Jonathan Davies victim of Twitter abuse and threats after displacing Brian O'Driscoll in Lions side for deciding Test

miaow wrote:Sin, I only read and post on v2 sporadically, and don't really know what kind of reputation or posting history you have, but if you're not a WUM then I almost feel sorry trying to rationalise with you, because if you're not an idiot, I feel there might be something medically wrong with you. In which case I feel bad.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:That is a pretty harsh comment to make.  I'm not sure that was called for.  I don't agree with Sin much at all but honestly he is very rarely abusive to anyone he debates with, so I don't think he deserves it himself.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I just think he went too far when he said that Gatland had betrayed the traditions of the Lions, and when given the opportunity to admit that he may have got a couple of things wrong, I think he should have admitted as much.

I have no issue with his opinion that BOD should have started 13 with Roberts, and when anyone says that the Lions would probably have won with either JD2 or BOD at 13, I find it hard to think of any compelling argument against that assertion.

It's the manner of his comments and his reaction at the time which is evoking such a strong reaction in me. Heaven forbid we get stuck with the sort of bland nonsense you expect from pundits like Andy Nicol, but if you are going to stick your neck out and brand a decision plain wrong, and start questionning the fabric of the touring squad, you do look slightly silly when the same side spanks the Aussies by a record margin, and you can't admit that perhaps you let the situation and your love of one of your countries greatest ever players get the better of you.

That said, I got similarly emotional when Dan Parks didn't make the Lions squad....I knew from that point onwards that the spirit of the Lions was tainted.....

IronMike wrote:To be fair, on a lot of websites, not just this one, some Irish fans have been completely unbearable during the tour. I've never seen such a sense of entitlement given to a player.

But oh well, history will remember the result.

GunsGerms wrote:

Taylorman wrote:I'm not bitter when it comes to ODriscoll. I'm bitter, if thats the word, about the sheer over-reaction to his dropping, and the complete lack of respect given to a selection that was proven a successful one and possibly a masterstroke that many in the NH would not have had the guts to make- thats now obvious. I have nothing against O'Driscoll, I rate him one of the best players in the last 20 or so years to come out of the NH.

But this uncessant on and on and on and on about his dropping is THE single most ridiculous reaction to any I have ever seen in my time watching the game. not just for the lack of respect for the selection but the sheer number that have put a black mark of doom over the entire tour. To choose en masse to not enjoy the win as a composite side but instead embark on a vendetta of commentary using all available media is frankly an embarrassment to the lions concept- they cant even win when they do win.

And thank heavens they did win...who knows what would have happened if theyd lost, if this is the treatment they get for winning.

To be honest I think you are over reacting a little more than any reaction I have seen to something that was always going to be debated. Yes some trolls on twitter got over excited but you seem to be mirror image of those trolls fighting the other side just as fervently for some reason.

Your use of words like:
sheer over-reaction
complete lack of respect
THE single most ridiculous reaction
black mark of doom over
a masterstroke

to me suggest you are getting very excited and carried away yourself.

You continously refer to the decision as a masterstroke yet anyone with a calm head has concluded that it really wouldnt have made much difference either way because if you look at the tests objectively the backs really dont feature as prominently in Gatlands gameplan as the forwards and neither Davies nor Drico were given much scope for any creative licence given the rather 1 dimensional direct backs strategy employed. The biggest difference in terms of performance between the second test and the third test was not the omission of BOD but the inclusion of Corbisero who is one of the real unsung heros of the Lions.

I think it suits your propensity for a rant on this subject to summarise the whole debacle as a genius move by Gatland when in reality in my opinion and not necessarly due to the O'Driscoll decision Gatland took the long way round with this series. I really think the Lions should actually have won the series more comprehensively and would have had Gatland trusted the backs a lot more and allowed them to take the game to Australia.

Also you refer to the incessant on and on of the dropping yet really it seems to me that at this stage it is the Gatland apologists that want to discuss this more than anyone and just because the Lions won the series anyone that doesnt agree with some of his decisions should hang their heads in shame.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:

Sin é wrote:

miaow wrote:
I also believe that Jon Davies is no more 'his' player than BOD was when in the role as Lions coach. If Gatland was picking his boys, why was Cuthbert dropped after scoring a wonderful try in the first Test, for Bowe, who had done little to prove his form or fitness? Again, the only issue amongst Irish fans is their talisman is seen to be equal to the players he is up against, and perhaps there's an element of reluctance, as you've displayed, to accept his career is nearly over.

Lots of players didn't get a chance who should have .... it just happens that BOD was the most obvious one for everyone outside of Wales to get annoyed about.

Sean O'Brien should have got more of a chance than he did, but we didn't moan about it because Warburton was captain - but O'Brien was the better player.

Manu Tualagi didn't get a chance. The most promising centre partnership was BOD & Manu - but as soon as Gatland saw that happening, he didn't put them together again.

Irish fans were not moaning and groaning about Jamie Heaslip being dropped for no good reason - surprising that he didn't want to reunite the Leinster & Ireland backrow.

Bowe shouldn't have started because of his injury. Bowe probably got the call becuase of his experience of playing in Wales and he could be the token Irish back.

Now, can anyone tell me why Mike Phillips started? Murray is just a better scrumhalf than him (and just as physical). Apart from Phillips & Young's poor form, his partnership with Sexton should have made it a no brainer.

Why were the BBC (British Media) asking Keith Wood if he changed his mind? And now that he hasn't, he gets lambasted.

Then Davies is moaning because people aren't happy about his selection and throws out nonsense about Brian's cv (the only rugby player on the world that has over 400K twitter followers). To me its like Gatland & Davies are just looking for attention.

+1
Although the most significant change that Gatland made and Gats to his credit praised him after the game was Corbs starting at LH. I believe the Lions would have won the game whoever he chose in the centres. But the selection of Phillips was just baffling.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:Why were the BBC (British Media) asking Keith Wood if he changed his mind? And now that he hasn't, he gets lambasted.

Then Davies is moaning because people aren't happy about his selection and throws out nonsense about Brian's cv (the only rugby player on the world that has over 400K twitter followers). To me its like Gatland & Davies are just looking for attention.

I suspect the BBC asked Keith Wood the questions because there was clearly a story to be had, and as a media agency, that's their job.

Keith Wood expressed an opinion in a very strong manner, stating that the omission of BOD was a huge mistake. The Lions went on to win handsomely. Keith Wood then made a chump of himself with some garbled nonsense about there not being enough flair, it not feeling like the Lions really won, the Lions not being a proper mix of the four countries, but making clear he had no issue with the number of Welsh players (if you can reconcile his third and final point you're doing well).

