as techincally superior to Wales as the Arsenal team is to Leicester's, yet for the unique demands of forming a team of players on short notice, pragmatic realism quite clearly has its benefits over trying to get techincally good players, and expecting them to gel, and to have the mental robustness and siege mentality to perform when under pressure.

In fact, there is a neat example of this. Danny Drinkwater, so integral to Leicester's good performances, was left at home, whilst Jack Wilshere- from Arsenal, generally seen as one of the best techincal English footballers- went to this Summer's Euros for England, and was atrocious. So too was Wayne Rooney. And Harry Kane. In fact, the better performances came from the likes of Eric Dier and Kyle Walker, England's 'non-techincal' or defensive players, and the techincal, creative footballers persistently failed to replicate their club form, and failed to find a rhythm and understanding with one another.

Simplistic, pragmatic realism (see: the base for "Gatlandball") definitely has its place in making the best of a group of players, particularly with a short period of training time, such as even Internationals, or particularly the Lions. Looking once more to the Euros, look at Iceland, and see how a complete togetherness and team discipline, defensive solidity, and a few prepared set pieces/tactics (the long throw in for Iceland) led them to success. Or, even, Portugal, the eventual winners, who got to the final on the basis of their defensive discipline in not conceding goals (Shaun Edwards' defence) and relying on either grinding out a win through extra time and penalties (kicks at goal) or the star quality of Cristiano Ronaldo (Shane Williams, or latterly North and Cuthbert). Spain, the best techincal team alongside Germany, with the most talented players, were never in contention. Does that not say something about the difficulty in trying to coach and select a team of very talented players?

In short, if you select techincally great players from disparate teams with different tactics employed to utilise those players' techincal strengths, and hope to be successful in a short space of time, do not be surprised when you also select those players' mental fragility and techincal weaknesses (perhaps in defence, and discipline) by removing them from the club environment in which they have been so successful. Would Drinkwater, and thus Vardy, have been anywhere near as successful without the dog work done by Kante? Would they have won the league by trying to open up, and let anyone other than Mahrez be expressive and creative on the ball? No, is the short answer. Total togetherness, with everyone buying into a gameplan and accepting that they may have to stifle some of their talents because there is someone better at the creativity, is paramount, and just logical, in the short turnaround with few coaching hours as the Lions have. Equally, a gameplan that is focused on making as few errors as possible, and basic skills under pressure, is easier to coach, easier for the players to understand and implement, and ultimately (here's the important one) replicate and stick to when under the pressure of a Test match against one of the best teams in the world, than anything more complex, even if said pragmatic tactics might be less pretty, and (on the face of it) less adept at utilising the creative talents of individual players.

So, yes, if you are selecting a combined Leicester and Arsenal team on the basis of a FIFA-like conclusion of the players' abilities, then yes, you're correct, you would probably select 1 to 11 from Arsenal. Yet in reality, in the literal world of player selection, if you had to select a team to perform under the pressures of tournament sport, and what you feel the best chance of being successful, would you really select anywhere near as many Arsenal players? As evidenced by Leicester's recent success (which, another point, is very much in keeping with the tactical vogue of football, which is counter attacking, counter possession football as was Barcelone-esque vogue between 08-13/14), and Arsenal's continued underachievement, you'd be a fool to do so.

To bring it back to rugby terms, you don't select a team of piano players at the loss of the piano movers, particularly if the piano players undo all the hard graft of the piano movers by being lesser players than their opposition, or making glaring errors that their opposite number can exploit due to systemic weaknesses (What good is a dam if it has a crack in it: what good is Gatlandball if you select someone with flaky tactical discipline?).

Nowadays, you perhaps don't even want to select a whole backline of piano players, such is the techincal mismatch that will occur between the All Blacks and the Lions. You have one or two piano players- whoever they may be, Stuart Hogg, Liam Williams, George North (in football: Cristiano Ronaldo), whoever- whilst the rest work in tandem to keep the piano as steady and stable for those players to perform as best as possible, in the hope that by having a few flashes of virtuoso performance, it will be sufficient.

by mikey_dragon Tue 20 Sep 2016, 3:17 pm

Riskysports wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Tattie Scones RRN wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
2013, they finished on level points so not really the stand out team for me even if you were purely going on placings, which I've said I don't agree with. I would also hope that any coach would look at more than the 6Ns here, which I'm sure Gatland would have done. My point still stands 6Ns placings have (or should ahve) very little to do with picking players.

They were the best team in the 6N for two years running though and that counts for a lot. Ireland were poor in 2013, whilst England started well but weren't very good in their final two games of that year's tournament. Bound to have an impact on selection... I'd argue that Wales had a few more individual standouts than some others as well which might also be the case this year. We're not that good a team but you could argue that Wales will provide definite starters such as (injuries permitting) AWJ, Faletau, Webb, Biggar, North, Williams/Halfpenny - not bad eh.

