Is Gatland Anti-English?

When the squad was first announced there were raised eyebrows.

But as the attrition rate continues on players, some of whom were controversial selections in the first place, are replaced by even more controversial and pointedly non-English replacements it is becoming harder and harder to justify this in anyway other than as a pure out and out anti-English bias.

Does Gatland resent English players? not trust them? not understand them? The way they demolished the Barbarians and then Argentina with reserve selections should be putting the fear of god throughout the world of rugby and I wonder whether this blind eye he is turning is entirely motivated out of desire for Lions success or is it just Ostrich behaviour from a guy who deep down after all, is purely a Kiwi?

WHo are the so called controversial first choices and the subsequent replacements, last time I looked Corbs was English isn't he? As was Hartley over Best

I was surprised at Lydiate over Tom Wood, & the choice of Heaslip over Morgan but that aside, I think he's got it mostly about right, and I am English.

Mr B,

I am a huge advocate of Lydiate and if fully fit and on top form then I would select and start him everytime but even I have to admit that this tour looks a tour to soon for him.

If I am honest I would have much rather seen him go to Japan and get some gametime under his belt that way, I would love to see Morgan get a call if need be but Heaslip looked good albeit against the Force.

Bedford the thing I am worried about is the Gats has chosen too many players who were either carrying an injury or have just come back from injury. Jenkins has already gone home and Warburton appears to be very fragile as he's always picking up knocks. Tommy Bowe also appears to be held together with glue, staples and gaffa tape these days.

I am worried that there are too many injury prone players on tour, as Lydiate's only just come back. Still, here's hoping they now all stay together and beat the Aussies!

bedfordwelsh wrote:

I would love to see Morgan get a call if need be but Heaslip looked good albeit against the Force.

And who did Morgan look good against?

Wood was not done any favours being played at 8 in the 6n but agreed Lydiate doesn't look right. If Morgan had stayed fit he may well have toured instead of heaslip.

SecretFly wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

I would love to see Morgan get a call if need be but Heaslip looked good albeit against the Force.

And who did Morgan look good against?

Morgan has looked good against all I have seen him against, doubts remain over his ability to last a full 80 but then thats where the bench comes in and having the ability (on a Lions tour) so bring someone like Faletau off the bench after say 60 minutes would combine very well IMO.

Mr Bounce wrote:Bedford the thing I am worried about is the Gats has chosen too many players who were either carrying an injury or have just come back from injury. Jenkins has already gone home and Warburton appears to be very fragile as he's always picking up knocks. Tommy Bowe also appears to be held together with glue, staples and gaffa tape these days.

I am worried that there are too many injury prone players on tour, as Lydiate's only just come back. Still, here's hoping they now all stay together and beat the Aussies!

Mr B,

Agree to a point but after a long hard season I doubt if there are many who are not carrying knocks in one way shape or another.

I gues coaches always have to take a gamble somewhere along the line and hope that the decision either goes for or against (Jenkins, poss Kearney) them.

So the initial set up was 15 Welsh, 10 English, 9 Irish and 3 Scottish? Am I right?

Hartley goes, Best comes in. English 9, Irish 10
Healy goes, Corbs comes in. English 10, Irish 9
Jenkins goes, Ryan Grant comes in. Welsh 14, Scottish 4
Bowe becomes uncertain, Zebo comes in. Irish 8, Irish 9

So someone can do a more matematical reading of this (that was just off the top of my head) but it seems the only nation that has suffered in numbers since the initial call up is Wales?

So much for Gatland wanting rid of his 10 English boys.

SecretFly wrote:So the initial set up was 15 Welsh, 10 English, 9 Irish and 3 Scottish? Am I right?

Hartley goes, Best comes in. English 9, Irish 10
Healy goes, Corbs comes in. English 10, Irish 9
Jenkins goes, Ryan Grant comes in. Welsh 14, Scottish 4
Bowe becomes uncertain, Zebo comes in. Irish 8, Irish 9

So someone can do a more matematical reading of this (that was just off the top of my head) but it seems the only nation that has suffered in numbers since the initial call up is Wales?

