Lions Selection - The differnce between Whinging and Frustration.

by RuggerRadge2611 Thu 06 Jun 2013, 11:09 am

The selection of Corbs has made a lot of Scots guys tempers flare, mine included.

I feel I should create a thread on the mind-set of a typical Scottish and Lions fan (myself) to help the posters from the other 3 nations understand that there is a huge different between whinging and frustration. I'll set my stall out here.

Straight off the bat I felt that Scotland would possibly have a chance of 7-8 tourists. Glasgow's excellent form in the Pro12 and Visser's phenomenal try scoring strike rate made a compelling case for them. As did Kelly Brown's thumping shifts in the 6N and for Sarries ultimitely unsuccessful HC and Premiership charges.

I felt that the following Scots had a chance to tour :

Grant *
Gray *
Brown *
Laidlaw
Scott
Maitland *
Visser
Hogg *

I always said that I would have been over the moon with 5 (*).

We got 3 out of that lot. I whinged a bit then about Lydiate’s selection and I’ll do the same now. Had Scottish captain been left behind for Chris Robshaw or Ryan Jones I would have been devastated but understood 100%. Robshaw and Jones have been fantastic for Quins, O’s, England and Wales all season. Whereas Lydiate had barely played any rugby.

The cycle has repeated itself again with Healy either being flown home through injury or by biting someone, again logic has been ignored and 3 better, fitter players in the form of Sheridan, James and Grant have been left behind.

I was Frustrated when North, Cuthbert and Bowe got ahead of Visser. North and Cuthbert are classy operators and Bowe has already got Lions experience. Visser is a great player and a good try scorer but I understand him being left behind for the players who did travel.

I was also frustrated when Laidlaw got left behind. I have never rated Phillips, but I know what he can bring to the game. Youngs has also been electric for club and country so I can understand his inclusion too.

So to conclude, I am a whinger. I’m whinging because I think the Lions Coaching staff has picked the wrong player for the wrong reason. Frustration for me would come to the fore when I want to see my Scottish players represented but I know in my heart of hearts there are better players out there and they have been picked for that reason.

by GunsGerms Thu 06 Jun 2013, 11:16 am

I would have brought Visser but only at the expense of Maitland who I dont think should have been considered as he hasnt been around long enough.

I would have taken Grey but his form was terrible and could be considered lucky to tour.

Laidlaw was unfortunate not to be selected because he is good and he covers multiple positions.

Who would you have left behind for Brown?

I think the one Scot that we really should have brought was Hines. I would prefer him to all the lock options except POC maybe.

by RuggerRadge2611 Thu 06 Jun 2013, 11:19 am

GunsGerms wrote:Who would you have left behind for Brown?

Lydiate, I would also have left Lydiate behind for Robshaw, Jones or Wood.

by GunsGerms Thu 06 Jun 2013, 11:29 am

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:Who would you have left behind for Brown?

Lydiate, I would also have left Lydiate behind for Robshaw, Jones or Wood.

Fair point. He is a great player but I dont think Lydiate has been good so far and he has also been injured. I understand why he was brought because he has showed how good he can been in recent 6 nations however, Robshaw or Brown were probably more deserving. I think its fair to say that back row is one of the areas of greatest depth for the Lions so some tough calls had to be made.

Understand the frustration though.

by RubyGuby Thu 06 Jun 2013, 11:33 am

Lydiate will probably turn out to be one of the players of the tour when the real deal kicks off. Same goes for Mike Phillips - It might be best to leave the frustration and the whinging until the end of the tour as so far there is little basis for these arguments looking at most of the performances albeit against poor opposition - Even Rory Best so far has showed us why Gatland went for Hartley and we were all up in arms about that initially- thumbsup

by reallybored Thu 06 Jun 2013, 11:43 am

It’s easy for the other nations to turn round and say stop whinging about so and so not making the tour, you guys are well represented on the tour. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get 100% behind the Lions when you feel like your players are getting over-looked because of their nationality.

Gatland said that this tour would be primarily selected on form during the 6 Nations, we had a pretty good 6 Nations and scored plenty of tries. We got thumped by England first up but other than that, we played well and some of our players performed very well. The squad was pretty much 90% right in my eyes, the backs were exactly what I thought they’d be, but the dubious calls up front seemed to all go against the Scots.

Grant was as good as any other LH throughout the 6 Nations, 5th top tackler and has experience beating Australia in Australia to boot. But he gets overlooked for a guy who’s played 5 matches this year? On what possible basis?

Murray had a good 6 Nations and has Lions experience from 09, still a destructive scrummager but has improved his work-rate considerably (better than Jones). But he gets over-looked for a guy who’s retired from International rugby, was never England 1st choice TH and has looked suspect for his club in the tight?

Brown has had a fantastic season for both club and country, was one of the best performing open-sides in the home nations during 6 Nations despite being out of position and did well in HC with Sarries. And he isn’t even on the stand-by list? Now Brown missing out was tough but I can understand it, what I can’t understand is how they ignored Tom Wood?

I love the Lions but it’s hard to really feel part of it when your players do everything the coach asks for then get ignored for guys who didn’t.

by bluestonevedder Thu 06 Jun 2013, 11:45 am

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:Who would you have left behind for Brown?

Lydiate, I would also have left Lydiate behind for Robshaw, Jones or Wood.

