I don't blame Vinapola or subscribe to Scottish bias

First topic message reminder :

Just wanted to put this in writing

I do not blame Vinapola or a percieved anti Scottish excuse

I do blame Gatland for being a terrible selector and Gatland for having horrible negative tactics and I blame Gatland for picking favourites regardless of form

He is more and more reminding me of Woodward

Wales have deservedly won the 6 nations and slams in the last few years, but like Woodward, i beleive that is more to you have execptional players across the park, rather than anything Gatland has done

Like Woodward, Gatland has only plan A (Which is big runners running straight into players for more big runners to do it again, with the odd kick it away to add spice) and when that does not work he goes to PLan A (lite) the same plan with his second choice players

He is stubborn and will not select a player, regardless of current form, if he has set his stall out (See Hook, Peel)

He has a set idea of who to select, regardless of form or if they are still injured (Like Woodward) and relies on past reputation (Guess who that is like)

When the squad was announced a vast majority of use groaned that we would play Gatland ball and we would lose - we were shouted down and told to stop being so anti Welsh, but guess what, it has come to pass

We should have lost the first test (they had a 7 in centre and we still looked clueless as we ran and ran into tackles)

We lost the second test as only one team went to play rugby

I hope we win the third test, but unless Gatland tries something new, I fear we will not


IF we lose this series, then I would have to put Gatland in the same boat as Woodwood, or even a lesser one, as this Ozzie team are nothing special and with the right tactics I really feel we could have won 3 - 0


And to reiterate - I rate Vinapola and think he is a fantastic player, and will be a mence in years to come

Cyril wrote:I've no idea, Ruby. To be honest, I think the chance is gone now. The Aussies will continue to get better and I don't think the Lions have it in them to play the right way to beat them. It really should be 2-0 to the Aussies and game over already. We have no attacking nous or guile about our play. It's just as well Halfpenny is kicking brilliantly or we could be embarrassed.

I think the Lions will do well to get within 10 next week

Sorry for the pessismism but I just can't see a Lions win  

Keep the faith Cyril - I think we will be better now our backs are to the wall (no pun intended) - I really think we'll win the 3rd Test mate and I believe we will have a team to take it to the aussies -  

Lions will only have a chance if the box kicks and garryowens stop.

How can Gatland one week say he selected Corbisiero because Australia would target Vunipola, and then select the said Vunipola the following week, with IMO the better scrummaging prop Grant left on the bench, and even over the whole game he was under pressure, he never replaced him.

Gatland stands or falls on his selections.He has made calls for Wales that I have thought daft.The results have come,whether despite him or because of him who knows!
Why he ignored Grant we will have to wait for the DVD!
Is he pumping Grant,Toby,Tips etc for an almighty finale as they show him what was missing so far?Genius or numpty?
We may never know.

fa0019 wrote:Maesteg

Scotland, Ireland and England all have better records vs the 3N sides in gatlands reign then Wales.... And haven't had the luxury of talent gatland has had either.

Most people laugh at Martin Johnsons record with England but give him his dues, with the players he had he actually did ok, had he had the players Wales possessed his record would have been far better and that's saying something.
Is gatland a good coach? He's found a way to beat NH opposition and he should get plaudits for that...it's just when it's applied to the higher intensity, higher tempo, higher skilled players it falls apart.

The strategy is easy for those in the SH to beat.

But clearly not for Scotland Ireland and England eh:whistle: 

HammerofThunor wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: 

HammerofThunor wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: Good points Scarpia, all of them valid and interesting

I would have for arrogant and baseless personally but same thing basically

Hammer; what the feck does that ramble mean?

Saying that the Lions would have both games comfortably without the injuries is arrogant and baseless (IMO)

That's why I started with "I still think that.....". You seem to have missed that.

Coaching at International level is weird.Mike Ruddock did fine by Wales and yet suddenly was as popular as a fart in a diver's suit.Extracurricular rumours did for him.Surely you would have thought that he could have got a top job somewhere but he appears to be the leper with the runny nose that people turn away from despite his record.
Will this tour make or break WG?

Scarpia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: 

HammerofThunor wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: Good points Scarpia, all of them valid and interesting

I would have for arrogant and baseless personally but same thing basically

Hammer; what the feck does that ramble mean?

Saying that the Lions would have both games comfortably without the injuries is arrogant and baseless (IMO)

That's why I started with "I still think that.....". You seem to have missed that.