So much for Gatland wanting rid of his 10 English boys.

I am Welsh and as a Welshman I don't think we have suffered because Wales are not playing its a LIONS tour and we are all one.

I couldn't give a flying you know what as to who pulls on the Lions shirt for the tests I will suppoirt them all the same and always have done.

Yes, bedford, but the thread concerns whether or not Gatland is Anti-English, so the responses to the query must isolate the topic into it national context.

Is Gatland Anti-English?

No he isn't, because Farrell got in ahead of Biggar to tour.
Matt Stevens was a surprise English inclusion. England have 6 props and 2 hookers on tour, yet got crushed by Wales in Cardiff up front.
Personally I think Daddy got Farrell in ahead of Biggar, and Rowntree got his lads in.

Clearly the coaches have their favorites and the ones their familiar with.

I think England have been very lucky, though I think the depth you have after what you did to Argentina is amazing.

Shifty wrote:Is Gatland Anti-English?

No he isn't, because Farrell got in ahead of Biggar to tour.
Matt Stevens was a surprise English inclusion. England have 6 props and 2 hookers on tour, yet got crushed by Wales in Cardiff up front.
Personally I think Daddy got Farrell in ahead of Biggar, and Rowntree got his lads in.

Clearly the coaches have their favorites and the ones their familiar with.

I think England have been very lucky, though I think the depth you have after what you did to Argentina is amazing.

Thats true, just watched the Argentina England game this morning. Some very good performances though an incredibly weak Argentina team vs an England side with a lot of fist choice players.

That said Twelvetrees, Launchbury, Wood and Burns should, or may, have been considered for the Lions Squad as very close call selections.

maestegmafia wrote:

Shifty wrote:Is Gatland Anti-English?

No he isn't, because Farrell got in ahead of Biggar to tour.
Matt Stevens was a surprise English inclusion. England have 6 props and 2 hookers on tour, yet got crushed by Wales in Cardiff up front.
Personally I think Daddy got Farrell in ahead of Biggar, and Rowntree got his lads in.

Clearly the coaches have their favorites and the ones their familiar with.

I think England have been very lucky, though I think the depth you have after what you did to Argentina is amazing.

Thats true, just watched the Argentina England game this morning. Some very good performances though an incredibly weak Argentina team vs an England side with a lot of fist choice players.

That said Twelvetrees, Launchbury, Wood and Burns should, or may, have been considered for the Lions Squad as very close call selections.

There weren't that many first choice players if we're being honest! I think Launchbury was unlucky to miss out to parling with the lions!

valtrepkos wrote:There weren't that many first choice players if we're being honest!

Last England vs Wales Test

England: Goode; Ashton, Tuilagi, Barritt, Brown; Farrell, B Youngs; Marler, T Youngs, Cole, Launchbury, Parling, Croft, Robshaw, Wood.
Replacements: Twelvetrees for Goode (64), Flood for Farrell (67), Care for B. Youngs (64), Vunipola for Marler (44), Hartley for T. Youngs (52), Wilson for Cole (72), Lawes for Launchbury (52), Haskell for Wood (67).

England vs Argentina yesterday

England: Brown, Wade, Joseph, Twelvetrees, Strettle, Burns, Dickson, Marler, Webber, Wilson, Launchbury, Attwood, Wood, Kvesic, Morgan.
Replacements: Foden for Brown (68), Eastmond for Joseph (66), Wigglesworth for Dickson (54), H. Thomas for Marler (75), Paice for Webber (68), Doran-Jones for Wilson (73), Lawes for Attwood (54), Vunipola for Morgan (68).

Robshaw, Chris Ashton, Danny Care, Toby Flood and Brad Barritt missing due to non selection and needing a rest, the rest are either injured on the lions tour.

GloriousEmpire wrote:When the squad was first announced there were raised eyebrows.