+1

by Pat_Mustard Thu 06 Jun 2013, 11:55 am

It's extremely frustrating but pretty much inevitable that selectors will always pick the player they have worked with before, they know them best and they are less of a "gamble" from that individual selector's point of view. It might be completely subconscious but it will always happen. Hence 5 English front rowers being selected by Rowntree, and Gatland going with Lydiate ahead of Brown/Robshaw. Annoyingly Iain McGeechan seems to be the exception to that rule, as we still got hardly any representation on the tours he coached. The thing that doesn't make sense is if Rowntree was going to pick an English prop why Corbisiero instead of Sheridan? We'll never know. Now despite the lack of game time these players may well play brilliantly and I hope they do. It's just frustrating that others have done extremely well recently and won't get the chance they deserve to show what they can do for the lions. Anyway I'm not questioning Gatland or Rowntree's integrity, I don't think they are deliberately picking their favourites but I will say again I think it's inevitable that the players the selectors know best will always have the best chance of being picked. Hence I think the lions selectors should not be current or recent coaches of the home nations. But that will never happen.

by **LondonTiger** Thu 06 Jun 2013, 11:59 am

Scottish fans are entitled to feel hard done by. They and their players have been.

Moaning about the coaches and accusing them of being short-sighted know-nothings is fine. Accusing the coaches of providing jobs for the boys is not however.

by Exiledinborders Thu 06 Jun 2013, 12:07 pm

I am an admirer of Corbisiero and if the tour had been last summer I would picked him but he has not played enough rugby in the last year.

I would have gone for Sheridan who after all keeps Jenkins on the bench (or quite often the stands) for Toulon.

by thomh Thu 06 Jun 2013, 12:10 pm

I think the point with Corbisiero is that whoever got picked at this point is unlikely to push for a test spot. Wind back to the original squad selection and they'd probably have gone for Grant over him, but right now they just need someone who can slot in relatively seamlessly and do a job. Going for the player who knows half the other front rowers and the coach makes sense.

by Manu's Boxing Coach Thu 06 Jun 2013, 12:12 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

The cycle has repeated itself again with Healy either being flown home through injury or by biting someone, again logic has been ignored and 3 better, fitter players in the form of Sheridan, James and Grant have been left behind.

Three Better Players? That's so marginal and I think it's mostly based down to personal preference. On ability all those players are 50/50 calls. The only complaint the Scots can have is that Corbs has had so little game time recently, not that Grant is an obviously superior player, that's just not the case.

Arguments for Corbisiero (for a abit of balance on this forum):

Worked with Rowntree, so the coaching staff know exactly what they are getting and also due to the short period of time he has to bed into the tour party this familiarity will be extremely helpfull

Also looking at combinations, Corbs, Youngs, Cole, did very well during the autumn internationals, again considering there is only 2 weeks until the first test this could be very important.

Obviously this is a risky decision by Gats but nowhere near the diabolical decision some have claimed it to be. Of course Grant has worked hard this season and played well but name a player thats not been included who hasnt? Also this is a tour replacement so there are slightly different criteria for players and I dont think that has been taking into consideration by some posters.

by wanderingdragon Thu 06 Jun 2013, 12:27 pm

Personally I don't care whether players have been injured and only just returned or not. It is about having the highest quality players there. When the original squad was picked Corbisiero was not back to fitness but he is now. Had he been fit there is little doubt he would have been in the 37. I see no issue with him being called up.

The simple fact is that Gatland's job is to win the series for the Lions and the nationality/recent playing time of the players is irrelevant to that. Also Corbisiero offers something different to jenkins/Vunipola just as Lydiate (who seems to be getting a real pasting on the forums for someone who would have been an absolute shoo in if he had been playing all year) offers something different in the back row. Kelly Brown (who I really like as a player) doesn't offer anything the others don't and that's why he wasn't picked (just like Robshaw).

Winning this series will be about team balance and options.

And if you don't like what is done you don't have to watch it!

by Kingshu Thu 06 Jun 2013, 12:27 pm

When Best was left out I think it was keith Wood that said what cost him was not having an irish Coach in the Lions management to put forward his case, whereas Graham Rowntree would have been more familar with the English Players and could put together a strong case to take them.

Maybe Graham Rowntree isn't bias but say he wanted both an Englishman and a Scotish person in the team, when speaking to Gatland he would have been able to speak about the English player in greater depth than the Scottish one.

I think maybe that a Scottish and Irish coach in the team would have helped create more balanced arguments for bringing certain players.

However then is it a case of selecting Coachs on nationality, or selecting the best person for the job regardless of nationality?

Thats a tough one. but it has to be the best coaches, as we all want the best chance of a Lions seris victory.

by Taffineastbourne Thu 06 Jun 2013, 12:29 pm

Does anyone here think that Warren Gatland wants to lose the Series?
WG has picked the players that he thinks will perform for him.He will stand or fall by this.
Save your whingeing til we have lost the Series as it would be more valid.
Remember who won a Grand Slam in 2005 ,remember which country had the most players,remember the outcome of that Tour.
My advice would be to keep your powder dry but also get some perspective.
It is not just your lot that get the brown end of the stick!

by pete (buachaill on eirne) Thu 06 Jun 2013, 12:31 pm

I was a little surprised Laidlaw got left out over Murray. Laidlaw ticks so many more boxes than Murray does.

I wasn't surprised grant got left out but am shocked he didn't get called up with Healy out.

I wasn't surprised but I was very frustrated that Hines was not in the running, he is one of the best locks in the Northern Hemisphere IMO and massively underrated albeit rated quite highly.

by SecretFly Thu 06 Jun 2013, 12:34 pm

Maybe Hines was asked and secretly said 'no'.....? He retired from International and probably would assume a Lions position as a re-application.