Probably my favourite hooker of all time, but someone please take the microphone off him!

I don't think JD2s point about BOD's CV was nonsense at all. After the vast swathes of outrage at the now infamour "spear" in 2005, abd how close he came in 2009, and given that he's won the Rabo and HC with Leinster, I don't think it's outwith the realms of reason to suggest that BOD would rather like to have a Lions series win on his CV, even if he doesn't play in the deciding Test match. He still played a role in both the 1st and 2nd Tests, and if you believe some, his performance in the 2nd Test was nothing short of a miracle.

funnyExiledScot wrote:No, the fact that Keith Wood has been consistent in being wrong isn't my point at all.

He gave a strong opinion prior to the 3rd Test. I personally think the manner in which he gave the opinion was wrong and over the top, but his opinion was given nonetheless.

What staggers me isn't that he held that view, he is a partisan pundit (in the same way as Andy Nicol is for Scottish players) with little regard for objectivity, but more his garbled response to the BBC questionning after the 3rd Test (i.e. the section I quoted).

He simply repeats what he said previously, with no regard as to what actually happened in the 3rd Test. Did the Lions actually show a lack of flair in that 3rd Test? Did the gameplan look wrong? Did the 4/5 (whatever) nations not "blend" that day?

I made the big mistake of questionning why Corbisiero was selected ahead of Ryan Grant. I felt Grant was an equal scrummager, better in the loose and on better form given Corbisiero's injury record last season. Now, were the BBC to interview me now, obviously I would be stupid to merely repeat my earlier arguments. I'd look rather silly.

A good pundit can adapt to what he sees, and crucially admit mistakes. Keith Wood was clearly upset that an Irish icon, and I presume a player he knows fairly well, was on the tough end of a close selection call. That it then lead to nonsense about the "traditions" of the Lions being betrayed was simply rank puditry, and worse still, he's unable to admit that he called it wrong and overreacted.

Sin é wrote:FunnyExiledScot:

Keith Wood is a straight talker and he said what he thinks. Before the 3rd Test, he was also critical of Gatland's management:

"It's entirely built around power," he said.

"A huge amount rests on Jamie Roberts' shoulders and they were crying out for him in the last two weeks. I just think Brian's subtlety off him would have worked.

"You can say (Gatland is) picking on form but he's picked an unbelievably direct team with very little guile in it, specifically to play this game plan.

"You're asking them to pulverise a team. The Lions are at the end of virtually 12 months of the season, all these guys are pretty tired and you're looking for the absolute maximum for it to work for them.

"It can happen, I want it to happen, I'm just a little bit disappointed at the manner in which I think the tradition has been treated.

"The Lions is about getting the best quality out of the players of these islands, not having an intransigent game plan. We're not seeing that spark that we're used to seeing from the Lions because it's a game plan doesn't suit an awful lot of the players.

"It suits the Welsh players, that's why there's 10 of them playing. We're not seeing the blend of four teams. That's what the Lions is about, that's what makes it so phenomenal."

http://www.independent.ie/sport/keith-wood-odriscoll-axing-a-terrible-mistake-29392142.html

So, do not suggest that he was making it up as he went along.

Players like Brian O'Driscoll would not feel they earned the win because he was dropped. Paul O'Connell (in that interview) spoke as if he hadn't won a series - it was 'someone' else had. The intereviewer had to remind him that he had won a series (and POC would have been a starter for the 3 tests except for injury).

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Sin wants the entire rugby world to go down on their knees and beg BOD forgiveness for unnecessarily ruining an otherwise fantastic career and for Gatland to take 1000 lashes for his criminal act in selecting a winning side.

Thats from what I've read might go close to what Sin is after...though he probably wants more.

              i think they should set the whole match up again with Bod playing  and is allowed to score the  winning try .   jd2 must clean is boots after

good point...I'll start on that one then. Make sure they bring the trophy back though just in case the result changes...

Taylorman, why are you so bitter when it comes to O'Driscoll? Nobody is looking for an apology, thats just ridiculous.

I'm not bitter when it comes to ODriscoll. I'm bitter, if thats the word, about the sheer over-reaction to his dropping, and the complete lack of respect given to a selection that was proven a successful one and possibly a masterstroke that many in the NH would not have had the guts to make- thats now obvious. I have nothing against O'Driscoll, I rate him one of the best players in the last 20 or so years to come out of the NH.

But this uncessant on and on and on and on about his dropping is THE single most ridiculous reaction to any I have ever seen in my time watching the game. not just for the lack of respect for the selection but the sheer number that have put a black mark of doom over the entire tour. To choose en masse to not enjoy the win as a composite side but instead embark on a vendetta of commentary using all available media is frankly an embarrassment to the lions concept- they cant even win when they do win.

And thank heavens they did win...who knows what would have happened if theyd lost, if this is the treatment they get for winning.

GunsGerms wrote:

miaow wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:FES I dont think anyone thinks BODs 2nd test was miraculous. Most people who argued for his inclusion simply thought it was marginally better than Davies.

I'm afraid that's not true. If the opposition to Davies's selection was down to a 'marginally better' performance by BOD, it would not have merited the strength of response, which has been on the verge of vitriolic.

There were other factors at play. The fact that BOD should have been next in line as captain given he has over 80 caps experience as captain vs the guy chosen to be captain who had captained his country once about 5 years ago.

Also BOD has much more experience than Davies which when dealing with fine margins is something that could have counted in his favour.

These are logical arguements but some opinions were no doubt warped given the stature of the man who was dropped. In any case lest you havent noticed many of the counter arguments have been just as vitriolic.

Sin é wrote:

miaow wrote:

Sin é wrote:Lots of players didn't get a chance who should have .... it just happens that BOD was the most obvious one for everyone outside of Wales to get annoyed about.

Why? Because of what he's done in the past? His omission was surprising given his prestige, but to be annoyed about it? Just shows you're far too emotive about this, how his non-selection doesn't fit the script. If you genuinely wanted the Lions to win the Tour, if you actually put aside your national bias, you wouldn't have been annoyed about him not being selected, because the Lions won emphatically. But you clearly don't care about the Lions. Dropping the best known player on the planet was going to cause a bit more of a wave than dropping Jamie Heaslip or A Culbert. I thought Gatland's method of dropping him was nasty (wheeling him out to a press conference the week he was going to drop him ? What the hell was that about? I wanted the Lions to win, but I think they could have won just as easily if they had dropped Mike Phillips started Sexton-Murray in the 3 tests.