But as the attrition rate continues on players, some of whom were controversial selections in the first place, are replaced by even more controversial and pointedly non-English replacements it is becoming harder and harder to justify this in anyway other than as a pure out and out anti-English bias.

Does Gatland resent English players? not trust them? not understand them? The way they demolished the Barbarians and then Argentina with reserve selections should be putting the fear of god throughout the world of rugby and I wonder whether this blind eye he is turning is entirely motivated out of desire for Lions success or is it just Ostrich behaviour from a guy who deep down after all, is purely a Kiwi?

This is a ridiculous thread really:

1 Vunipola picked, Marler not good enough, Corbisieroo called up
2 Youngs, Hartley picked
3 Cole, Stevens picked
4 Launchbury - unlucky but Richie Gray has been good
5 Parling - picked
6 Croft - picked, Wood unlucky but you wouldn't take both (Wood not helped by being played out of position by England)
7 Robshaw - not as good as Tipuric, Warburton, O'Brien as a 7 (or Chris Henry or Kelly Brown .....)
8 Morgan - injured at the wrong time - I would have picked him
9 Youngs picked, Care a t**t who you wouldn't trust not to do something stupid on a 7 week tour
10 Farrell picked
11 Brown - not as good a winger (or FB) as those picked
12 Barritt - not as good as the centres picked
13 Tuilagi - picked
14 Ashton - don't be stupid! Wade - England wouldn't pick him until now - too much of a gamble? Would have liked to see him not Maitland.
15 Goode - not as good as those picked

That isn't anti-English bias it's called picking the right squad - and he didn't get it far wrong.

Lydiate is probably the luckiest one but he was pure class in 2012 and returned from injury at the right time. In a squad of 37 Gatland can take a chance on 1 or 2 - it's not as if the back row is an area of weakness in the squad.

maestegmafia wrote:

valtrepkos wrote:There weren't that many first choice players if we're being honest!

Last England vs Wales Test

England: Goode; Ashton, Tuilagi, Barritt, Brown; Farrell, B Youngs; Marler, T Youngs, Cole, Launchbury, Parling, Croft, Robshaw, Wood.
Replacements: Twelvetrees for Goode (64), Flood for Farrell (67), Care for B. Youngs (64), Vunipola for Marler (44), Hartley for T. Youngs (52), Wilson for Cole (72), Lawes for Launchbury (52), Haskell for Wood (67).

England vs Argentina yesterday

England: Brown, Wade, Joseph, Twelvetrees, Strettle, Burns, Dickson, Marler, Webber, Wilson, Launchbury, Attwood, Wood, Kvesic, Morgan.
Replacements: Foden for Brown (68), Eastmond for Joseph (66), Wigglesworth for Dickson (54), H. Thomas for Marler (75), Paice for Webber (68), Doran-Jones for Wilson (73), Lawes for Attwood (54), Vunipola for Morgan (68).

Robshaw, Chris Ashton, Danny Care, Toby Flood and Brad Barritt missing due to non selection and needing a rest, the rest are either injured on the lions tour.

I see you're counting the replacements from the last test as 1st choice. ... be sensible as before this tour only launchbury, wood, Morgan and brown you would make an argument firvas 1st choice

Not to mention England have 2 LH away with the lions so ur argument for marler as 1st choice doesn't hold up to much

wanderingdragon wrote:Lydiate is probably the luckiest one but he was pure class in 2012 and returned from injury at the right time. In a squad of 37 Gatland can take a chance on 1 or 2 - it's not as if the back row is an area of weakness in the squad.

I agree, Lydiate is definitely a worthwhile selection, he looked closer to form than vs the Baa Baas and i think we will need a strong tackler on this tour. Competition for the backrow is immense.

I really dislike the title of this post, it is a vile concept aimed to annoy and anger people. It would be good to see the OP change the title to something more applicable.

maestegmafia wrote:

wanderingdragon wrote:Lydiate is probably the luckiest one but he was pure class in 2012 and returned from injury at the right time. In a squad of 37 Gatland can take a chance on 1 or 2 - it's not as if the back row is an area of weakness in the squad.