I would have brought him (if had been asked and said yes) and Visser as two extra Scottish guys.

by RuggerRadge2611 Thu 06 Jun 2013, 12:36 pm

wanderingdragon wrote:The simple fact is that Gatland's job is to win the series for the Lions and the nationality/recent playing time of the players is irrelevant to that.

So why not pick All Scots and Irish? The only 2 teams to have 100% record vs. Australia in their last encounters?

by Taffineastbourne Thu 06 Jun 2013, 12:39 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
wanderingdragon wrote:The simple fact is that Gatland's job is to win the series for the Lions and the nationality/recent playing time of the players is irrelevant to that.

So why not pick All Scots and Irish? The only 2 teams to have 100% record vs. Australia in their last encounters?

Now you are just being silly.

by pete (buachaill on eirne) Thu 06 Jun 2013, 12:43 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
wanderingdragon wrote:The simple fact is that Gatland's job is to win the series for the Lions and the nationality/recent playing time of the players is irrelevant to that.

So why not pick All Scots and Irish? The only 2 teams to have 100% record vs. Australia in their last encounters?
Now you are just being silly.

+1

Not that many Scots put up their hands and as was stated in the OP a lot of the Scots who did put their hands up had guys from other nations doing the same. I do agree though re: Lydiate and to a lesser extent Murray.

by wanderingdragon Thu 06 Jun 2013, 12:44 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
wanderingdragon wrote:The simple fact is that Gatland's job is to win the series for the Lions and the nationality/recent playing time of the players is irrelevant to that.

So why not pick All Scots and Irish? The only 2 teams to have 100% record vs. Australia in their last encounters?
Now you are just being silly.

VERY silly! (And let's face it - Scotland's win was in dire weather upcountry against barely an Australia B team) - but I would pick several Irishmen!

by RuggerRadge2611 Thu 06 Jun 2013, 12:55 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
wanderingdragon wrote:The simple fact is that Gatland's job is to win the series for the Lions and the nationality/recent playing time of the players is irrelevant to that.

So why not pick All Scots and Irish? The only 2 teams to have 100% record vs. Australia in their last encounters?
Now you are just being silly.

Am I? Perhaps, but lets be honest if Gatland is to pick a winning test team perhaps he should have picked more players with experience beating Australia?

If he wants a team to win the series he should avoid picking Phillips, he won't but he should.

This is an quote from ESPN Scrum regarding Phillips' performance in the Welsh tour to Australia last year.

Man of the Match: There was one man head-and-shoulders above the rest, and it was Australia scrum-half Will Genia. On his home track and eyes glinting with mischief, the Reds halfback tore Wales apart in the first-half and put it beyond them with a try and an assist in the second.

Villain of the Game: Wales needed their experienced heads to perform and Mike Phillips lost his. Gave away 10 yards with backchat in the first-half and conceded possession with quick taps when Wales should have been building territory from penalties.

In every game Phillips has come up against Genia he has struggled. He had a great game against the Baa Baa's but my favourite for the test jersey will start on Saturday. Youngs' distribution skills IMO will be key to beating Australia.

What bothers me is the double standards in selection. High level consistent performances all season are not enough to get you selected but repeatedly being shown up on the international test arena is... apparently. Or worse, not playing at all like Stevens (Gatland also mentioned he wanted good blokes but went on to select the biter Hartley and the drug dealer Stevens) or being a bench warmer like Jenkins is for Toulon... Selections seem inconsistent at best and downright biased at worst.

by **Rugby Fan** Thu 06 Jun 2013, 1:05 pm

Scotland have an unrivalled record when it comes to coaching the Lions over the last thirty years:

1983 - Jim Telfer (Scotland)
1989 - Ian McGeechan (Scotland)
1993 - Ian McGeechan (Scotland)
1997 - Ian McGeechan (Scotland)
2001 - Graham Henry (NZ & Wales)
2005 - Clive Woodward (England)
2009 - Ian McGeechan (Scotland)
2013 - Warren Gatland (NZ & Wales)

by Pat_Mustard Thu 06 Jun 2013, 1:15 pm

wanderingdragon wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
wanderingdragon wrote:The simple fact is that Gatland's job is to win the series for the Lions and the nationality/recent playing time of the players is irrelevant to that.

So why not pick All Scots and Irish? The only 2 teams to have 100% record vs. Australia in their last encounters?
Now you are just being silly.

VERY silly! (And let's face it - Scotland's win was in dire weather upcountry against barely an Australia B team) - but I would pick several Irishmen!

Dire weather yes, barely a B team no. They had a mixture of first and second choice players, but importantly in the context of this thread the Scottish front row of Grant, Ford and Murray destroyed the Australian front row of Slipper, Moore and Alexander (all of whom are in the Wallabies squad for the lions series) in the final minute to win the crucial penalty that won us the game.

by jimmyinthewell68 Thu 06 Jun 2013, 1:15 pm

being Welsh obviously i can't complain about about gats selection but i can see why lydiate is getting stick and he really needs to put on a good show for the people who needs to hear is name mentioned more even tho he not that type of flash player . Stevens is a wasted prop so grant should have gone but there is no way laidlaw better choice then Philips .everyone keeps jumping on the band wagon about slow ball but imagine the frustration of the other team when he does it

by Pat_Mustard Thu 06 Jun 2013, 1:20 pm

I would agree there jimmy, I'm not a great fan of Laidlaw, he doesn't provide the quickest ball and kicked far too much posession away in the six nations. Worryingly he's talking about doing more kicking and giving less ball to his 10 on Saturday because Heathcote is making his debut! I've never been a fan of Phillips' style either but he was very effective against the Barbarians.

by RuggerRadge2611 Thu 06 Jun 2013, 1:29 pm

Pat_Mustard wrote:I would agree there jimmy, I'm not a great fan of Laidlaw, he doesn't provide the quickest ball and kicked far too much posession away in the six nations. Worryingly he's talking about doing more kicking and giving less ball to his 10 on Saturday because Heathcote is making his debut! I've never been a fan of Phillips' style either but he was very effective against the Barbarians.

