Lions Selection - The differnce between Whinging and Frustration.

First topic message reminder :

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.

Here here. Finally some sense from Pat.

The Lions is about getting the best 37 players from all four nations. If it were as simple as picking the best team, then clearly Wales would be picked en masse to represent Britain and Ireland. Thankfully, given Wales' record in Australia, that is not the case.

I personally don't think Scotland's result in Australia is of any real significance in the grand scheme of things, and similarly the Welsh record. You have to look at each of the individuals involved in selection and pick on merit. A better team will likely have better individuals (as a generalisation), but not always the case. Italy, for example, have had the best number 8 in the 6 Nations for years now.

So whilst I know that the Welsh like to turn everything into a "Wales = good, opposition = bad" mud slinging session, the fact is what we're talking about here is individuals. One individual, in this case Ryan Grant, against another, Alex Corbisiero.

I don't think you can track a "fair" Lions representation back to the performance of a particular nation. Sometimes a team will play better than the sum of its parts, and sometimes a team will perform worse than the sum of its parts; you have to take that into account. I think the Lions selection this time round has been generally pretty astute. On this occasion, with Alex Corbisiero, I think they've got it wrong.

With Lions tours I think it's a case of the majority of selections most will agree with, a few players people champion personally but aren't hugely upset when others get selected and then the stand out poor selections that everyone goes up in arms about. Put it this way below is the 34 man squad I'd have ideally taken prior to the tour:

Prop - Healy, Grant, Sheridan, Jones, Cole, Murray
Hooker - Hibbard, Best, Youngs
Second row - POC, Gray, AWJ, Parling, Hines
Flanker - Tipuric, Warburton, SOB, Croft, Brown
Number 8 - Faletau, Heaslip
Scrum half - Youngs, Phillips, Laidlaw
Fly half - Sexton, Farrell, Madigan
Centre - Roberts, BOD, Davies, Tuilagi
Wing - North, Bowe, Maitland, Wade
Full back - Halfpenny, Hogg

In bold are those who weren't selected in the original party. Looking at those selections:

Sheridan and Grant - With Jenkins still a strong player and Vunipola showing such good form I'd say that whilst I'd have preffered Big Ted and Grant I wasn't up in arms about the selection. Corbs being called up for Healy is a howler though IMO as it leaves us with two guys returning from injury and Mako who whilst in very good form isn't really fit enough for a full 80 at test level.

Murray - whilst I accept that TH isn't really a strong point after Cole/Jones I'd have taken Murray or Wilson over Stevens any day personally.

Best - a well documented one which has now been ratified though through strange circumstances!

Hines - a personal preference as I really like how he plays the game, Evans is an excellent player as well though.

Brown - Lydiate I'm a big fan of but given his injury struggles I was pretty disappointed with Brown's form being over looked here.

Laidlaw - Murray has played well thus far and offers a far different style to Laidlaw but given his smart kicking and game management I felt GL deserved the place.

Madigan - The argument here isn't so much the player as the lack of a third FH which I still feel is a poor call.

Wade - I really fancied him as bolter and would've loved to see him on hard grounds given his pace and electric footwork. Cuthbert offers a different but still effective option though so I wasn't really heart broken there.

The only decisions I'd say are really poor - Corbs being called up for Healy, Hartley over Best and only 2 fly halves.

Ok then funnyExiledScot, of all the four home nations, what players do you think Scotland have that are of a higher standard than the rest ? Your answer will be very interesting and could prove a lot towards or against your arguments.

Taffineastbourne wrote: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!

When have I ever claimed Woodward to be a paragon of the Lions, he is a total doosh bag and even the very mention of the 2005 test series brings a pain behind my eyes.

My arguement has been lost somewhere because Scotland for some unknown reason aren't getting the credit they deserve.

Back on the old 606 when the 2009 tour was the hot topic I posted under the same name and was pretty miffed that Hines was the only Scot called up at first. He was then joined by Blair and Ford to replace TOL and Best (I think) but thought 3 tourists was about right for how we had been playing.

We have improved a lot since then, beating SH opposition (excluding the all blacks) and have been playing much better in the 6N.