I agree, Lydiate is definitely a worthwhile selection, he looked closer to form than vs the Baa Baas and i think we will need a strong tackler on this tour. Competition for the backrow is immense.

I really dislike the title of this post, it is a vile concept aimed to annoy and anger people. It would be good to see the OP change the title to something more applicable.

I think that was his point. It's

Personally I see more English players in the squad I wouldn't take than players not in he squad I would take...if that makes sense

valtrepkos wrote:Not to mention England have 2 LH away with the lions so ur argument for marler as 1st choice doesn't hold up to much

Compare that team o what the Argies picked...!

From the Rugby Championship

Lucas Amorosino, Gonzalo Camacho, Marcelo Bosch, Santiago Fernandez, Belisario Agulla, Juan Martin Hernandez, Martin Landajo, Rodrigo Roncero, Eusebio Guinazu, Juan Figallo, Manuel Carizza, Patricio Albacete, Julio Farias Cabello, Juan Manuel Leguizamon, Juan Martin Fernandez Lobbe

Bench: Agustin Creevy, Juan Orlandi, Leonardo Senatore, Tomas Leonardi, Nicolas Vergallo, Martin Rodriguez Gurruchage, Juan Jose Imhoff

Yesterday

Argentina: Bustos Moyano, Orlando, Tiesi, Contepomi, Montero, Urdapilleta, Landajo, Henn, Garcia Veiga, Bustos, Lozada, Galarza, Farias Cabello, Macome, Leonardi.

Bench: Agulla for Orlando (58), Ascarate for Urdapilleta (58), Vergallo for Landajo (68), Roan for Henn (51), Guidone for Garcia Veiga (55), Gomez Kodela for Bustos (67), Vallejos for Lozada (62), De la Vega for Farias Cabello (72).

HammerofThunor wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

wanderingdragon wrote:Lydiate is probably the luckiest one but he was pure class in 2012 and returned from injury at the right time. In a squad of 37 Gatland can take a chance on 1 or 2 - it's not as if the back row is an area of weakness in the squad.

I agree, Lydiate is definitely a worthwhile selection, he looked closer to form than vs the Baa Baas and i think we will need a strong tackler on this tour. Competition for the backrow is immense.

I really dislike the title of this post, it is a vile concept aimed to annoy and anger people. It would be good to see the OP change the title to something more applicable.

I think that was his point. It's

Personally I see more English players in the squad I wouldn't take than players not in he squad I would take...if that makes sense

Yes that makes sense.

I wasn't disputing the strength of the Argentina side selected as they were open about resting 20 players but to claim England had a lot of first choice players out the was blatantly false

The Argentinians still had 100+ caps more on the park than England, and had more experience overall, if not all at AP level.

I think Gatland is anti-English, why else would he pick Stevens to show us up.

I have said it before, Gats stated pre-selection that selection it would be on the form shown in the 6N. Anybody not fit enough, or unavailable for the first match in Hong Kong would not go.

So we end up with a skipper with one match under his belt, a 6 with the same (Croft) although he did have good club form and a series of props, flankers, full backs and wingers injured or just returning from injury with no game time.

Plus the squad is picked based on the final round of the 6N with no regard to the matches in the previous rounds.

To the OP. No anti-English bias that I can see, and I'm English. Oh, and this attempt to start inter-Lions bickering seems to have fallen flat too. Nice try though.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:
Plus the squad is picked based on the final round of the 6N with no regard to the matches in the previous rounds.

And particularly with no regard to Autumn internationals or record against SH teams.