Count me in the same camp, except for not being a fan of Laidlaw. I'm less of a fan these days because he has been prone to kicking a lot of ball unnecessarily. However that is a coaching thing for Scotland IMO. Normally he doesn't kick as much when playing for Edinburgh. Mainly because Edinburgh's pack get so comprehensively mullered we can't say when we'll get the ball back.

I don't rate Phillips but he was devastating on Saturday.

by funnyExiledScot Thu 06 Jun 2013, 1:41 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:Does anyone here think that Warren Gatland wants to lose the Series?
WG has picked the players that he thinks will perform for him.He will stand or fall by this.
Save your whingeing til we have lost the Series as it would be more valid.
Remember who won a Grand Slam in 2005 ,remember which country had the most players,remember the outcome of that Tour.
My advice would be to keep your powder dry but also get some perspective.
It is not just your lot that get the brown end of the stick!

No-one is suggesting that Gatland wants to lose the series. Obviously.

Why would our "whinging" be more valid if we've lost the series? Winning or losing the series may have absolutely nothing to do with the decision to select Corbisiero over Grant.

This is a rugby forum to debate rugby. Gatland has made a rugby decision to select Corbisiero over Grant. We are debating it, and a large number of fans disagree. Not sure what "perspective" has to do with anything.

by ChequeredJersey Thu 06 Jun 2013, 2:05 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:Does anyone here think that Warren Gatland wants to lose the Series?
WG has picked the players that he thinks will perform for him.He will stand or fall by this.
Save your whingeing til we have lost the Series as it would be more valid.
Remember who won a Grand Slam in 2005 ,remember which country had the most players,remember the outcome of that Tour.
My advice would be to keep your powder dry but also get some perspective.
It is not just your lot that get the brown end of the stick!

No-one is suggesting that Gatland wants to lose the series. Obviously.

Why would our "whinging" be more valid if we've lost the series? Winning or losing the series may have absolutely nothing to do with the decision to select Corbisiero over Grant.

This is a rugby forum to debate rugby. Gatland has made a rugby decision to select Corbisiero over Grant. We are debating it, and a large number of fans disagree. Not sure what "perspective" has to do with anything.

And a lot of those are English and fans of Corbs too, not just Scots

by Taffineastbourne Thu 06 Jun 2013, 2:55 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:Does anyone here think that Warren Gatland wants to lose the Series?
WG has picked the players that he thinks will perform for him.He will stand or fall by this.
Save your whingeing til we have lost the Series as it would be more valid.
Remember who won a Grand Slam in 2005 ,remember which country had the most players,remember the outcome of that Tour.
My advice would be to keep your powder dry but also get some perspective.
It is not just your lot that get the brown end of the stick!

No-one is suggesting that Gatland wants to lose the series. Obviously.

Why would our "whinging" be more valid if we've lost the series? Winning or losing the series may have absolutely nothing to do with the decision to select Corbisiero over Grant.

This is a rugby forum to debate rugby. Gatland has made a rugby decision to select Corbisiero over Grant. We are debating it, and a large number of fans disagree. Not sure what "perspective" has to do with anything.

And a lot of those are English and fans of Corbs too, not just Scots

The whole point of the Lions exercise is to win the series of Tests.
Gatland has picked players to do that.
If you whinge and the players chosen achieve the goal of victory you end up looking a bitter biased individual.If Gatland's picks don't manage victory you can put it down to the non selection of your particular favourites.
I would have gone for Grant but I have never managed a Grand Slam winning side nor reached WC semi final.
Some Scots have said that their interest in the Lions tour is diminished as not enough of their boys have been selected.Pretty poor in my mind.Inclined to invite them to Foxtrot Oscar and take their bile elsewhere.
Scotland has another four years for their players to make themselves indispensable to the Lions.Not enough have achieved this now and in the past.

by RuggerRadge2611 Thu 06 Jun 2013, 2:56 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:Does anyone here think that Warren Gatland wants to lose the Series?
WG has picked the players that he thinks will perform for him.He will stand or fall by this.
Save your whingeing til we have lost the Series as it would be more valid.
Remember who won a Grand Slam in 2005 ,remember which country had the most players,remember the outcome of that Tour.
My advice would be to keep your powder dry but also get some perspective.
It is not just your lot that get the brown end of the stick!

No-one is suggesting that Gatland wants to lose the series. Obviously.

Why would our "whinging" be more valid if we've lost the series? Winning or losing the series may have absolutely nothing to do with the decision to select Corbisiero over Grant.

This is a rugby forum to debate rugby. Gatland has made a rugby decision to select Corbisiero over Grant. We are debating it, and a large number of fans disagree. Not sure what "perspective" has to do with anything.

And a lot of those are English and fans of Corbs too, not just Scots

I think a lot of Lions fans would rather see the Beast of Bromley in there rather than Corbisero. Speaking of English props, why hasn't Phill Vickery been called up? Has he retired or something?

by ChequeredJersey Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:01 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:Does anyone here think that Warren Gatland wants to lose the Series?
WG has picked the players that he thinks will perform for him.He will stand or fall by this.
Save your whingeing til we have lost the Series as it would be more valid.
Remember who won a Grand Slam in 2005 ,remember which country had the most players,remember the outcome of that Tour.
My advice would be to keep your powder dry but also get some perspective.
It is not just your lot that get the brown end of the stick!