"Improvement"

I certainly think the Scottish team we have at the moment was worthy of more than 3 tourists. As I said in the OP I feel that 5 tourists was right, and to see the other 2 guys who should have toured being ignored so that Gatland can have 2 of his Favourites (Jenkins and Lydiate) it leans past the frustration scale and forces me to whinge or discuss if you prefer.

I grow tired of saying, had Brown or Grant been picked behind guys like James or Robshaw, Wood or even Ryan Jones respectively I could understand. They haven't. They have been replaced by favourites or guys that Rowntree is more comfortable.

Even on Twitter Brian Moore was baffled by the call up of Corbs over Grant, James or Sheridan. So have many English posters on here.

As for Lydiate I understand him being given the benefit of the doubt but Lydiate doesn't do anything better than Wood or Brown who both topped the tackle count in this years 6N and Brown topped the turnover count all the while leading his country to their best finish in the 6N for a decade and being the cornerstone in the Sarries pack who were unlucky not to be lifting some kind of silverware this season.

As PAT said players can perform really well in poor teams. Brown has performed well in a good team (Sarries) and a bad one (Scotland) and has been a model of consistency all season. Again had it been Robshaw, Jones or Wood in his place it would have been easier to stomach.

simples.

lydiate is better than your brother-in-law brown....

funnyExiledScot wrote:So whilst I know that the Welsh like to turn everything into a "Wales = good, opposition = bad" mud slinging session, the fact is what we're talking about here is individuals. One individual, in this case Ryan Grant, against another, Alex Corbisiero.
.

I am not sure how it's always the Welsh's fault for all of this "mud slinging". It's pretty easy to avoid however, if people stopped using victories over Australia as justification for selection. Surely Ryan Grant's form should warrant selection without resorting to that.

There appears to be a lot of knicker twisting going on based on people being at odds with selection for an event that has not happened yet.Apart from raised blood pressure what is to be achieved?
Scotland were more competitive this year and this seems to have raised their fans' expectations unrealistically.It was always going to end thus based on the pretour squad selection threads which demonstrated some bizarre patriotic bias.
As a Scot kindly posted Gatland can spot quality players playing in a poor side hence Faletau and Lydiate.For some as yet undisclosed reason he cannot spot similar Scottish nuggets.If you consider that Gatland makes his living out of Rugby it seems peculiar that he word deliberately ignore players that he considered better than those that he has selected.
If a Scottish fan could clarify why Gatland would follow this course of action I would be all ears.

LordDowlais wrote:Ok then funnyExiledScot, of all the four home nations, what players do you think Scotland have that are of a higher standard than the rest ? Your answer will be very interesting and could prove a lot towards or against your arguments.

I've posted on this a number of times.

The only player I think should have gone without doubt was Stuart Hogg.

The players with strong cases were Euan Murray, Ryan Grant, Richie Gray, Kelly Brown, Johnnie Beattie (although Heaslip's late form in the season probably ended his chances) and Sean Maitland.

Outside bets were Ross Ford, Greg Laidlaw, Matt Scott and Tim Visser.

I'm not in anyway aggrieved by the Scots representation on this tour. It could have been less. However, whilst I could understand the selections of Jenkins, Healy and Vunipola ahead of Grant, and whilst I'd live with Sheridan going ahead of Grant, I think the Corbisiero selection is a poor one. The only justification is that he knows Rowntrees coaching style. I don't think he's a higher calibre player, and based on form there's absolutely no grounds.

You can of course debate anything, and always find pros and cons. The big thing in Corbisiero's favour is continuity in terms of having played with Youngs and Cole and knowing Rowntree. But still, even with that considered, I believe Ryan Grant's form this season and abilities should have trumped that.

strong cases...Euan Murray.....hahaha.....

you have to remember that although you lot up there may think your players are exceptional, south of the border there are usually four better players such that you can't go.

Taffineastbourne wrote:There appears to be a lot of knicker twisting going on based on people being at odds with selection for an event that has not happened yet.Apart from raised blood pressure what is to be achieved?
Scotland were more competitive this year and this seems to have raised their fans' expectations unrealistically.It was always going to end thus based on the pretour squad selection threads which demonstrated some bizarre patriotic bias.
As a Scot kindly posted Gatland can spot quality players playing in a poor side hence Faletau and Lydiate.For some as yet undisclosed reason he cannot spot similar Scottish nuggets.If you consider that Gatland makes his living out of Rugby it seems peculiar that he word deliberately ignore players that he considered better than those that he has selected.
If a Scottish fan could clarify why Gatland would follow this course of action I would be all ears.