Not really. Thinking that is arrogant (IMO). You know, proper arrogant rather than "English" arrogant.

The Saint wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:What on earth are you talking about? Pls crank up the coherence-ometer

I'm talking about you lot coat-tailing Australia's wins over Wales because your own team can't do it. One even coat-tails SA and another is convinced that he is Australian... Also, referring to Gatland as Fatman or Fatland and having a 6 month slagging fest of Mike Phillips is xenophobic. So like I said, find something more constructive to do with your time until the AI's where results could potentially stop you latching on to other team's victories over Wales.

Superb, one of the funniest posts all weekend - congratulations! I'm afraid that I have little interest in Australia's wins over Wales - we have our own recent (jammy) wins over Oz to celebrate. Secondly, curse those dogs with dual nationality - I mean how dare they?! Thanks, but I'll continue to refer to FatMan as I like - its not xenophobic , perhaps you need to consult the dictionary? Mike Phillips is a perfect scrum-half for GatlandBall - not as rounded as some of the greats, but he's pretty damn good at what he does - for many, he's chalk and cheese tho, that's just the type of player he is, but again it's not xenophobia. I can only suggest that if you don't like what you read, perhaps a short holiday from the board would be order? It's full of opinions and stuff at the moment, and some may even disagree with you, shock horror

 Maybe he's suffering with Poster "Burnout"

Is that common these days, Ruby? Is it catching? I feel that sensible posters such as you and I should be informed

 I think it's a form of ME/CFS from typing on the keyboards - It leads to cognitive decline and selective attention. Thankfully they are all functional problems rather than organic.

No it's real (Poster Burnout)...and I am. Totally fecked.

Well it had to hit me in the middle of the Lions jamboree!

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

The Saint wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:What on earth are you talking about? Pls crank up the coherence-ometer

I'm talking about you lot referring to Gatland as Fatman having a 6 month slagging fest of Mike Phillips is xenophobic.

Superb, one of the funniest posts all weekend - congratulations!  I'm afraid that I have little interest in Australia's wins over Wales - we have our own recent (jammy) wins over Oz to celebrate. Secondly, curse those dogs with dual nationality - I mean how dare they?!  Thanks, but I'll continue to refer to FatMan as I like - its not xenophobic , perhaps you need to consult the dictionary?  Mike Phillips is a perfect scrum-half for GatlandBall - not as rounded as some of the greats, but he's pretty damn good at what he does - for many, he's chalk and cheese tho, that's just the type of player he is, but again it's not xenophobia. I can only suggest that if you don't like what you read, perhaps a short holiday from the board would be order?  It's full of opinions and stuff at the moment, and some may even disagree with you, shock horror

Xenophobic having abnormal fear or hatred of the strange or foreign......

I wouldn't say Michael Phillips is strange or foreign, and how dare Fatman (sorry Gatman....... Fatland........ Gatland...... oh whatever!!) conducting a six month slagging fest of Spikey "Two-Step-Shuffle" Phillips.

Lets start a campaign NOW " We all luuuurve Phillips and he must start the 3rd Test" / "Stop this 6 month slagging fest by Mr Fat.....sorry Mr Gatland"

In regards to Vunipola personally I would rather listen to pundits who actually have ample experience in the frontrow like David Flatman,Brian Moore and Paul Wallace than those who don't when talking about the scrum.

This is an article by Flatman:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/david-flatman-mako-vunipolas-heavy-burden-8680067.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/britishandirishlionsrugby/10151333/Lions-2013-No-winners-in-this-scrum-lottery.html

Article by Brian Moore.

These three frontrow players defend Mako. What does that tell you?

The criticism for Mako has come from the likes of Stephen Jones,Clive Woodward and Stuart Barnes. Hardly creditable pundits. None of these guys have a bloody clue about scrummaging.

 Wasn't Stuart Barnes a prop

RubyGuby wrote: Wasn't Stuart Barnes a prop

  

HammerofThunor wrote:

Scarpia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: 

HammerofThunor wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: Good points Scarpia, all of them valid and interesting

I would have for arrogant and baseless personally but same thing basically

Hammer; what the feck does that ramble mean?

Saying that the Lions would have both games comfortably without the injuries is arrogant and baseless (IMO)

That's why I started with "I still think that.....". You seem to have missed that.

Not really. Thinking that is arrogant (IMO). You know, proper arrogant rather than "English" arrogant.