No-one is suggesting that Gatland wants to lose the series. Obviously.

Why would our "whinging" be more valid if we've lost the series? Winning or losing the series may have absolutely nothing to do with the decision to select Corbisiero over Grant.

This is a rugby forum to debate rugby. Gatland has made a rugby decision to select Corbisiero over Grant. We are debating it, and a large number of fans disagree. Not sure what "perspective" has to do with anything.

And a lot of those are English and fans of Corbs too, not just Scots

The whole point of the Lions exercise is to win the series of Tests.
Gatland has picked players to do that.
If you whinge and the players chosen achieve the goal of victory you end up looking a bitter biased individual.If Gatland's picks don't manage victory you can put it down to the non selection of your particular favourites.
I would have gone for Grant but I have never managed a Grand Slam winning side nor reached WC semi final.
Some Scots have said that their interest in the Lions tour is diminished as not enough of their boys have been selected.Pretty poor in my mind.Inclined to invite them to Foxtrot Oscar and take their bile elsewhere.
Scotland has another four years for their players to make themselves indispensable to the Lions.Not enough have achieved this now and in the past.

It's not just to do with favourites though is it? My bias is in favour of Corbs but my objective assessment of which one is the sensible choice to take to Australia is Grant, based on what I've seen from both this year and what we know about their injuries etc. I really want the Lions to win, and think they should do now that Australia have lost some key players, but that doesn't invalidate criticism, does it?

by RuggerRadge2611 Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:01 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:
The whole point of the Lions exercise is to win the series of Tests.
Gatland has picked players to do that.
If you whinge and the players chosen achieve the goal of victory you end up looking a bitter biased individual.If Gatland's picks don't manage victory you can put it down to the non selection of your particular favourites.
I would have gone for Grant but I have never managed a Grand Slam winning side nor reached WC semi final.
Some Scots have said that their interest in the Lions tour is diminished as not enough of their boys have been selected.Pretty poor in my mind.Inclined to invite them to Foxtrot Oscar and take their bile elsewhere.
Scotland has another four years for their players to make themselves indispensable to the Lions.Not enough have achieved this now and in the past.

That's easy for you to say, when Welsh players are getting the nod over more deserving players.

Off the top of my head Warbs shouldn't have been captain since he was relieved of the pressures of captaining Wales to "focus on his own game. Ryan Jones was promoted to captain and when he was injured Jenkins took the mantle instead of the now Lions captain chin

.

While we are on Jenkins he had a decent 6N but the Toulon management seem to think Sheridan is the better player and Jenkins has been confined to the bench for the bulk of his season at the club. Although despite having a great 6N Brown, Robshaw and Wood all got overlooked for another favourite in the form of Lydiate.

So don’t confuse the truth with bile mate.
thumbsup

by funnyExiledScot Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:03 pm

Taffineastbourne wrote:
The whole point of the Lions exercise is to win the series of Tests.
Gatland has picked players to do that.
If you whinge and the players chosen achieve the goal of victory you end up looking a bitter biased individual.If Gatland's picks don't manage victory you can put it down to the non selection of your particular favourites.
I would have gone for Grant but I have never managed a Grand Slam winning side nor reached WC semi final.
Some Scots have said that their interest in the Lions tour is diminished as not enough of their boys have been selected.Pretty poor in my mind.Inclined to invite them to Foxtrot Oscar and take their bile elsewhere.
Scotland has another four years for their players to make themselves indispensable to the Lions.Not enough have achieved this now and in the past.

Sounds like we should just close down 606v2. No point in debating these things, as none of us have managed a grand slam winning side nor reached a WC semi final. We also should never debate team selection, as to criticise a team selection that ultimately goes on the win the game just renders us all "whingers" and "bitter biased individuals". We should just wait for the result, and then criticise with the benefit of hindsight. Much more interesting.

picard

by Taffineastbourne Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:08 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:
The whole point of the Lions exercise is to win the series of Tests.
Gatland has picked players to do that.
If you whinge and the players chosen achieve the goal of victory you end up looking a bitter biased individual.If Gatland's picks don't manage victory you can put it down to the non selection of your particular favourites.
I would have gone for Grant but I have never managed a Grand Slam winning side nor reached WC semi final.
Some Scots have said that their interest in the Lions tour is diminished as not enough of their boys have been selected.Pretty poor in my mind.Inclined to invite them to Foxtrot Oscar and take their bile elsewhere.
Scotland has another four years for their players to make themselves indispensable to the Lions.Not enough have achieved this now and in the past.

That's easy for you to say, when Welsh players are getting the nod over more deserving players.

Off the top of my head Warbs shouldn't have been captain since he was relieved of the pressures of captaining Wales to "focus on his own game. Ryan Jones was promoted to captain and when he was injured Jenkins took the mantle instead of the now Lions captain .

While we are on Jenkins he had a decent 6N but the Toulon management seem to think Sheridan is the better player and Jenkins has been confined to the bench for the bulk of his season at the club. Although despite having a great 6N Brown, Robshaw and Wood all got overlooked for another favourite in the form of Lydiate.
Has the Tour finished already or have you got a crystal ball?
What silverware has any Scottish player won over the last four years?Now compare that figure to the Welsh players.A coach would be inclined towards "winners" rather than "losers" I would suggest.If you can't see that it might explain why Scottish Rugby languishes in non achievement.