5 Tourists from a team that finished 3rd in the 6N is unrealistsic? All 5 of whom have been instrumental to either Scotland or their clubs in recent weeks?

If it wasn't for Wales good fortunes players from the Dragons and Cardiff would have had no chance of touring. The problem with that argument is that Gatland said the 6N will be the crucible to see who will make the Lions. Stevens and Lydiate played no part in the 6N and Stevens was hardly outstanding for his club. Furthermore Lydiate did not exactly make a POC style return to form for his clubs.

I also remain to be convinced that there will be a slot in the Wales starting line up for Lydiate these days anyway. I would consider him 5th in line to start for Wales but yet he has been taken to tour with the Lions.

For the record I see the Welsh backrow consisting of 6. Warbs 7. Tips 8. Faleteu sub : Ryan Jones.

I dare one Welsh fan to disagree with that selection and or justify Lydiate's inclusion.

The game at the weekend was hard to judge Lydiate on, he didn't do much but the conditions were hard to play in. But for someone who is renowned for their tackling it must be embarrasing for Gray to have a higher tackle count than him.

The big thing in Corbisero's favour is actually when placed alongside the likes of Grant, James et al who are both fine players; he offers more and is an all round better player. It's simple really as that is what the evidence tells us. Same with Lydiate. The conundrum is because these BETTER players are coming back after a lay off and people feel aggrieved.

just shows how much better strength in depth wales has compared to scotland when our 5th in line gets to tour and your first doesn't....HAHAHAHAHA

O.k, O.k this is getting silly now, instead of acting like a couple of women at the time of the month, lets just get behind the Lions for now, and then, at the end, if we are beaten, then we can all pick the bones out of it and argue who should have gone instead of who. But if we win, I want all the members on here who have been acting like biatches, to come on here and eat some humble pie.

gowershowerpower wrote:just shows how much better strength in depth wales has compared to scotland when our 5th in line gets to tour and your first doesn't....HAHAHAHAHA

That is a really poor post.

Is Lydiate really better? I can't ever think of a game that Gray has out tackled Kelly Brown for Scotland.

Lydiate was specifically brought becase he is a "tackle player" and he was actually fit enough to finish the season playing unlike Gray.

So he has had longer to recover and get match practice but only made 6 tackles and missed one against the Baa Baas. Gray hit 8 and missed 0 being the highest tackler for the Lions.

For the record I am behind the Lions. I'm not putting this post up because I want them to lose. This post was created because I want them to win. Having Grant and Brown onside IMO would increase their chances.

gowershowerpower wrote:strong cases...Euan Murray.....hahaha.....

you have to remember that although you lot up there may think your players are exceptional, south of the border there are usually four better players such that you can't go.

Murray is a considerably better scrummager than Matt Stevens, his tackle rate in the 6 Nations was high for a tighthead prop and his workrate greatly improved this season. He has bags of experience, including having toured with the Lions previously. He was fully fit, and has been fit for most of the season.

Mike Ross could have been picked ahead of him, and I wouldn't have minded. David Wilson also finished the season strongly.

Matt Stevens though was a bad call.

RubyGuby wrote:The big thing in Corbisero's favour is actually when placed alongside the likes of Grant, James et al who are both fine players; he offers more and is an all round better player. It's simple really as that is what the evidence tells us. Same with Lydiate. The conundrum is because these BETTER players are coming back after a lay off and people feel aggrieved.

Putting "better" in capital letters doesn't make it true.

What is the "evidence" that Corbisiero is a better player than Ryan Grant, Paul James or Andrew Sheridan?