Having said that I don't think too many decision look wrong. Lydiate looks increasingly like a mistake. Also choosing Warburton as captain. Based on form against Reds Warburton is looking like mid week player.

valtrepkos wrote:I wasn't disputing the strength of the Argentina side selected as they were open about resting 20 players but to claim England had a lot of first choice players out the was blatantly false

7 out of 23 first choice squad players is a lot compared to Argentina who had none. Argies selecting Conteponi alone makes the difference in the caps, but does not raise the level of the team.

maestegmafia wrote:

valtrepkos wrote:I wasn't disputing the strength of the Argentina side selected as they were open about resting 20 players but to claim England had a lot of first choice players out the was blatantly false

7 out of 23 first choice squad players is a lot compared to Argentina who had none. Argies selecting Conteponi alone makes the difference in the caps, but does not raise the level of the team.

England with a lot of first choice players......

There was only Launchbury, Wood, Morgan and Brown who'd be considered first choice XV.

I'd hardly call 27% of first choice players in the starting XV "a lot".

Who are England missing

Corbisiero, vunipola, Hartley, youngs, cole, parling, croft, robshaw, Haskell, care, youngs, Farrell, barritt, tuilagi, Ashton, Goode. Any other genuine 1st XV players???

Whilst I don't know the Argentinian players that well, the were a lot of caps out there and to beat them by 4 tries to nil is still impressive.

Argentina are a tier 1 rugby nation, their 2nd team should still be decent and to nil them with your own 2nd team and get a bonus point win (so to speak) is all you could ask.

Wales had more players out.. Perhaps 25 to England's 16 but they were playing a far far lesser side compared and to almost get beat by Japan was laughable.... Wales should have 5 teams able to beat japan.

Hmmmm to the OP, I don't think so, not half as much as you by the looks of it

Gatland hates England.

You have to love the way GG/AWOP can throw out such an obvious WUM and catch so many fish.

AWOP? Ohhhhhh....all makes sense now

Look at it this way. We have both Zebo and Maitland in the squad now. Maitland is a Kiwi who's been in the Uk for 5 minutes representing Scotland. Zebo is a just a young lad who has shown to be hopelessly out of his depth against NZ in their absolute trouncing last year.

If these two are better than either of the non-selected English wingers then I'll happily concede I'm wrong. But it would mean the reserves of decent wingers in the Lions constituents is sadly sadly depleted.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Look at it this way. We have both Zebo and Maitland in the squad now. Maitland is a Kiwi who's been in the Uk for 5 minutes representing Scotland. Zebo is a just a young lad who has shown to be hopelessly out of his depth against NZ in their absolute trouncing last year.

If these two are better than either of the non-selected English wingers then I'll happily concede I'm wrong. But it would mean the reserves of decent wingers in the Lions constituents is sadly sadly depleted.

There was also Dylan Hartley, a Kiwi, ahead of Best and Tuilagi, a Samoan ahead of Scott. He also went with Croft, despite being injured nearly the whole year, ahead of Brown and Jones so I don't think he's anti-English considering they have the second biggest representation on the tour. What I would say is that the Wales-England match allowed provided justification for a lot of the Welsh tourists, if England had won the game then we could be looking at a completely different squad in fact I'd say the last two games changed the Lions immeasurably, Wales could easily have lost to both Scotland and England had their been different interpretations at the Scrum ( don't want to restart the argument it's done now and Wales may still have won both games) but they won both under, arguably, dubious circumstances and therefore received a large representation. Would the Squad be different if Scotland and England occupied first and second? Probably, did Gatland want a predominantly Welsh squad? Almost definitely, is he xenophobic? Probably not.

Stupid question. he might have a bit of Welsh biased in him but he is not anti English.
Just face it that their are other players from other countries that are better than English players. HUH, it's true their are better players out there than English ones minf. There is no other English person who deserves to be on the lions team apart from Danny Care who I would swap with Young's anyway. Also ben Morgan was unlucky to not get called up. But again Healsip and Falateu are showing there worth at the moment.
A lot of people wouldn't have even considered Vunipolo but he has shown what he can do in the last few games, so Gatland unlike many others would, gave him a chance.
Farrell shouldn't be on the tour and Hartley shouldn't have had the chance so Gats has actually been quite nice to you English.