So don’t confuse the truth with bile mate.

by Taffineastbourne Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:09 pm

Apologies your gap led to me posting in your post!

by LordDowlais Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:11 pm

I can understand why the Scottish on here feel frustrated, but lets take some perspective on this, yes the performances of a few Scottish players were much improved in the last 6N, but what have the Scottish players actually achieved internationally or domestically ? Coming third in the 6N and not getting out of your group in the HC does not really count for an "achievement" does it ? I can understand the frustrations about Lydiate, but lets be honest, with Warburton, SOB, Croft, what Scottish player would have gotten into the test side anyway ? I think that as we stand, now that Best is in for Hartley we are about one or two players wrong on this tour but changing those two players will not make any difference to the squad, and definitely the test side. When the Scotland national team start pulling up more trees in the 6N and their players achieve more domestically then we could find an argument, but at the moment Scotland have some very good players, but they need to build on this years 6N, as I can predict a much healthier showing for the Scotts on the next Lions tour.

by RuggerRadge2611 Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:15 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:
The whole point of the Lions exercise is to win the series of Tests.
Gatland has picked players to do that.
If you whinge and the players chosen achieve the goal of victory you end up looking a bitter biased individual.If Gatland's picks don't manage victory you can put it down to the non selection of your particular favourites.
I would have gone for Grant but I have never managed a Grand Slam winning side nor reached WC semi final.
Some Scots have said that their interest in the Lions tour is diminished as not enough of their boys have been selected.Pretty poor in my mind.Inclined to invite them to Foxtrot Oscar and take their bile elsewhere.
Scotland has another four years for their players to make themselves indispensable to the Lions.Not enough have achieved this now and in the past.

That's easy for you to say, when Welsh players are getting the nod over more deserving players.

Off the top of my head Warbs shouldn't have been captain since he was relieved of the pressures of captaining Wales to "focus on his own game. Ryan Jones was promoted to captain and when he was injured Jenkins took the mantle instead of the now Lions captain .

While we are on Jenkins he had a decent 6N but the Toulon management seem to think Sheridan is the better player and Jenkins has been confined to the bench for the bulk of his season at the club. Although despite having a great 6N Brown, Robshaw and Wood all got overlooked for another favourite in the form of Lydiate.

So don’t confuse the truth with bile mate.

Taffineastbourne wrote:
Has the Tour finished already or have you got a crystal ball?
What silverware has any Scottish player won over the last four years?Now compare that figure to the Welsh players.A coach would be inclined towards "winners" rather than "losers" I would suggest.If you can't see that it might explain why Scottish Rugby languishes in non achievement.

No the tour hasn’t finished but that’s not what this discussion is about. This discussion for me was to demonstrate the difference between being frustrated at our players omission and why I am whinging about others. In my quote I gave 3 examples of clear Welsh favouritism with Warb’s captaincy, Jenkins inclusion for being great in the 6N and Lydiate travelling whilst others had Storming 6Ns e.g. Kelly Brown, Chris Robshaw and Tom Wood.

If you can’t see why Scottish posters would be aggrieved there is really no point in continuing this discussion with you.

As for Scotland languishing in non-achievement, when last I looked, we beat Australia in our last 2 encounters. Home and Away, furthermore I can't remember Ireland destroying us at home this year either thumbsup

by LordDowlais Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:18 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:
The whole point of the Lions exercise is to win the series of Tests.
Gatland has picked players to do that.
If you whinge and the players chosen achieve the goal of victory you end up looking a bitter biased individual.If Gatland's picks don't manage victory you can put it down to the non selection of your particular favourites.
I would have gone for Grant but I have never managed a Grand Slam winning side nor reached WC semi final.
Some Scots have said that their interest in the Lions tour is diminished as not enough of their boys have been selected.Pretty poor in my mind.Inclined to invite them to Foxtrot Oscar and take their bile elsewhere.
Scotland has another four years for their players to make themselves indispensable to the Lions.Not enough have achieved this now and in the past.

That's easy for you to say, when Welsh players are getting the nod over more deserving players.

Off the top of my head Warbs shouldn't have been captain since he was relieved of the pressures of captaining Wales to "focus on his own game. Ryan Jones was promoted to captain and when he was injured Jenkins took the mantle instead of the now Lions captain .

While we are on Jenkins he had a decent 6N but the Toulon management seem to think Sheridan is the better player and Jenkins has been confined to the bench for the bulk of his season at the club. Although despite having a great 6N Brown, Robshaw and Wood all got overlooked for another favourite in the form of Lydiate.

So don’t confuse the truth with bile mate.

Taffineastbourne wrote:
Has the Tour finished already or have you got a crystal ball?
What silverware has any Scottish player won over the last four years?Now compare that figure to the Welsh players.A coach would be inclined towards "winners" rather than "losers" I would suggest.If you can't see that it might explain why Scottish Rugby languishes in non achievement.

No the tour hasn’t finished but that’s not what this discussion is about. This discussion for me was to demonstrate the difference between being frustrated at our players omission and why I am whinging about others. In my quote I gave 3 examples of clear Welsh favouritism with Warb’s captaincy, Jenkins inclusion for being great in the 6N and Lydiate travelling whilst others had Storming 6Ns e.g. Kelly Brown, Chris Robshaw and Tom Wood.

If you can’t see why Scottish posters would be aggrieved there is really no point in continuing this discussion with you.