AWJ will not start. He'd unlikely start now, so next year is definitely a no no.

Yawn another bitter Scotsman that doesn't watch rugby. AWJ is the starter and captain, it's a no brainer. The captain needs to be world class, be a good leader and be the first choice in his position - as far as I can see AWJ is the only one to fit the bill.

Not sure what Halfpenny has done to deserve a starting place recently either

Playing very well for Toulon might have something to do with it. He'll need to feature for Wales against first and go from there. Hogg or Williams might beat him to the starting XV jersey but Halfpenny is one of the standouts that I believe will be in or around the match day squad.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 20 Sep 2016, 3:22 pm

So miaow to take that back to the original points you would also look beyond the result and at the players and what they were being asked to do as, as you quite rightly say, there's alot of input from the coaches. ie Gatland could spot something from a Tom Youngs where he thinks Lancaster didn't get enough from him etc. Presumably though you agree with the point I was arguing against that the team which finishes top should always have the most players as they're better?

In regards to the piano players, yes I agree.

by Guest Tue 20 Sep 2016, 3:37 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:So miaow to take that back to the original points you would also look beyond the result and at the players and what they were being asked to do as, as you quite rightly say, there's alot of input from the coaches. ie Gatland could spot something from a Tom Youngs where he thinks Lancaster didn't get enough from him etc. Presumably though you agree with the point I was arguing against that the team which finishes top should always have the most players as they're better?

Yes, I absolutely agree that you don't just choose from the team that finishes top because they finish top.

Equally, you don't dismiss a 6Ns table as insignificant, as I think your argument against the above was suggesting.

The team that finishes top is there for a reason. It's the consideration of those reasons- that the team has won because of a particular mix of form, tactics, experience, the puacity of quality opposition, as well as a host of other reasons- that informs which parts of the team to hope to replicate in a Lions format, and which you either cannot replicate due to the difficulty in doing so, or which you do no want to replicate because it is not deemed conducive to winning rugby.

My issue isn't really with the point you were arguing, it was sort of facile, and the answer is somewhere in the middle between what both parties were arguing for. My point was that such thinking displayed in your Arsenal-Leicester suggestion was exactly the sticking point I felt you and I have over Warren Gatland's tactics as a whole, and his selection policy too. It neatly demonstrated for me a kind of surface misunderstanding of modern sport, and that is perhaps why so many people are angry and conflicted about the fact that Gatland won with the Lions. They're apparently not angry for the fact that BoD was dropped, but the way in which he was dropped (whatever that means). They're not angry at the fact that the Lions won, but the fact that they didn't play "better" in doing so (whatever better means: if it means more open/running rugby, does this still mean you win the Test series? Arsenal have repeatedly proven this is not the case, hence my picking you up on the point). They're angry at the like of Lydiate and Roberts being selected, yet- again- would the Lions have won under Warren Gatland without such players?

As I will continue to repeat, for as long as Warren Gatland keeps getting it right more often than not, any fans' criticism is effectively redundant, particularly when it's as ill informed and illogical as much of the counter arguments have been on this thread.

No 7&1/2 wrote:In regards to the piano players, yes I agree.

Then you're effectively condoning "Gatlandball".

by No 7&1/2 Tue 20 Sep 2016, 3:45 pm

Oh my argument definitely is that the 6Ns table does need to be taken with a pinch of salt if discussing the best NH team for the 2 reasons I've said. Format; you only play each team once home or away not both. And that there are games other than the 6Ns which seems to have been dismissed.

I wasn't angry that BOD was dropped but it was a mistake in my eyes. I don't mind saying that as anyone can look up and see what I wrote at the time.

The Arsenal thing, well you can point to the fact Leicester did it and well done. Not sure they will finish above Arsenal this year or go further in the Champions League. I'd still say that Leicester relied, and continue to rely on the exceptional talent of a fewer number of select players so for me it's Arsenal thats the more complete team. But hey ho.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 20 Sep 2016, 3:48 pm

And I would never argue that a team shouldn't play a particular way. I would back 8 forwards beating up their opposition and the ball never making it past 10 as much as 15 man all singing all dancing rugby if that was the best way to go about things. I think there's a subtle difference in what I've said about the way Gatland went about things. He decided to go the way of Wales in terms of play and unsurprisingly thought that a greater number of Welsh players would suit that. I believe that with 4 teams players available he could pretty much have picked any way to play. ie He did it back to front for me.