Sin é wrote:Sean O'Brien should have got more of a chance than he did, but we didn't moan about it because Warburton was captain - but O'Brien was the better player.

Utter conjecture. Warburton was injured, and once up to speed, got better and better, peaking in the second Test before going off injured. O'Brien had a great Tour, but in no way can you categorically state he was the better player. Like Croft and Lydiate, they brought different things to the game. Yep, Warburton was there on reputation. As soon as he got up to speed he got injured. (no surprises there). PS - I said we didn't complain because O'Brien didn't get more of a chance (that is not saying he is the better player - though it looked that way from the the 3rd Test).

Sin é wrote:Manu Tualagi didn't get a chance. The most promising centre partnership was BOD & Manu - but as soon as Gatland saw that happening, he didn't put them together again.

Again, Tuilagi was injured, or have you forgotten that. No, I remember. But starting a centre twice in the one week is asking for trouble. Then maybe bringing more than 1 inside centre might have been useful or was Jamie Roberts expected to start all games?

I'd also presume Gatland, and Howley, saw a lot more of the combination in training sessions. You're really clutching at straws trying to pass this off as some grand plan by Gatland. Roberts was clearly integral to the gameplan, and proved his worth in the final Test. Whatever his flaws, he is so unbelievably effective at what he does. Also, Jon Davies was arguably the best performing centre in the games before the Tests. And you can't simply state that was due to the poor opposition; it's the same opposition you're basing your preferred centre partnership on.

Well, Paul O'Connell must have seen them as well and he couldn't understand why BOD was dropped. Did Gatland think that Roberts was going to start every game?

Davies was not the best performing centre. For proof just check all the British media player ratings to prove that one. (He had a very good outing in one game against the Waratahs - that was about it).

Sin é wrote:Irish fans were not moaning and groaning about Jamie Heaslip being dropped for no good reason - surprising that he didn't want to reunite the Leinster & Ireland backrow.

Faletau had performed no worse on the Tour, and after Heaslip starting two Tests and not asserting himself, Faletau was selected. I fail to see how there was 'no good reason' for his dropping. Again, Gatland was the coach, can do what he wants to win, and he did. Get over it.  This made me laugh

Sin é wrote:Bowe shouldn't have started because of his injury. Bowe probably got the call becuase of his experience of playing in Wales and he could be the token Irish back.

You're an idiot. LOL  

Sin é wrote:Now, can anyone tell me why Mike Phillips started? Murray is just a better scrumhalf than him (and just as physical). Apart from Phillips & Young's poor form, his partnership with Sexton should have made it a no brainer.

Probably because when Phillips is on form, he's very difficult to play against, and is best suited to the gameplan Gatland wants to play (something you clearly don't understand). Murray is clearly far less physical than Phillips, no scrum half comes near, and it's total conjecture again, which you've stated as fact, that he is a better scrum half. Let's be fair, Murray and Sexton have hardly proved to be a solid pairing for Ireland. And as mentioned earlier, it's a lot easier to come off the bench and look good.So Phillips was played on reputation  . Sexton & Murray did ok in the Millenium in the 6Ns. (Phillips was poor - and was poor on tour as well - certainly every time Murray came on, the Lions improved).

Sin é wrote:Why were the BBC (British Media) asking Keith Wood if he changed his mind? And now that he hasn't, he gets lambasted.

Ignoring the massive xenophobic chip on your shoulder there, he was probably asked because he did his best to undermine the spirit and notion of the borderless Lions, and was proved emphatically wrong as the Lions, with Jonathan Davies and the (apparently too many) 'Welshmen' selected with the other starting Lions, tore the Australians apart. Blind pride and ignorance isn't an enviable trait. He's also employed by the BBC as a television pundit.  You see that's the thing - Woody (& Willie John McBride) know a thing or two more than Gatland or yourself about the Lions

Sin é wrote:Then Davies is moaning because people aren't happy about his selection and throws out nonsense about Brian's cv (the only rugby player on the world that has over 400K twitter followers). To me its like Gatland & Davies are just looking for attention.

There is a direct quote earlier in this thread from BOD stating the result is more important than his personal involvement. He stated he would rather have a Lions win without him in the side than a loss with him in it. You clearly would have preferred the latter, and revelled in the 'Welsh/British' Lions' loss. Grow up. Davies was stating, not complaining, he said he was simply ignoring it, that he had received threats on Twitter, something you've attempted to disparage as a medium for ten year olds before needlessly stating BOD has 400k followers on (the most simple of searches would reveal he has just over 350,000). Sin, you truly are an embarrassment.

Point 1 - I told you BOD is a classy bloke (unlike Gatland & Davies who are still whinging about it). There is no talk in the press about BOD being dropped in Ireland. We've moved on. Why does Davies/British media want to keep reminding everyone that BOD was dropped for him still? The only reason I can think of is because he isn't getting the attention that he thinks he deserves.

He has 354,311 to be exact. The reason why I stated that was to show that going on twitter, he is the best known rugby player on the planet (Dan Carter 235K, Wilko 163K).

(and with 354,311 followers, its hardly surprising a handful (according to Davies) might send abusive tweets.

Sin é wrote:

miaow wrote:

Sin é wrote:Lots of players didn't get a chance who should have .... it just happens that BOD was the most obvious one for everyone outside of Wales to get annoyed about.

Why? Because of what he's done in the past? His omission was surprising given his prestige, but to be annoyed about it? Just shows you're far too emotive about this, how his non-selection doesn't fit the script. If you genuinely wanted the Lions to win the Tour, if you actually put aside your national bias, you wouldn't have been annoyed about him not being selected, because the Lions won emphatically. But you clearly don't care about the Lions. Dropping the best known player on the planet was going to cause a bit more of a wave than dropping Jamie Heaslip or A Culbert. I thought Gatland's method of dropping him was nasty (wheeling him out to a press conference the week he was going to drop him ? What the hell was that about? I wanted the Lions to win, but I think they could have won just as easily if they had dropped Mike Phillips started Sexton-Murray in the 3 tests.

Sin é wrote:Sean O'Brien should have got more of a chance than he did, but we didn't moan about it because Warburton was captain - but O'Brien was the better player.