Well, a lot of rugby journalists, pundits and rugby experts shared my opinion. You know, proper experts rather than HammerofThunor experts. I guess we'll just have to agree to differ. The difference being I'm right and you're wrong. (Now THAT's what I call arrogance!)

beshocked wrote:In regards to Vunipola personally I would rather listen to pundits who actually have ample experience in the frontrow like David Flatman,Brian Moore and Paul Wallace than those who don't when talking about the scrum.

This is an article by Flatman:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/david-flatman-mako-vunipolas-heavy-burden-8680067.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/britishandirishlionsrugby/10151333/Lions-2013-No-winners-in-this-scrum-lottery.html

Article by Brian Moore.

These three frontrow players defend Mako. What does that tell you?

The criticism for Mako has come from the likes of Stephen Jones,Clive Woodward and Stuart Barnes. Hardly creditable pundits. None of these guys have a bloody clue about scrummaging.

Moore also commented on Twitter that he felt Grant should have been used at some point.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:In regards to Vunipola personally I would rather listen to pundits who actually have ample experience in the frontrow like David Flatman,Brian Moore and Paul Wallace than those who don't when talking about the scrum.

This is an article by Flatman:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/david-flatman-mako-vunipolas-heavy-burden-8680067.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/britishandirishlionsrugby/10151333/Lions-2013-No-winners-in-this-scrum-lottery.html

Article by Brian Moore.

These three frontrow players defend Mako. What does that tell you?

The criticism for Mako has come from the likes of Stephen Jones,Clive Woodward and Stuart Barnes. Hardly creditable pundits. None of these guys have a bloody clue about scrummaging.

Moore also commented on Twitter that he felt Grant should have been used at some point.

Not going to argue with that.

My opinion is this: Grant can be feel hard done by that he got no gametime whatsoever. On the other hand I don't feel that the game was lost because Gatland did not pick Grant. In my opinion Grant should have played for the last 20 minutes.

Scottish fans can feel hard done by that they have had no player on the pitch at any time in the tests. Unfortunately quite a bit (but not all) of the Scottish anger has been thrown at Vunipola. A player who I feel like has been getting an unfair amount of criticism.

This is why I have stalwartly and aggressively jumped to his defence. I am not alone in defending him thank goodness.

I think Gray,Grant and Hogg should be getting gametime for the Lions.

Scarpia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Scarpia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: 

HammerofThunor wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: Good points Scarpia, all of them valid and interesting

I would have for arrogant and baseless personally but same thing basically

Hammer; what the feck does that ramble mean?

Saying that the Lions would have both games comfortably without the injuries is arrogant and baseless (IMO)

That's why I started with "I still think that.....". You seem to have missed that.

Not really. Thinking that is arrogant (IMO). You know, proper arrogant rather than "English" arrogant.

Well, a lot of rugby journalists, pundits and rugby experts shared my opinion. You know, proper experts rather than HammerofThunor experts. I guess we'll just have to agree to differ. The difference being I'm right and you're wrong. (Now THAT's what I call arrogance!)

Experts that shared the opinion that without injuries Lions would have comfortably beat Australia in both tests? Are these the same 'experts' that get slated all the time when their opinion differ from those some individuals? I would say that is arrogant no matter who was talking. And, just for you, I'll give my thinking behind that.

Regardless of how crap Australia happen to be at any moment in time we rarely beat them out there. The last time Wales beat them was in the 60 or 70s (1969?). Not sure if Ireland have ever beat them. Scotland beat them a few years ago and so did we. But we've only EVER beaten them 3 times in Australia and twice was in 2003. Now this is history so doesn't mean a huge amount but it's certainly suggestive.

Add to that the Lions are largely a scratch side. Are they actually stonger than indivdual sides? Are Lions stronger than Wales because they've got a few players who are 'better'? Or does the fact the Wales team have years of experience together make up for those missing players?

So we have a largely scratch team made up from sides that rarely beat Australia (especially in Australia) and never comfortably. Coached by a team who have never taken a team to Australia and won (I think Rowntree is the only one).

But they would have comfortably beat Australia...twice?

Unless you meant that they (Aus) were crippled by injury and the Lions were free from injury. In that case the Lions may have beaten them comfortably.

beshocked wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:In regards to Vunipola personally I would rather listen to pundits who actually have ample experience in the frontrow like David Flatman,Brian Moore and Paul Wallace than those who don't when talking about the scrum.