Will be interesting to see if he does it the same way again.

by Guest Tue 20 Sep 2016, 3:56 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd still say that Leicester relied, and continue to rely on the exceptional talent of a fewer number of select players so for me it's Arsenal thats the more complete team. But hey ho.

What does that mean!? Dear me. What good is a "complete" team when they persistently underachieve, showing glaring deficiencies despite the wealth and privilege their club has?

Literally pointless arguing with you. As I thought, you're arguing for some sort of abstract idea of being "better" that is completely irrelevant to the success of a team. Now, were a team to be persistently successful, then yes, I would say chase that abstract idea of "being better", in either performance, or win it by a bigger margin, or whatever. Uphold the ideal of Brian Clough winning "better" with Leeds, because it's reasonable: you're coming from a base of success, whereby "winning better" is achievable for the simple fact that they were "winners".

But in relation to the Lions? Whereby all the odds are stacked against them, by going to NZ, playing the best team in the world in their own back yard, one of the best in world sport in terms of dominance, in a format where you are picking players used to being in total opposition with each other, coming from different backgrounds, different tactics, with different comfort zones, where 1 to 15 for the Lions will be 'inferior' in terms of techincal ability to their opposite number?

No, I'm sorry. It's pig headedness on your part. Or, to bring it back to Leicester: you're an ostrich with your head in the sand.

I don't know what you're arguing for, and frankly, I don't think you do either. "Complete" team, dear me...

by fa0019 Tue 20 Sep 2016, 3:57 pm

miaow wrote:

As I will continue to repeat, for as long as Warren Gatland keeps getting it right more often than not, any fans' criticism is effectively redundant, particularly when it's as ill informed and illogical as much of the counter arguments have been on this thread.

Its so so.

He did all that could have asked him against AUS in AUS but you have to wonder how he will ever challenge NZ with such tactics. In essence, against AUS he was able to bully AUS with 35 odd players who ended up getting capped without dropping relative skill too much, beat them by simply tiring them out.
The lions were so dominant up front that they could even play Tom Youngs at 2 and not only did the lineout function ok the scrum wasn't impacted either. Today Eddie Jones won't even let him near a bar of soap.

Is there anything in his tactics with Wales or the Lions... even his performance record which suggests that his coaching adds value to the results?
Wales has the worst record vs. the SH both home and away during his tenure yet if anything he's probably had the best group of players. Isn't that a worry? McGeechan was respected because whilst he didn't always get results with Scotland.. he batted way above his weight and took the odd scalp and so did his teams.

He's only ever won 2 games with Wales vs. 3N sides... in 33 matches. During this time Ireland, Scotland, France, England, Argentina have all won more games, played in less and have better win rates to boot. The only tier 1 side that they have a superior record against is Italy.

This isn't a slander on Wales' name. They have been a better side then the above 5 sides yet their records vs. the best are simply dire. They should have had the best win rate out of the lot.. instead they have the worst... and the one place where you need a coach to be at his best and to add value is touring NZ.

He did well vs. AUS and should be applauded but Eddie Jones has sort of blown a whole through that legacy after he has whitewashed AUS a few years later (and arguably a better side then the 2013 one) and lets be honest would others have done a job in 2013... I think so; its not a difficult tour.

He is a kiwi, knows the game and the coaches and has a decent record with Wales outside of that. But is he the sort of guy to build a team and a strategy to really challenge NZ... because it is out there, the players too. I'm not sure his CV suggests that.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 20 Sep 2016, 4:04 pm

Complete in this sense, a team less reliant on a smaller selection of players. To take it back to your point of piano players, or water carriers as Cantona put it I think most people would pull out more Arsenal players as the piano movers, it was Leicester with Vardy, Marez with the players to a certain extent.

So from that you think that Gatland will go with the same tactics he favours with Wales, and from that it follows there'll be a lot of players from Wales as they suit the tactics. Why does he need the sabatical?

As for arguing, seems to sum you up. Ignore any points of discussion as you don't agree with them.

by Guest Tue 20 Sep 2016, 4:08 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:He decided to go the way of Wales in terms of play and unsurprisingly thought that a greater number of Welsh players would suit that. I believe that with 4 teams players available he could pretty much have picked any way to play. ie He did it back to front for me.

Such an overly simplistic rendering of the facts and the subjective nature of weighing up factors and coming to a conclusion.

With 4 teams, you can pick any way you want to play. That is true. But would you be successful? What I went to great lengths trying to explain to you was WHY GATLAND WAS SUCCESSFUL, and I picked very carefully over the tactics his teams used to do this. If he were to choose anything other than "Gatlandball", then yes, why not have you, or Cyril, or any other poster on this board coach the Lions to success against Australia (as was often cited as evidence of the ease of the victory!!)? You choose Gatland because of his success, and that comes with him replicating what has made him successful. How is that so hard to understand!? Dear me, honestly, it doesn't matter what sort of ideal you're holding up- that's fun to imagine, but stick to FIFA or fantasy rugby with those ideals. Don't portray them in the garb of reasonable thought and suggestion.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Will be interesting to see if he does it the same way again.