Utter conjecture. Warburton was injured, and once up to speed, got better and better, peaking in the second Test before going off injured. O'Brien had a great Tour, but in no way can you categorically state he was the better player. Like Croft and Lydiate, they brought different things to the game. Yep, Warburton was there on reputation. As soon as he got up to speed he got injured. (no surprises there). PS - I said we didn't complain because O'Brien didn't get more of a chance (that is not saying he is the better player - though it looked that way from the the 3rd Test).

Sin é wrote:Manu Tualagi didn't get a chance. The most promising centre partnership was BOD & Manu - but as soon as Gatland saw that happening, he didn't put them together again.

Again, Tuilagi was injured, or have you forgotten that. No, I remember. But starting a centre twice in the one week is asking for trouble. Then maybe bringing more than 1 inside centre might have been useful or was Jamie Roberts expected to start all games?

I'd also presume Gatland, and Howley, saw a lot more of the combination in training sessions. You're really clutching at straws trying to pass this off as some grand plan by Gatland. Roberts was clearly integral to the gameplan, and proved his worth in the final Test. Whatever his flaws, he is so unbelievably effective at what he does. Also, Jon Davies was arguably the best performing centre in the games before the Tests. And you can't simply state that was due to the poor opposition; it's the same opposition you're basing your preferred centre partnership on.

Well, Paul O'Connell must have seen them as well and he couldn't understand why BOD was dropped. Did Gatland think that Roberts was going to start every game?

Davies was not the best performing centre. For proof just check all the British media player ratings to prove that one. (He had a very good outing in one game against the Waratahs - that was about it).

Sin é wrote:Irish fans were not moaning and groaning about Jamie Heaslip being dropped for no good reason - surprising that he didn't want to reunite the Leinster & Ireland backrow.

Faletau had performed no worse on the Tour, and after Heaslip starting two Tests and not asserting himself, Faletau was selected. I fail to see how there was 'no good reason' for his dropping. Again, Gatland was the coach, can do what he wants to win, and he did. Get over it.  This made me laugh

Sin é wrote:Bowe shouldn't have started because of his injury. Bowe probably got the call becuase of his experience of playing in Wales and he could be the token Irish back.

You're an idiot. LOL  

Sin é wrote:Now, can anyone tell me why Mike Phillips started? Murray is just a better scrumhalf than him (and just as physical). Apart from Phillips & Young's poor form, his partnership with Sexton should have made it a no brainer.

Probably because when Phillips is on form, he's very difficult to play against, and is best suited to the gameplan Gatland wants to play (something you clearly don't understand). Murray is clearly far less physical than Phillips, no scrum half comes near, and it's total conjecture again, which you've stated as fact, that he is a better scrum half. Let's be fair, Murray and Sexton have hardly proved to be a solid pairing for Ireland. And as mentioned earlier, it's a lot easier to come off the bench and look good.So Phillips was played on reputation  . Sexton & Murray did ok in the Millenium in the 6Ns. (Phillips was poor - and was poor on tour as well - certainly every time Murray came on, the Lions improved).

Sin é wrote:Why were the BBC (British Media) asking Keith Wood if he changed his mind? And now that he hasn't, he gets lambasted.

Ignoring the massive xenophobic chip on your shoulder there, he was probably asked because he did his best to undermine the spirit and notion of the borderless Lions, and was proved emphatically wrong as the Lions, with Jonathan Davies and the (apparently too many) 'Welshmen' selected with the other starting Lions, tore the Australians apart. Blind pride and ignorance isn't an enviable trait. He's also employed by the BBC as a television pundit.  You see that's the thing - Woody (& Willie John McBride) know a thing or two more than Gatland or yourself about the Lions

Sin é wrote:Then Davies is moaning because people aren't happy about his selection and throws out nonsense about Brian's cv (the only rugby player on the world that has over 400K twitter followers). To me its like Gatland & Davies are just looking for attention.

There is a direct quote earlier in this thread from BOD stating the result is more important than his personal involvement. He stated he would rather have a Lions win without him in the side than a loss with him in it. You clearly would have preferred the latter, and revelled in the 'Welsh/British' Lions' loss. Grow up. Davies was stating, not complaining, he said he was simply ignoring it, that he had received threats on Twitter, something you've attempted to disparage as a medium for ten year olds before needlessly stating BOD has 400k followers on (the most simple of searches would reveal he has just over 350,000). Sin, you truly are an embarrassment.

Point 1 - I told you BOD is a classy bloke (unlike Gatland & Davies who are still whinging about it). There is no talk in the press about BOD being dropped in Ireland. We've moved on. Why does Davies/British media want to keep reminding everyone that BOD was dropped for him still? The only reason I can think of is because he isn't getting the attention that he thinks he deserves.

He has 354,311 to be exact. The reason why I stated that was to show that going on twitter, he is the best known rugby player on the planet (Dan Carter 235K, Wilko 163K).

(and with 354,311 followers, its hardly surprising a handful (according to Davies) might send abusive tweets.

GunsGerms wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

rodders wrote:I can't speak for Wood (who's a terrible pundit imo) but there seems to be an attitude that because the Lions won the series that Gatland is above criticism and that everyone unhappy about the selection(s) has to bow down and eat humble pie in all Lions debates henceforth.

You certainly won't get that attitude from me. He got plenty right, but, for example, only taking two fly halves was not a good decision, and the "Hogg experiment" at 10 unravelled against the Brumbies.

The composition of the squad wasn't perfect, and in some positions the Lions had a lack of depth as a result. The Brumbies defeat in particularly was most certainly avoidable.

I think you could also crititique the selection and approach to the 2nd Test.

However, Wood criticised (and most importantly maintains his criticism) Gatland's selection, tactics and approach to the 3rd Test. When you win a match that emphatically, I think you can quite rightly expect Keith Wood to eat some humble pie with respect to his comments about lack of flair, the Lions not geling as four nations and the "traditions" of the Lions being betrayed.

I think Wood's point was that there should be a mix of the nations. Picking 10 Welsh players for the last test doesnt really represent a mix. I dont see how winning the test changes anything in that respect.

I also said from the start when a mostly Welsh side played v the BaBa's that makes the team feel like less of a Lions team when there is a clear majority of one nations players. I think you are just going to have to accept that because of its unique make up the Lions will always have a different meaning to different people and long may it continue..

rodders wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:
I think you could also crititique the selection and approach to the 2nd Test.

Most certainly which makes me shake my head when people throw BOD's performance in the first two tests as a justification for his dropping in the 3rd. The decision to ignore Grant in favour of Vainpolo was a disaster and the backrow, especially an out of sorts Warburton, were made mince meat off at the breakdown.  