Mr Bounce wrote:I was surprised at Lydiate over Tom Wood, & the choice of Heaslip over Morgan but that aside, I think he's got it mostly about right, and I am English.

No idea why anyone would chose Morgan over Heaslip. Heaslip has been excellent on the tour so far and proven himself to be a good selection. Lydiate has not had a great tour but was the right choice because at his best he is very effective and better than Wood.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Look at it this way. We have both Zebo and Maitland in the squad now. Maitland is a Kiwi who's been in the Uk for 5 minutes representing Scotland. Zebo is a just a young lad who has shown to be hopelessly out of his depth against NZ in their absolute trouncing last year.

If these two are better than either of the non-selected English wingers then I'll happily concede I'm wrong. But it would mean the reserves of decent wingers in the Lions constituents is sadly sadly depleted.

Maybe he should change gis name to NotSoGloriousEmpire

For me lydiate is the oddest choice of all.

The only reason you would take him would be to test.... And that's not going to happen... He's not match fit at least real match fit to his own standards and no one after a lengthy injury comes back full guns blazing.... Nobody.

Why take a half fit guy just to play in the dirt trackers?

Both croft and SOB and more likely to test and by the looks of it croft has been earmarked to play next sat with warburton and Heaslip... It looks like the test trio.

Was it worth the gamble... Perhaps but it's like a broke gambler taking a final double or nothing punt... They know its not going to work deep down and it's just going to hurt them in the long run.
It would have been better to try a chap like brown or robshaw IMO... They would have been fit, brought leadership qualities and robshaw himself is just as good a tackler as Lydiate.

Personally I don't think gatland is anti english... But i think he's very stubborn and is very predictable.... It's why he has only beaten a 3N side once in 25 odd matches over 5 years.
His rugby reminds me of England at the rwc95.... Big men, limited gameplan and good enough to beat the best of the NH easily... But against the SH it's unlikely to bring you more than an odd win and when you have to win 2 out of 3 the chances of winning is small.

Sounds like a lot of anti-Gatland on here; understandable after the Cardiff game I guess - If people don't understand the inclusion of Lydiate then in all honesty they don't understand rugby. And I can assure you; he's not there just to be a dirt tracker

Is GloriousEmpire the son of GreyGhost?

Blatent wales/england pot stirring was one of his hallmarks too.

RubyGuby wrote:Sounds like a lot of anti-Gatland on here; understandable after the Cardiff game I guess - If people don't understand the inclusion of Lydiate then in all honesty they don't understand rugby. And I can assure you; he's not there just to be a dirt tracker

I understand why he would be picked.... But he's off form and not match fit which is totally understandable and expected given his lack of rugby and long term injury... It's like JW in 05. It would be a brave man to put him in the 23 over SOB and Croft. I don't think it will work and by the looks of it gatland isn't going to either.

If someone thinks that Lydiate will just spring into his 2012 form suddenly after his time on the sidelines.... As you said, they don't know much about rugby.

I take it you have a completely different view of Corbisiero

I don't think Gats is biased against or for anyone.

I think he is obsessed with power. Players & game plan and has picked accordingly.

He is the Jeremy Clarkson of the rugby world.

POOWWWWWWWWEEEERRRRRRR!!!

RubyGuby wrote:I take it you have a completely different view of Corbisiero

Corbisiero wasn't an initial tour selection. He has been brought in due to injuries having been on standby. Slightly different to Lydiate who was selected over others who had good seasons.

For the record, I'm not querying Lydiate's selection, merely pointing out that your point is flawed as the two are not comparable.

I disagree that my argument is flawed - you are either up to touring or you are not. As for Lydiates so called form; IMO he has been playing well.

Corbisiero shouldn't have toured in my mind ahead of Healy, vunipola, a fit Jenkins, grant or Sheridan.

He is an injury replacement and rowntree just happens to be a scrum coach with both England and the lions.... Had he been in Scotland's camp perhaps grant would have got their first.