I've suggested where I think- if they are to do the amazing and win the Test series- Gatland will have to introduce a few amendments to the tactics he has displayed recently.

Now, please, one last chance, offer something positive other than the ostrich, with his head in the sand, persistently repeating "yes, well, he won it, but not in the way I would have. It was all back to front for me." Again, for you? Why. You've bought too much into the sport-as-entertainment-and-commodity idea that you, as spectator, are there to be catered to.

If you're going to reply, please come up with something new. I've literally answered all the points you've raised there several pages ago. Now, either answer those points with literal, specific points of opinion on where you disagree, where you think the Lions can be successful, tactical and selection points, or just give up.

http://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads//2015/03/1425_3.jpg

by mikey_dragon Tue 20 Sep 2016, 4:15 pm

fa0019 wrote:
This isn't a slander on Wales' name.

Telling fibs again.

by fa0019 Tue 20 Sep 2016, 4:27 pm

mikey_dragon wrote:
fa0019 wrote:
This isn't a slander on Wales' name.

Telling fibs again.

do you think he has the tactical strength to compete with NZ? His record with wales vs. the 3N is 2 wins in 33 matches. Wales have been the best team with 3 titles during his tenure. The best vs. the other 6N sides, the worst vs. the 3N sides. Doesn't really match up now does it.

fibs?

by beshocked Tue 20 Sep 2016, 4:30 pm

Well said fa0019.

miaow to be fair I think I could have coached the Lions to success against Australia, of course I would have made sure I had top class coaching set up to help. Not one person can do it alone.

Gatland's successes are not all his own, Edwards has been a huge asset to Gatland.

Eddie Jones has not been alone, he had help from Borthwick at Japan and now with England, both Borthwick and Gustard have been of great assistance.

by Guest Tue 20 Sep 2016, 4:37 pm

fa0019

I believe that Gatland has underachieved at times- i.e. his stats record against Australia with Wales, despite the performances- and yet has overachieved at others. Ultimately, there are other factors (Welsh players individually bottling against SANZAR teams, his absence during previous Lions sabbatical) that have to be considered during these negative times.

He has his weaknesses, undoubtedly, and I think most Welsh fans will be honest about this. But there is justification to his selection and tactical choices, even if you ultimately disagree. I have, however, yet to see any sort of sensible suggestion made that justifies any diagreement. Unfortunately you yourself have slipped into the realm of supposition, conjecture, and over simplification of the facts by trying to limit his achievements because "anyone could do it", "the Lions just tired Australia out" etc.

by mikey_dragon Tue 20 Sep 2016, 4:38 pm

fa0019 wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
fa0019 wrote:
This isn't a slander on Wales' name.

Telling fibs again.

do you think he has the tactical strength to compete with NZ? His record with wales vs. the 3N is 2 wins in 33 matches. Wales have been the best team with 3 titles during his tenure. The best vs. the other 6N sides, the worst vs. the 3N sides. Doesn't really match up now does it.

fibs?

Fibs because you always take a pop at Wales, you were the first one to do so after we lost to SA at the world cup - yet another example of your dribble all over SA coat-tails. Gatland is the Lions coach - Bore off, you write the same thing every other week.

by Guest Tue 20 Sep 2016, 4:44 pm

beshocked wrote:Gatland's successes are not all his own, Edwards has been a huge asset to Gatland.

Of course not, but "Gatlandball" is reliant upon a specific kind of defence that Edwards has been able to provide. When he no longer coaches successful defence, as has been the case this season, Wales have mixed results. It's why Gatland will probably look to Gustard for the Lions unless Edwards improves Wales's defence dramatically this season. Nevertheless, I'm not sure the point is really all that important: Gatland oversees his teams as Head Coach, and takes the success as such. No-one is going to individually praise him for George North scoring the try again the Australians, but you can praise him on cultivating an environment whereby that could happen, i.e. creating a game whereby Berick Barnes would eventually put a loose kick up that led to the try. It's the exact same thing with his defence coach, he gets the praise for cultivating a successful defence.

beshocked wrote:miaow to be fair I think I could have coached the Lions to success against Australia

Then (unless you're involved in paid rugby coaching to a decent level whereby we can corroborate your abilities over a certain period of time) unfortunately I have to say you have a woefully over inflated sense of your own ability, and complete ignorance of modern professional sport.

by Sponsored content