As for Scotland languishing in non-achievement, when last I looked, we beat Australia in our last 2 encounters. Home and Away, furthermore I can't remember Ireland destroying us at home this year either

And what exactly did you get for beating Australia ?

by hugehandoff Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:20 pm

I think that the coaches are merely selecting those players whom they believe are the most likey to get them a series win. It is not a case of someone deserving selection, but a case of who will deliver a better performance in the test series. Therefore, any arguments revolving around the fact that someone has played more than someone else who was injured for large parts of the season are irrelevant.

Who is more likely to help us win the series is the only question? Lydiate at his best is capable of performances above what Brown and Robshaw can do. Corbs at his best is awesome as seen when he played a huge role in defeating the All Blacks. The slectors are gambling of course in these players coming back to those levels but they are basing their decisions on lots of information that we don't have. Neither of those 2 players are probable 1st choices (obviously with Corbs) but if required they can deliver! Marginal calls, but I can understand them and of course if the coaches have more personal knowledge of the Eng/Wales players then naturally those guys win such close calls.

by RuggerRadge2611 Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:21 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:
The whole point of the Lions exercise is to win the series of Tests.
Gatland has picked players to do that.
If you whinge and the players chosen achieve the goal of victory you end up looking a bitter biased individual.If Gatland's picks don't manage victory you can put it down to the non selection of your particular favourites.
I would have gone for Grant but I have never managed a Grand Slam winning side nor reached WC semi final.
Some Scots have said that their interest in the Lions tour is diminished as not enough of their boys have been selected.Pretty poor in my mind.Inclined to invite them to Foxtrot Oscar and take their bile elsewhere.
Scotland has another four years for their players to make themselves indispensable to the Lions.Not enough have achieved this now and in the past.

That's easy for you to say, when Welsh players are getting the nod over more deserving players.

Off the top of my head Warbs shouldn't have been captain since he was relieved of the pressures of captaining Wales to "focus on his own game. Ryan Jones was promoted to captain and when he was injured Jenkins took the mantle instead of the now Lions captain .

While we are on Jenkins he had a decent 6N but the Toulon management seem to think Sheridan is the better player and Jenkins has been confined to the bench for the bulk of his season at the club. Although despite having a great 6N Brown, Robshaw and Wood all got overlooked for another favourite in the form of Lydiate.

So don’t confuse the truth with bile mate.

Taffineastbourne wrote:
Has the Tour finished already or have you got a crystal ball?
What silverware has any Scottish player won over the last four years?Now compare that figure to the Welsh players.A coach would be inclined towards "winners" rather than "losers" I would suggest.If you can't see that it might explain why Scottish Rugby languishes in non achievement.

No the tour hasn’t finished but that’s not what this discussion is about. This discussion for me was to demonstrate the difference between being frustrated at our players omission and why I am whinging about others. In my quote I gave 3 examples of clear Welsh favouritism with Warb’s captaincy, Jenkins inclusion for being great in the 6N and Lydiate travelling whilst others had Storming 6Ns e.g. Kelly Brown, Chris Robshaw and Tom Wood.

If you can’t see why Scottish posters would be aggrieved there is really no point in continuing this discussion with you.

As for Scotland languishing in non-achievement, when last I looked, we beat Australia in our last 2 encounters. Home and Away, furthermore I can't remember Ireland destroying us at home this year either

And what exactly did you get for beating Australia ?

The same thing that Wales would have got if they beat Australia....

by RubyGuby Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:22 pm

[quote="[/quote]

And what exactly did you get for beating Australia ?

[/quote]

Possibly the opportunity to play their first XV next time you play them thumbsup

by Guest Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:23 pm

What do one off games prove though? If you're going to be harsh, you could say you robbed Australia and Ireland in the last two victories. It isn't much to write home about.

by Taffineastbourne Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:25 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:
The whole point of the Lions exercise is to win the series of Tests.
Gatland has picked players to do that.
If you whinge and the players chosen achieve the goal of victory you end up looking a bitter biased individual.If Gatland's picks don't manage victory you can put it down to the non selection of your particular favourites.
I would have gone for Grant but I have never managed a Grand Slam winning side nor reached WC semi final.
Some Scots have said that their interest in the Lions tour is diminished as not enough of their boys have been selected.Pretty poor in my mind.Inclined to invite them to Foxtrot Oscar and take their bile elsewhere.
Scotland has another four years for their players to make themselves indispensable to the Lions.Not enough have achieved this now and in the past.

That's easy for you to say, when Welsh players are getting the nod over more deserving players.

Off the top of my head Warbs shouldn't have been captain since he was relieved of the pressures of captaining Wales to "focus on his own game. Ryan Jones was promoted to captain and when he was injured Jenkins took the mantle instead of the now Lions captain .

While we are on Jenkins he had a decent 6N but the Toulon management seem to think Sheridan is the better player and Jenkins has been confined to the bench for the bulk of his season at the club. Although despite having a great 6N Brown, Robshaw and Wood all got overlooked for another favourite in the form of Lydiate.

So don’t confuse the truth with bile mate.

Taffineastbourne wrote:
Has the Tour finished already or have you got a crystal ball?
What silverware has any Scottish player won over the last four years?Now compare that figure to the Welsh players.A coach would be inclined towards "winners" rather than "losers" I would suggest.If you can't see that it might explain why Scottish Rugby languishes in non achievement.

No the tour hasn’t finished but that’s not what this discussion is about. This discussion for me was to demonstrate the difference between being frustrated at our players omission and why I am whinging about others. In my quote I gave 3 examples of clear Welsh favouritism with Warb’s captaincy, Jenkins inclusion for being great in the 6N and Lydiate travelling whilst others had Storming 6Ns e.g. Kelly Brown, Chris Robshaw and Tom Wood.