What is true is that Scotland also benefitted from a similar decision with Richie Gray, who was lucky to go considering his form and fitness this season. Launchbury and Donnacha Ryan certainly had strong cases, and were overlooked based on reputation rather than fitness and form.

grant brown murray and whoever else you want would not have increased the lions chances of a series win because they wouldn't have made the test side.

the people in the know, who's opinion counts, who live, breath and work rugby, who know far more than you or I, chose because they know better. they wouldn't go and pick shoite on purpose now would they?

gowershowerpower wrote:grant brown murray and whoever else you want would not have increased the lions chances of a series win because they wouldn't have made the test side.

the people in the know, who's opinion counts, who live, breath and work rugby, who know far more than you or I, chose because they know better. they wouldn't go and pick shoite on purpose now would they?

Well that's settled then.

LordDowlais wrote:O.k, O.k this is getting silly now, instead of acting like a couple of women at the time of the month, lets just get behind the Lions for now, and then, at the end, if we are beaten, then we can all pick the bones out of it and argue who should have gone instead of who. But if we win, I want all the members on here who have been acting like biatches, to come on here and eat some humble pie.

If the lions win the series with selections I disagree with it doesn't mean I'm wrong. It means I believe they would have won by more if they had made the right calls. Obviously.

Pat_Mustard wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:O.k, O.k this is getting silly now, instead of acting like a couple of women at the time of the month, lets just get behind the Lions for now, and then, at the end, if we are beaten, then we can all pick the bones out of it and argue who should have gone instead of who. But if we win, I want all the members on here who have been acting like biatches, to come on here and eat some humble pie.

If the lions win the series with selections I disagree with it doesn't mean I'm wrong. It means I believe they would have won by more if they had made the right calls. Obviously.

Seroiusly

I do not know if you are being seroius or not.

LordDowlais wrote:

Pat_Mustard wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:O.k, O.k this is getting silly now, instead of acting like a couple of women at the time of the month, lets just get behind the Lions for now, and then, at the end, if we are beaten, then we can all pick the bones out of it and argue who should have gone instead of who. But if we win, I want all the members on here who have been acting like biatches, to come on here and eat some humble pie.

If the lions win the series with selections I disagree with it doesn't mean I'm wrong. It means I believe they would have won by more if they had made the right calls. Obviously.

Seroiusly

I do not know if you are being seroius or not.

So you think if they win the series it means every single decision made was definitely the right one?

gowershowerpower wrote:grant brown murray and whoever else you want would not have increased the lions chances of a series win because they wouldn't have made the test side.

the people in the know, who's opinion counts, who live, breath and work rugby, who know far more than you or I, chose because they know better. they wouldn't go and pick shoite on purpose now would they?

So players like ;

Grant : A loosehead who fought Adam Jones to a draw in their club clash and was never given a chance in the international match because of Joubert (poor refereeing), and a player who has played consistently well all season and was tipped by a lot of journalists and pundits to be a tourist for this test series.

Murray : a previous Lions tourist and probable test starter if not for injury with over 50 caps and a reputation as being one of the best tightheads Scotland has ever produced, renowned for paying out pain in the scrum on world class Loosies like Domingo, The beast and others.

Brown : the top tackler and turnover player in the 6N and arguably one of Sarries & Scotland's most crucial players.

are excrement?


Well gowershowerpower said it so it must be true

I hope Pat is being serious, because he's right.

It's the same point I was trying to communicate to TaffinEastbourne, but I'm not sure the penny dropped.

Corbisiero could play appaulingly on the tour, fold at every scrum, contribute nothing in the loose, and end up biting off an Aussie arm whilst simultaneously swearing at the ref (somehow). The Lions could still win the Test series.

Now obviously that isn't going to happen (the first bit about Corbisiero hopefully), but by drawing out the example in stark terms, hopefully you'll understand the point better.

every single decision is definitely the right one.

unless you're scottish.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

gowershowerpower wrote:grant brown murray and whoever else you want would not have increased the lions chances of a series win because they wouldn't have made the test side.

the people in the know, who's opinion counts, who live, breath and work rugby, who know far more than you or I, chose because they know better. they wouldn't go and pick shoite on purpose now would they?

So players like ;

Grant : A loosehead who fought Adam Jones to a draw in their club clash and was never given a chance in the international match because of Joubert (poor refereeing), and a player who has played consistently well all season and was tipped by a lot of journalists and pundits to be a tourist for this test series.

Murray : a previous Lions tourist and probable test starter if not for injury with over 50 caps and a reputation as being one of the best tightheads Scotland has ever produced, renowned for paying out pain in the scrum on world class Loosies like Domingo, The beast and others.