None of the backs had any sort of platform, yet BOD became the high profile scapegoat whilst Gats and his captain get off with no criticism whatsoever along with the player who missed the key tackle for the wallaby try.

All this talk about vindication and masterstrokes to me is nonsense, in my view Gatland got the selection badly wrong in the second test instead of taking the responsibility he made a public scapegoat of O'Driscoll knowing it would create a huge media uproar and that when he put square pegs in square holes in the pack then we'd have the beating of an injury ravaged wallabies side.



   

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

rodders wrote:So you can only criticise selection and tactics when a team loses?

Not at all.

But if you're going to criticise a team for having no flair and failing to gel, and then that team produces a strong attacking performance, record victory and includes huge performances from individuals hailing from three of the four constituent nations, perhaps have the good grace not to follow that up with a re-hash of "I was right. No flair. Lions tradition damaged. No blend of nations".

As I've tried to make clear, and I'll try again, I'm not so much criticising Wood for his pre-3rd Test view regarding BOD, close call and could have gone either way, but rather:

(1) his attack on Gatland regarding Lions "traditions"; and

(2) his inability to understand or realise that several of his opinions had been demonstrated to be incorrect.

In fairness it was a thirty minute long strong attacking performance versus 210 minutes of dross.Only after the forwards had completely knackered the Aussies did the Lions start to play.

I don't really care too much about the Bod thing but I do believe the Lions tour was very disappointing as Gatland didn't even come close to getting the best out of the players at his disposal.It might be a side effect of watching Ireland recently but I am not fooled by victory the way I once was,it's performances that matter.If you get the performance right the results will follow but the Lions didn't get the performance right until the very end and got very lucky to beat an average enough Oz.The big margin of the victory in the last match seem to make people forget just how poor the first and second performances were and also the fact that the Lions would have been 2-0 down only for the most ridiculous injury jinx I've seen happen to a team in one match.

If Gatland deserves credit for the performance and victory in the last Test then he deserves criticism for the rubbish served up in Tests 1 & 2.

Sin é wrote:Woody is not being critical of the Welsh players (though he could have questioned the selection of Mike Phillips for starters).

His point is that the team should be a blend from the 4 different rugby nations (just not dominated by one team because they play a certain style that is powerbased*). He would have the same complaint if there were 10 Irishmen starting with an Irish coaching team and an Irish captain which the gameplan revolves around being big and beating up the opposition.

He also said in interview that he didn't like the way Gatland was depowered the captaincy - making the point that the Martin Johnson was really important on the tour that he was on in '97. (and for the record, there were 3/22 Irishmen in the Test team for the final SA Test).

*The edge that George North & Cutbert has on other wingers is that they are huge and the gameplan is built for them.  Gatland/Jenkins couldn't cope with someone like Zebo.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

miaow wrote:Sin, I only read and post on v2 sporadically, and don't really know what kind of reputation or posting history you have, but if you're not a WUM then I almost feel sorry trying to rationalise with you, because if you're not an idiot, I feel there might be something medically wrong with you. In which case I feel bad.

That is a pretty harsh comment to make.  I'm not sure that was called for.  I don't agree with Sin much at all but honestly he is very rarely abusive to anyone he debates with, so I don't think he deserves it himself.

Risca Rev wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:Why were the BBC (British Media) asking Keith Wood if he changed his mind? And now that he hasn't, he gets lambasted.

Then Davies is moaning because people aren't happy about his selection and throws out nonsense about Brian's cv (the only rugby player on the world that has over 400K twitter followers). To me its like Gatland & Davies are just looking for attention.

I suspect the BBC asked Keith Wood the questions because there was clearly a story to be had, and as a media agency, that's their job.

Keith Wood expressed an opinion in a very strong manner, stating that the omission of BOD was a huge mistake. The Lions went on to win handsomely. Keith Wood then made a chump of himself with some garbled nonsense about there not being enough flair, it not feeling like the Lions really won, the Lions not being a proper mix of the four countries, but making clear he had no issue with the number of Welsh players (if you can reconcile his third and final point you're doing well).

Probably my favourite hooker of all time, but someone please take the microphone off him!

I don't think JD2s point about BOD's CV was nonsense at all. After the vast swathes of outrage at the now infamour "spear" in 2005, abd how close he came in 2009, and given that he's won the Rabo and HC with Leinster, I don't think it's outwith the realms of reason to suggest that BOD would rather like to have a Lions series win on his CV, even if he doesn't play in the deciding Test match. He still played a role in both the 1st and 2nd Tests, and if you believe some, his performance in the 2nd Test was nothing short of a miracle.

Don't be silly. BOD didn't care. I'm sure he wanted to go off tour like unprofessional POC missing the bus for the third test almost (allegedly)

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I just think he went too far when he said that Gatland had betrayed the traditions of the Lions, and when given the opportunity to admit that he may have got a couple of things wrong, I think he should have admitted as much.

How many Lions tours have you been on to make your opinion on the ethos of the Lions more valid than either Keith Wood or Willie John McBride?

I have no issue with his opinion that BOD should have started 13 with Roberts, and when anyone says that the Lions would probably have won with either JD2 or BOD at 13, I find it hard to think of any compelling argument against that assertion.

It's the manner of his comments and his reaction at the time which is evoking such a strong reaction in me. Heaven forbid we get stuck with the sort of bland nonsense you expect from pundits like Andy Nicol, but if you are going to stick your neck out and brand a decision plain wrong, and start questionning the fabric of the touring squad, you do look slightly silly when the same side spanks the Aussies by a record margin, and you can't admit that perhaps you let the situation and your love of one of your countries greatest ever players get the better of you.

That said, I got similarly emotional when Dan Parks didn't make the Lions squad....I knew from that point onwards that the spirit of the Lions was tainted.....

He said Gatland "made a terrible mistake". Would you ever grow a pair?

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:FunnyExiledScot:

Keith Wood is a straight talker and he said what he thinks. Before the 3rd Test, he was also critical of Gatland's management:

"It's entirely built around power," he said.

"A huge amount rests on Jamie Roberts' shoulders and they were crying out for him in the last two weeks. I just think Brian's subtlety off him would have worked.

"You can say (Gatland is) picking on form but he's picked an unbelievably direct team with very little guile in it, specifically to play this game plan.

"You're asking them to pulverise a team. The Lions are at the end of virtually 12 months of the season, all these guys are pretty tired and you're looking for the absolute maximum for it to work for them.