If you can’t see why Scottish posters would be aggrieved there is really no point in continuing this discussion with you.

As for Scotland languishing in non-achievement, when last I looked, we beat Australia in our last 2 encounters. Home and Away, furthermore I can't remember Ireland destroying us at home this year either

Might I humbly suggest that you set your sights higher?
If Gatland wins the series he will be lauded.Noone will give a thought to who missed out.
Wales have won the last two 6N's,one being a Grand Slam.Gatland should have ignored this fact like Woodward ignored the 2005 Wales Grand Slam?Coz that went well,didn't it! picard

by Pat_Mustard Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:27 pm

LordDowlais wrote:I can understand why the Scottish on here feel frustrated, but lets take some perspective on this, yes the performances of a few Scottish players were much improved in the last 6N, but what have the Scottish players actually achieved internationally or domestically ? Coming third in the 6N and not getting out of your group in the HC does not really count for an "achievement" does it ? I can understand the frustrations about Lydiate, but lets be honest, with Warburton, SOB, Croft, what Scottish player would have gotten into the test side anyway ? I think that as we stand, now that Best is in for Hartley we are about one or two players wrong on this tour but changing those two players will not make any difference to the squad, and definitely the test side. When the Scotland national team start pulling up more trees in the 6N and their players achieve more domestically then we could find an argument, but at the moment Scotland have some very good players, but they need to build on this years 6N, as I can predict a much healthier showing for the Scotts on the next Lions tour.

Lions selection should be about individual performances not team ones. Just like international selection, hence why Lydiate and Faletau get selected for Wales despite playing for a crap club. And Parisse is rightly acknowledged as one of the best number 8s in the world despite playing for Italy. Grant and Brown have been as good as any other players in the 6 Nations their positions this season despite the team as a whole underperforming. In fact those two deserve the call up far more than Gray or Maitland IMO (yes I know they play different positions) so I would be much happier if Brown and Grant had made it and Gray and Maitland hadn't, it would still only be three Scots but the ones who had really earnt it would be there.

by ChequeredJersey Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:29 pm

hugehandoff wrote:I think that the coaches are merely selecting those players whom they believe are the most likey to get them a series win. It is not a case of someone deserving selection, but a case of who will deliver a better performance in the test series. Therefore, any arguments revolving around the fact that someone has played more than someone else who was injured for large parts of the season are irrelevant.

Who is more likely to help us win the series is the only question? Lydiate at his best is capable of performances above what Brown and Robshaw can do. Corbs at his best is awesome as seen when he played a huge role in defeating the All Blacks. The slectors are gambling of course in these players coming back to those levels but they are basing their decisions on lots of information that we don't have. Neither of those 2 players are probable 1st choices (obviously with Corbs) but if required they can deliver! Marginal calls, but I can understand them and of course if the coaches have more personal knowledge of the Eng/Wales players then naturally those guys win such close calls.

If people really think that then this is a fair argument for selecting him. I happen to disagree with it as a statement though

by LordDowlais Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:31 pm

What nothing ? Look, getting a plucky backs to the wall win in a one off game is great, don't get me wrong, but what I have not seen Scotland do in a very long time is string a run of results together, weather it be in a world cup or a six nations, also what have Glasgow or Edinburgh achieved lately, these are the things the selectors are watching, when the Lions selectors were watching the six nations do you honestly feel they came away from the Scottish games thinking, well so and so stood out in that game, because I didn't. Ireland should have beaten them but could not make the most of their possession, and the game against Wales,well, only one team wanted to play that day. Scotland do have some promising players, and when they can get to a level where they are either winning in the HC or pushing for the triple crown or even the championship in the 6N then I will concede that your frustrations have a point, but at the moment NO Scottish player has achieved anything on a consistent basis, and this is what the Scottish supporters need to realise.

by gowershowerpower Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:32 pm

If people really think that then this is a fair argument for selecting him. I happen to disagree with it as a statement though...

but what you think matters little because you didn't have the choice of selecting him. the people who do agree are who matter.

it's all sour grapes from the scottish.

by Taffineastbourne Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:32 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Taffineastbourne wrote:
The whole point of the Lions exercise is to win the series of Tests.
Gatland has picked players to do that.
If you whinge and the players chosen achieve the goal of victory you end up looking a bitter biased individual.If Gatland's picks don't manage victory you can put it down to the non selection of your particular favourites.
I would have gone for Grant but I have never managed a Grand Slam winning side nor reached WC semi final.
Some Scots have said that their interest in the Lions tour is diminished as not enough of their boys have been selected.Pretty poor in my mind.Inclined to invite them to Foxtrot Oscar and take their bile elsewhere.
Scotland has another four years for their players to make themselves indispensable to the Lions.Not enough have achieved this now and in the past.

Sounds like we should just close down 606v2. No point in debating these things, as none of us have managed a grand slam winning side nor reached a WC semi final. We also should never debate team selection, as to criticise a team selection that ultimately goes on the win the game just renders us all "whingers" and "bitter biased individuals". We should just wait for the result, and then criticise with the benefit of hindsight. Much more interesting.

Much more sensible picard

by ChequeredJersey Thu 06 Jun 2013, 3:35 pm

gowershowerpower wrote:If people really think that then this is a fair argument for selecting him. I happen to disagree with it as a statement though...

but what you think matters little because you didn't have the choice of selecting him. the people who do agree are who matter.

it's all sour grapes from the scottish.

Fair enough, that is true

by Sponsored content