Brown : the top tackler and turnover player in the 6N and arguably one of Sarries & Scotland's most crucial players.

are excrement?


Well gowershowerpower said it so it must be true

You forgot to add, WILL NOT PLAY ON THE SABBATH.

Is there a Lions game on a Sunday?

gowershowerpower wrote:every single decision is definitely the right one.

unless you're scottish.

No decision is right if it is wrong.

Like I said this tour has had a few wrong decisions in it. If you read carefully it isn't national bias either. Like I said had the likes of Robshaw, Wood or Ryan Jones been picked instead of Brown I would be disapointed but understood and supported the decision. What I don't support or understand was the selection of a guy like Lydiate who hasn't played test match rugby at all this season.

Or why Warburton was given the captaincy after effectively being stripped of the Welsh captaincy for not performing.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Is there a Lions game on a Sunday?

i do not know, but they might have training does that count as work ?

LordDowlais wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Is there a Lions game on a Sunday?

i do not know, but they might have training does that count as work ?

To be honest I don't know the answer to that.

Taking my "Scottish bile" out of the equation, I'd have taken Mike Ross and David Wilson ahead of Matt Stevens as well.

Lydiate is better than those players.

end of.

SIMPLE. or are you simple?

funnyExiledScot wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Is there a Lions game on a Sunday?

i do not know, but they might have training does that count as work ?

To be honest I don't know the answer to that.

Taking my "Scottish bile" out of the equation, I'd have taken Mike Ross and David Wilson ahead of Matt Stevens as well.

I agree with this one, how Matt Stevens has gone is beyond me, he must have dirty pictures of Gatland and Rowntree in a compromising position.

Like I said elsewhere, Matt Stevens is a good singer, thus good tourist. I think his versatility won the vote, though I'd have taken Paul James for that pre-tour.

he'd also bring the 'extra curriculars' to keep them going in times of need.

gowershowerpower wrote:Lydiate is better than those players.

end of.

SIMPLE. or are you simple?

But he isn't. He was better last year, but he was not better this year. He didn't even play test match rugby this year.

Gatland picked him due to reputation rather than form, just like he picked Gray ahead of Launchberry and Donacha Ryan, at least the Gray gamble has some what paid off since Gray was outstanding in Hong Kong. The jury is currently out on Lydiate.

Furthermore I'm not simple.

Onto the Matt Stevens thing, again Gatland not sticking to his guns, he brings a druggy along to tour with the Lions when he is looking for "good blokes".

funnyExiledScot wrote:I hope Pat is being serious, because he's right.

It's the same point I was trying to communicate to TaffinEastbourne, but I'm not sure the penny dropped.

Corbisiero could play appaulingly on the tour, fold at every scrum, contribute nothing in the loose, and end up biting off an Aussie arm whilst simultaneously swearing at the ref (somehow). The Lions could still win the Test series.

Now obviously that isn't going to happen (the first bit about Corbisiero hopefully), but by drawing out the example in stark terms, hopefully you'll understand the point better.

Gatland's brief is to win the series.he selects the players to help him achieve this.You can skweam and skweam as much as you like but it will be mission accomplished ig WG wins the series.I am not sure that this penny has dropped.I repeat,why would Gatland leave better players at home?

gowershowerpower wrote:Lydiate is better than those players.

end of.

SIMPLE. or are you simple?

Wow, that's quite possibly the least insightful post I've seen on the section this week. Including several T1000 polls

And Gower, that last line is perilously close to a personal attack

The strange thing about all this is that everyone outside Wales believed Gatland when he said he would pick on form from the 6N. Anyone Welsh knows that Gatland will say one thing and do another, and always has.

If you look OBJECTIVELY at who he picked he has gone for a mixture of types of player.

Grant had a decent 6N but was murdered by Adam Jones. Corbisiero didn't play in the 6N but was outstanding against the ABs in the Autumn. To me that makes sense.

Lydiate is a defensive 6 - different style to all the other 6s available - that is why he gets picked - and there is no shortage of cover for 6 with Warburton, Croft, SOB all capable of playing there. Hence no Brown who offers nothing that can't be got from those 3.