"It can happen, I want it to happen, I'm just a little bit disappointed at the manner in which I think the tradition has been treated.

"The Lions is about getting the best quality out of the players of these islands, not having an intransigent game plan. We're not seeing that spark that we're used to seeing from the Lions because it's a game plan doesn't suit an awful lot of the players.

"It suits the Welsh players, that's why there's 10 of them playing. We're not seeing the blend of four teams. That's what the Lions is about, that's what makes it so phenomenal."

http://www.independent.ie/sport/keith-wood-odriscoll-axing-a-terrible-mistake-29392142.html

So, do not suggest that he was making it up as he went along.

Players like Brian O'Driscoll would not feel they earned the win because he was dropped. Paul O'Connell (in that interview) spoke as if he hadn't won a series - it was 'someone' else had. The intereviewer had to remind him that he had won a series (and POC would have been a starter for the 3 tests except for injury).

Funny how the only series win he has on his cv is one without style. Ouch. Or does Wood bellyache about 97 saying it isn't a series win as Jenkins' kicks don't count?

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:Why were the BBC (British Media) asking Keith Wood if he changed his mind? And now that he hasn't, he gets lambasted.

Then Davies is moaning because people aren't happy about his selection and throws out nonsense about Brian's cv (the only rugby player on the world that has over 400K twitter followers). To me its like Gatland & Davies are just looking for attention.

I suspect the BBC asked Keith Wood the questions because there was clearly a story to be had, and as a media agency, that's their job.

Keith Wood expressed an opinion in a very strong manner, stating that the omission of BOD was a huge mistake. The Lions went on to win handsomely. Keith Wood then made a chump of himself with some garbled nonsense about there not being enough flair, it not feeling like the Lions really won, the Lions not being a proper mix of the four countries, but making clear he had no issue with the number of Welsh players (if you can reconcile his third and final point you're doing well).

Probably my favourite hooker of all time, but someone please take the microphone off him!

I don't think JD2s point about BOD's CV was nonsense at all. After the vast swathes of outrage at the now infamour "spear" in 2005, abd how close he came in 2009, and given that he's won the Rabo and HC with Leinster, I don't think it's outwith the realms of reason to suggest that BOD would rather like to have a Lions series win on his CV, even if he doesn't play in the deciding Test match. He still played a role in both the 1st and 2nd Tests, and if you believe some, his performance in the 2nd Test was nothing short of a miracle.

Don't be silly. BOD didn't care. I'm sure he wanted to go off tour like unprofessional POC missing the bus for the third test almost (allegedly)

Nothing allegedly about it Risca - I gave you the link last Friday so that you could hear POC saying that he nearly missed the bus to the 3rd Test.

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:FunnyExiledScot:

Keith Wood is a straight talker and he said what he thinks. Before the 3rd Test, he was also critical of Gatland's management:

"It's entirely built around power," he said.

"A huge amount rests on Jamie Roberts' shoulders and they were crying out for him in the last two weeks. I just think Brian's subtlety off him would have worked.

"You can say (Gatland is) picking on form but he's picked an unbelievably direct team with very little guile in it, specifically to play this game plan.

"You're asking them to pulverise a team. The Lions are at the end of virtually 12 months of the season, all these guys are pretty tired and you're looking for the absolute maximum for it to work for them.

"It can happen, I want it to happen, I'm just a little bit disappointed at the manner in which I think the tradition has been treated.

"The Lions is about getting the best quality out of the players of these islands, not having an intransigent game plan. We're not seeing that spark that we're used to seeing from the Lions because it's a game plan doesn't suit an awful lot of the players.

"It suits the Welsh players, that's why there's 10 of them playing. We're not seeing the blend of four teams. That's what the Lions is about, that's what makes it so phenomenal."

http://www.independent.ie/sport/keith-wood-odriscoll-axing-a-terrible-mistake-29392142.html

So, do not suggest that he was making it up as he went along.

Players like Brian O'Driscoll would not feel they earned the win because he was dropped. Paul O'Connell (in that interview) spoke as if he hadn't won a series - it was 'someone' else had. The intereviewer had to remind him that he had won a series (and POC would have been a starter for the 3 tests except for injury).

Funny how the only series win he has on his cv is one without style. Ouch. Or does Wood bellyache about 97 saying it isn't a series win as Jenkins' kicks don't count?

He hasn't won the world cup either - but sure he may as well claim it as he played a few times with Martin Johnson who won it with England (even though he didn't start the world cup with him).

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:Woody is not being critical of the Welsh players (though he could have questioned the selection of Mike Phillips for starters).

His point is that the team should be a blend from the 4 different rugby nations (just not dominated by one team because they play a certain style that is powerbased*). He would have the same complaint if there were 10 Irishmen starting with an Irish coaching team and an Irish captain which the gameplan revolves around being big and beating up the opposition.

He also said in interview that he didn't like the way Gatland was depowered the captaincy - making the point that the Martin Johnson was really important on the tour that he was on in '97. (and for the record, there were 3/22 Irishmen in the Test team for the final SA Test).

*The edge that George North & Cutbert has on other wingers is that they are huge and the gameplan is built for them.  Gatland/Jenkins couldn't cope with someone like Zebo.

Absolutely, as Gatland never worked with giants like Shane or Halfpenny on the wing. Clutching at straws.

Risca Rev wrote:

Couldn't get it sorry, but that's fine that POC should be renowned as a terrible professional.

Risca Rev wrote:
Nothing allegedly about it Risca - I gave you the link last Friday so that you could hear POC saying that he nearly missed the bus to the 3rd Test.

Risca Rev wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

miaow wrote:Sin, I only read and post on v2 sporadically, and don't really know what kind of reputation or posting history you have, but if you're not a WUM then I almost feel sorry trying to rationalise with you, because if you're not an idiot, I feel there might be something medically wrong with you. In which case I feel bad.

That is a pretty harsh comment to make.  I'm not sure that was called for.  I don't agree with Sin much at all but honestly he is very rarely abusive to anyone he debates with, so I don't think he deserves it himself.

Ummm, there seems to be a trend though that even you Irish sympathisers don't entirely get on with Sin. The issue isn't that he is abusive, it's that he'll twist an argument to suit his views and will always pick and choose his discussions to fit his agenda.

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:Woody is not being critical of the Welsh players (though he could have questioned the selection of Mike Phillips for starters).