This is an article by Flatman:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/david-flatman-mako-vunipolas-heavy-burden-8680067.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/britishandirishlionsrugby/10151333/Lions-2013-No-winners-in-this-scrum-lottery.html

Article by Brian Moore.

These three frontrow players defend Mako. What does that tell you?

The criticism for Mako has come from the likes of Stephen Jones,Clive Woodward and Stuart Barnes. Hardly creditable pundits. None of these guys have a bloody clue about scrummaging.

Moore also commented on Twitter that he felt Grant should have been used at some point.

Not going to argue with that.

My opinion is this: Grant can be feel hard done by that he got no gametime whatsoever. On the other hand I don't feel that the game was lost because Gatland did not pick Grant. In my opinion Grant should have played for the last 20 minutes.

Scottish fans can feel hard done by that they have had no player on the pitch at any time in the tests. Unfortunately quite a bit (but not all) of the Scottish anger has been thrown at Vunipola. A player who I feel like has been getting an unfair amount of criticism.

This is why I have stalwartly and aggressively jumped to his defence. I am not alone in defending him thank goodness.

I think Gray,Grant and Hogg should be getting gametime for the Lions.

It is really strange that Grant didn't come on at all. The only thing that would make any sense is that he was carrying a slight knock and they didn't want to risk him if they didn't have to (didn't he take a bit of a big hit in the tuesday game?), although that would go against Dr Robson's statement he would allow them to play an injured player. Was Court an option in that case? The only other real option is that he's really not impressed the coaching staff. Not seen enough to tell from the games and none of us see training.

Beshocked

Scots don't want our own players on unless its justified.

Most of us have supported and enjoyed previous tours with less representation, at this period we all come together as Lions. However their is reasoned grounds for argument that Grant has been the best and most in-from LH in the UK during Feb -May of this year and should have been on the plane from the off (look what he did to Adam Jones in the 6Ns and when Glasgow played the Os a few weeks later).

But we have lived with the fact that Grant (and similarly Ken Owens for Wales I suspect) wasn't selected and moved on. But now when a player was having such a poor game initially and then when he looked out for the count that Mr Stubborn Fatman refused to bring on a pair of fresh legs which MIGHT have contributed in swinging the game in our favour, then we as Lions supporters might feel aggrieved.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Scarpia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Scarpia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: 

HammerofThunor wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: Good points Scarpia, all of them valid and interesting

I would have for arrogant and baseless personally but same thing basically

Hammer; what the feck does that ramble mean?

Saying that the Lions would have both games comfortably without the injuries is arrogant and baseless (IMO)

That's why I started with "I still think that.....". You seem to have missed that.

Not really. Thinking that is arrogant (IMO). You know, proper arrogant rather than "English" arrogant.

Well, a lot of rugby journalists, pundits and rugby experts shared my opinion. You know, proper experts rather than HammerofThunor experts. I guess we'll just have to agree to differ. The difference being I'm right and you're wrong. (Now THAT's what I call arrogance!)

Experts that shared the opinion that without injuries Lions would have comfortably beat Australia in both tests? Are these the same 'experts' that get slated all the time when their opinion differ from those some individuals? I would say that is arrogant no matter who was talking. And, just for you, I'll give my thinking behind that.

Regardless of how crap Australia happen to be at any moment in time we rarely beat them out there. The last time Wales beat them was in the 60 or 70s (1969?). Not sure if Ireland have ever beat them. Scotland beat them a few years ago and so did we. But we've only EVER beaten them 3 times in Australia and twice was in 2003. Now this is history so doesn't mean a huge amount but it's certainly suggestive.

Add to that the Lions are largely a scratch side. Are they actually stonger than indivdual sides? Are Lions stronger than Wales because they've got a few players who are 'better'? Or does the fact the Wales team have years of experience together make up for those missing players?

So we have a largely scratch team made up from sides that rarely beat Australia (especially in Australia) and never comfortably. Coached by a team who have never taken a team to Australia and won (I think Rowntree is the only one).

But they would have comfortably beat Australia...twice?

Unless you meant that they (Aus) were crippled by injury and the Lions were free from injury. In that case the Lions may have beaten them comfortably.

No, Hammer. I meant like that! 16-41. 4 tries. Excellent performance.

 How was sunny Resolven Hammer ?

Sunny