Laidlaw - maybe a bit unlucky but his defensive frailty has gone against him. Also Murray plays regularly with Sexton, Youngs with Farrell. And Phillips (love him or hate him - and all Welsh fans have a roller coaster with that one) is a proven Lion and big game player and has the physicality that Gatland loves.

Stevens - nope - can't explain that one! Rowntree?

Sheridan, Hines - same as the 'Saint' - couldn't guarantee to be available for HK so not in the running

Wade - would like to have seen what he could do but that wasn't going to happen once Bowe started playing again.


I like the look of the squad we have got - it has pace, power and balance - and with the right game plan will cause the Aussies a lot of problems

Lydiate is still better.

credulous then?

surely, if you have chop in your pocket your are classed as a 'good bloke'?

Matt Stevens is the only player for me with a question mark over him

Taffineastbourne wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I hope Pat is being serious, because he's right.

It's the same point I was trying to communicate to TaffinEastbourne, but I'm not sure the penny dropped.

Corbisiero could play appaulingly on the tour, fold at every scrum, contribute nothing in the loose, and end up biting off an Aussie arm whilst simultaneously swearing at the ref (somehow). The Lions could still win the Test series.

Now obviously that isn't going to happen (the first bit about Corbisiero hopefully), but by drawing out the example in stark terms, hopefully you'll understand the point better.

Gatland's brief is to win the series.he selects the players to help him achieve this.You can skweam and skweam as much as you like but it will be mission accomplished ig WG wins the series.I am not sure that this penny has dropped.I repeat,why would Gatland leave better players at home?

He wouldn't intentionally, but he is capable of making mistakes. That is what we're talking about!

They might win the series despite those mistakes, and I hope they do.

gowershowerpower wrote:just shows how much better strength in depth wales has compared to scotland when our 5th in line gets to tour and your first doesn't....HAHAHAHAHA

That remark is in poor taste Gower, you are showing real class here.

Look if we all agree that every player who has pulled on a Wales jersey in the past present or future will always be better than anything else that England, Scotland and Ireland have to offer!!

And any dissagreement to this show's that the poster has never played rugby ever or even watched a game in their life and does not know what they are talking about period!!

Think that just about covers everything

poor taste? like that dehydrated meat product?

Taffineastbourne wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I hope Pat is being serious, because he's right.

It's the same point I was trying to communicate to TaffinEastbourne, but I'm not sure the penny dropped.

Corbisiero could play appaulingly on the tour, fold at every scrum, contribute nothing in the loose, and end up biting off an Aussie arm whilst simultaneously swearing at the ref (somehow). The Lions could still win the Test series.

Now obviously that isn't going to happen (the first bit about Corbisiero hopefully), but by drawing out the example in stark terms, hopefully you'll understand the point better.

Gatland's brief is to win the series.he selects the players to help him achieve this.You can skweam and skweam as much as you like but it will be mission accomplished ig WG wins the series.I am not sure that this penny has dropped.I repeat,why would Gatland leave better players at home?

I have no doubt that Gatland is selecting the players he feels are best equipped to win the Test series. In his opinion clearly Corbisiero is better suited to achieve this objective than Ryan Grant. No-one is disputing that.

This is a rugby forum though to debate these selections. We are debating it. Your simplistic position of "if the series is won, it's the right decision" is just that, too simplistic.

The Allies won the Second World War, but believe me, not every strategic decision along the way was correct. Of course, at the time, the Generals all thought they were making the best possible decision, obviously.

Does that help?

Knackeredknees wrote:Look if we all agree that every player who has pulled on a Wales jersey in the past present or future will always be better than anything else that England, Scotland and Ireland have to offer!!

And any dissagreement to this show's that the poster has never played rugby ever or even watched a game in their life and does not know what they are talking about period!!

Think that just about covers everything

If that was the case KK we'd have Ryan jones there instead of Heaslip and Hook, Biggar and Paul Jmaes - I appreciate they must have been close calls though

RubyGuby wrote:

Knackeredknees wrote:Look if we all agree that every player who has pulled on a Wales jersey in the past present or future will always be better than anything else that England, Scotland and Ireland have to offer!!

And any dissagreement to this show's that the poster has never played rugby ever or even watched a game in their life and does not know what they are talking about period!!