His point is that the team should be a blend from the 4 different rugby nations (just not dominated by one team because they play a certain style that is powerbased*). He would have the same complaint if there were 10 Irishmen starting with an Irish coaching team and an Irish captain which the gameplan revolves around being big and beating up the opposition.

He also said in interview that he didn't like the way Gatland was depowered the captaincy - making the point that the Martin Johnson was really important on the tour that he was on in '97. (and for the record, there were 3/22 Irishmen in the Test team for the final SA Test).

*The edge that George North & Cutbert has on other wingers is that they are huge and the gameplan is built for them.  Gatland/Jenkins couldn't cope with someone like Zebo.

Absolutely, as Gatland never worked with giants like Shane or Halfpenny on the wing. Clutching at straws.

You referring to Shane Williams who retired from Wales after the world cup (coming up to 2 years ago) and while Cutbert was still playing 7s?

aucklandlaurie wrote: I was reading somewhere that, in early Sepetember Brian O'Driscoll is going to be joined by team mates and coaches from the Irish and Leinster rugby teams, to celebrate his career to date on a TV show called the "Late, Late show".

There was no mention of any of the coaches or teammates from the Lions.....guess they just werent selected.

Risca Rev wrote:
Why did Gatland only start coaching Wales two years ago? There were big wing options about then, like Jamie Roberts v Scotland in 08? Czekaj? So you choose to say Shane retired two years ago? Think you've lost that one. But if you want another small winger if Shane retired two years ago, then check the giant Harry Robinson out.

Gutted. Poor Sin.

Risca Rev wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

rodders wrote:I can't speak for Wood (who's a terrible pundit imo) but there seems to be an attitude that because the Lions won the series that Gatland is above criticism and that everyone unhappy about the selection(s) has to bow down and eat humble pie in all Lions debates henceforth.

You certainly won't get that attitude from me. He got plenty right, but, for example, only taking two fly halves was not a good decision, and the "Hogg experiment" at 10 unravelled against the Brumbies.

The composition of the squad wasn't perfect, and in some positions the Lions had a lack of depth as a result. The Brumbies defeat in particularly was most certainly avoidable.

I think you could also crititique the selection and approach to the 2nd Test.

However, Wood criticised (and most importantly maintains his criticism) Gatland's selection, tactics and approach to the 3rd Test. When you win a match that emphatically, I think you can quite rightly expect Keith Wood to eat some humble pie with respect to his comments about lack of flair, the Lions not geling as four nations and the "traditions" of the Lions being betrayed.

I think Wood's point was that there should be a mix of the nations. Picking 10 Welsh players for the last test doesnt really represent a mix. I dont see how winning the test changes anything in that respect.

I also said from the start when a mostly Welsh side played v the BaBa's that makes the team feel like less of a Lions team when there is a clear majority of one nations players. I think you are just going to have to accept that because of its unique make up the Lions will always have a different meaning to different people and long may it continue..

It is not about equal representation. The Scots missed out, but tell me where they could hand on heart say they deserved a player in a start? Hogg? No. Maitland? No (especially given the fact try scorer Cuthbert didn't feature again. Gray? Best shout but AWJ and Parling did well enough. Grant? Possibly deserved a bench slot, but Mako was never a bad replacement.

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Couldn't get it sorry, but that's fine that POC should be renowned as a terrible professional.

So you are making judgements on something you know nothing about.  

And then has the cheek to accuse me of lying.

You couldn't make it up  

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:
Nothing allegedly about it Risca - I gave you the link last Friday so that you could hear POC saying that he nearly missed the bus to the 3rd Test.

/......  POC should be renowned as a terrible professional.

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

miaow wrote:Sin, I only read and post on v2 sporadically, and don't really know what kind of reputation or posting history you have, but if you're not a WUM then I almost feel sorry trying to rationalise with you, because if you're not an idiot, I feel there might be something medically wrong with you. In which case I feel bad.

That is a pretty harsh comment to make.  I'm not sure that was called for.  I don't agree with Sin much at all but honestly he is very rarely abusive to anyone he debates with, so I don't think he deserves it himself.

Ummm, there seems to be a trend though that even you Irish sympathisers don't entirely get on with Sin. The issue isn't that he is abusive, it's that he'll twist an argument to suit his views and will always pick and choose his discussions to fit his agenda.

I think you should look up a definition of what debating is.

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:
Why did Gatland only start coaching Wales two years ago? There were big wing options about then, like Jamie Roberts v Scotland in 08? Czekaj? So you choose to say Shane retired two years ago? Think you've lost that one. But if you want another small winger if Shane retired two years ago, then check the giant Harry Robinson out.

Gutted. Poor Sin.

I was crediting Gatland for having more than one gameplan (or more than likely he knew his goose would be cooked in Wales if he dropped Shane Williams)!

How many caps for Wales does Harry Robinson have since his game against the Babas in June 2012?

You might be able to use him as an example if Gatland actually picked him. Was he even used in the debacle in Japan?

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Couldn't get it sorry, but that's fine that POC should be renowned as a terrible professional.

So you are making judgements on something you know nothing about.  

And then has the cheek to accuse me of lying.

You couldn't make it up  

Why wouldn't I take you at your word when I couldn't access your link? Maybe because you think that you can call JD2 a liar, as you can't see the abusive tweets, after I told you about the way to complain about twitter abuse easily found in the news.

I'm making a judgement based on the fact that me as a player would not nearly miss a coach to a game (if injured) even as an amateur. If you think that's professional, then again you're blinded by your alleged saints. Anybody who agrees with you has clearly not been a rugby player and more importantly a team player and/or a valued squad member. If somebody pulled a stroke like that in a squad I played in, I'd hope my coaches would punish him. In POC's case, I'd cut his win bonus I'm sure he gladly snapped up, as he clearly didn't care about turning up in time.

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

miaow wrote:Sin, I only read and post on v2 sporadically, and don't really know what kind of reputation or posting history you have, but if you're not a WUM then I almost feel sorry trying to rationalise with you, because if you're not an idiot, I feel there might be something medically wrong with you. In which case I feel bad.

That is a pretty harsh comment to make.  I'm not sure that was called for.  I don't agree with Sin much at all but honestly he is very rarely abusive to anyone he debates with, so I don't think he deserves it himself.

Ummm, there seems to be a trend though that even you Irish sympathisers don't entirely get on with Sin. The issue isn't that he is abusive, it's that he'll twist an argument to suit his views and will always pick and choose his discussions to fit his agenda.

I think you should look up a definition of what debating is.