Think that just about covers everything

If that was the case KK we'd have Ryan jones there instead of Heaslip and Hook, Biggar and Paul Jmaes - I appreciate they must have been close calls though

me personally would have taken Jones and James.
Jones as cover for backrow and secondrow. And James instead of Stevens
Would also have taken Brown instead of Lydite and possibly DOC ahead of Evans

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I hope Pat is being serious, because he's right.

It's the same point I was trying to communicate to TaffinEastbourne, but I'm not sure the penny dropped.

Corbisiero could play appaulingly on the tour, fold at every scrum, contribute nothing in the loose, and end up biting off an Aussie arm whilst simultaneously swearing at the ref (somehow). The Lions could still win the Test series.

Now obviously that isn't going to happen (the first bit about Corbisiero hopefully), but by drawing out the example in stark terms, hopefully you'll understand the point better.

Gatland's brief is to win the series.he selects the players to help him achieve this.You can skweam and skweam as much as you like but it will be mission accomplished ig WG wins the series.I am not sure that this penny has dropped.I repeat,why would Gatland leave better players at home?

I have no doubt that Gatland is selecting the players he feels are best equipped to win the Test series. In his opinion clearly Corbisiero is better suited to achieve this objective than Ryan Grant. No-one is disputing that.

This is a rugby forum though to debate these selections. We are debating it. Your simplistic position of "if the series is won, it's the right decision" is just that, too simplistic.

The Allies won the Second World War, but believe me, not every strategic decision along the way was correct. Of course, at the time, the Generals all thought they were making the best possible decision, obviously.

Does that help?

And the point of this "discussion" or series of Scottish rants is??????Does that help?

The point of this thread is to debate the merits of selecting Corbisiero ahead of Ryan Grant, and to articulate the difference between simply "whinging" on the one hand, and valid and genuine frustration on the other.

The point of this forum is to debate rugby.

If you have no interest in the topic of this thread, or rugby generally, and don't understand the point of it, what on earth are you doing on here dedicating so much time?

To add to what Fes said, if the subject matter is not to your interest, step away.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote: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!

When have I ever claimed Woodward to be a paragon of the Lions, he is a total doosh bag and even the very mention of the 2005 test series brings a pain behind my eyes.

My arguement has been lost somewhere because Scotland for some unknown reason aren't getting the credit they deserve.

Back on the old 606 when the 2009 tour was the hot topic I posted under the same name and was pretty miffed that Hines was the only Scot called up at first. He was then joined by Blair and Ford to replace TOL and Best (I think) but thought 3 tourists was about right for how we had been playing.

We have improved a lot since then, beating SH opposition (excluding the all blacks) and have been playing much better in the 6N.

"Improvement"

I certainly think the Scottish team we have at the moment was worthy of more than 3 tourists. As I said in the OP I feel that 5 tourists was right, and to see the other 2 guys who should have toured being ignored so that Gatland can have 2 of his Favourites (Jenkins and Lydiate) it leans past the frustration scale and forces me to whinge or discuss if you prefer.

I grow tired of saying, had Brown or Grant been picked behind guys like James or Robshaw, Wood or even Ryan Jones respectively I could understand. They haven't. They have been replaced by favourites or guys that Rowntree is more comfortable.

Even on Twitter Brian Moore was baffled by the call up of Corbs over Grant, James or Sheridan. So have many English posters on here.

As for Lydiate I understand him being given the benefit of the doubt but Lydiate doesn't do anything better than Wood or Brown who both topped the tackle count in this years 6N and Brown topped the turnover count all the while leading his country to their best finish in the 6N for a decade and being the cornerstone in the Sarries pack who were unlucky not to be lifting some kind of silverware this season.

As PAT said players can perform really well in poor teams. Brown has performed well in a good team (Sarries) and a bad one (Scotland) and has been a model of consistency all season. Again had it been Robshaw, Jones or Wood in his place it would have been easier to stomach.

This guff about Brown being the top tackler in the 6n's gets my goat!Nearly every time Scotland won any ball either 9 or 10 would hoof it.Consequently playing a side who attempts to play Rugby a Scottish lad will always be the top tackler,like as not a flanker!