"debate noun, verb, de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing.
— noun

a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
deliberation; consideration.
Archaic. strife; contention.
— verb (used without object)

to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.
to participate in a formal debate.
to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.
Obsolete . to fight; quarrel.
— verb (used with object)

to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.
to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.
to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton.
to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter.
Archaic. to contend for or over.
— Related forms
de·bat·er, noun
de·bat·ing·ly, adverb
in·ter·de·bate, verb, in·ter·de·bat·ed, in·ter·de·bat·ing.
non·de·bat·er, noun
non·de·bat·ing, adjective
out·de·bate, verb (used with object), out·de·bat·ed, out·de·bat·ing.
o·ver·de·bate, verb, o·ver·de·bat·ed, o·ver·de·bat·ing.
post·de·bate, adjective
pre·de·bate, noun
pre·de·bat·er, noun
re·de·bate, noun, verb, re·de·bat·ed, re·de·bat·ing.
un·de·bat·ed, adjective
un·de·bat·ing, adjective
well-de·bat·ed, adjective "

Done.

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

rodders wrote:I can't speak for Wood (who's a terrible pundit imo) but there seems to be an attitude that because the Lions won the series that Gatland is above criticism and that everyone unhappy about the selection(s) has to bow down and eat humble pie in all Lions debates henceforth.

You certainly won't get that attitude from me. He got plenty right, but, for example, only taking two fly halves was not a good decision, and the "Hogg experiment" at 10 unravelled against the Brumbies.

The composition of the squad wasn't perfect, and in some positions the Lions had a lack of depth as a result. The Brumbies defeat in particularly was most certainly avoidable.

I think you could also crititique the selection and approach to the 2nd Test.

However, Wood criticised (and most importantly maintains his criticism) Gatland's selection, tactics and approach to the 3rd Test. When you win a match that emphatically, I think you can quite rightly expect Keith Wood to eat some humble pie with respect to his comments about lack of flair, the Lions not geling as four nations and the "traditions" of the Lions being betrayed.

I think Wood's point was that there should be a mix of the nations. Picking 10 Welsh players for the last test doesnt really represent a mix. I dont see how winning the test changes anything in that respect.

I also said from the start when a mostly Welsh side played v the BaBa's that makes the team feel like less of a Lions team when there is a clear majority of one nations players. I think you are just going to have to accept that because of its unique make up the Lions will always have a different meaning to different people and long may it continue..

It is not about equal representation. The Scots missed out, but tell me where they could hand on heart say they deserved a player in a start? Hogg? No. Maitland? No (especially given the fact try scorer Cuthbert didn't feature again. Gray? Best shout but AWJ and Parling did well enough. Grant? Possibly deserved a bench slot, but Mako was never a bad replacement.

Hogg, Maitland or Zebo were never going to get a look-in in their normal positions as they couldn't fit into Gatland's gameplan. I hope Gatland hasn't wrecked Hogg's head.

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:
Why did Gatland only start coaching Wales two years ago? There were big wing options about then, like Jamie Roberts v Scotland in 08? Czekaj? So you choose to say Shane retired two years ago? Think you've lost that one. But if you want another small winger if Shane retired two years ago, then check the giant Harry Robinson out.

Gutted. Poor Sin.

I was crediting Gatland for having more than one gameplan (or more than likely he knew his goose would be cooked in Wales if he dropped Shane Williams)!

How many caps for Wales does Harry Robinson have since his game against the Babas in June 2012?

You might be able to use him as an example if Gatland actually picked him. Was he even used in the debacle in Japan?

You tell me, mr know it all. If you want me to answer you, then the answer is yes.

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Couldn't get it sorry, but that's fine that POC should be renowned as a terrible professional.

So you are making judgements on something you know nothing about.  

And then has the cheek to accuse me of lying.

You couldn't make it up  

Why wouldn't I take you at your word when I couldn't access your link? Maybe because you think that you can call JD2 a liar, as you can't see the abusive tweets, after I told you about the way to complain about twitter abuse easily found in the news.

I'm making a judgement based on the fact that me as a player would not nearly miss a coach to a game (if injured) even as an amateur. If you think that's professional, then again you're blinded by your alleged saints. Anybody who agrees with you has clearly not been a rugby player and more importantly a team player and/or a valued squad member. If somebody pulled a stroke like that in a squad I played in, I'd hope my coaches would punish him. In POC's case, I'd cut his win bonus I'm sure he gladly snapped up, as he clearly didn't care about turning up in time.

You couldn't access the link and so I must be telling lies.  

If I were you, I'd listen to it before making a complete boobie of yourself

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

miaow wrote:Sin, I only read and post on v2 sporadically, and don't really know what kind of reputation or posting history you have, but if you're not a WUM then I almost feel sorry trying to rationalise with you, because if you're not an idiot, I feel there might be something medically wrong with you. In which case I feel bad.

That is a pretty harsh comment to make.  I'm not sure that was called for.  I don't agree with Sin much at all but honestly he is very rarely abusive to anyone he debates with, so I don't think he deserves it himself.

Ummm, there seems to be a trend though that even you Irish sympathisers don't entirely get on with Sin. The issue isn't that he is abusive, it's that he'll twist an argument to suit his views and will always pick and choose his discussions to fit his agenda.

I think you should look up a definition of what debating is.

"debate noun, verb, de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing.
— noun

a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
deliberation; consideration.
Archaic. strife; contention.
— verb (used without object)

to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.
to participate in a formal debate.
to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.
Obsolete . to fight; quarrel.
— verb (used with object)

to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.
to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.
to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton.
to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter.
Archaic. to contend for or over.
— Related forms
de·bat·er, noun
de·bat·ing·ly, adverb
in·ter·de·bate, verb, in·ter·de·bat·ed, in·ter·de·bat·ing.
non·de·bat·er, noun
non·de·bat·ing, adjective
out·de·bate, verb (used with object), out·de·bat·ed, out·de·bat·ing.
o·ver·de·bate, verb, o·ver·de·bat·ed, o·ver·de·bat·ing.
post·de·bate, adjective
pre·de·bate, noun
pre·de·bat·er, noun
re·de·bate, noun, verb, re·de·bat·ed, re·de·bat·ing.
un·de·bat·ed, adjective
un·de·bat·ing, adjective
well-de·bat·ed, adjective "

Done.

Congratulations - you can cut and paste.

here is a bit more info on debating ...

''... in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.''

Hope that not all over your head !

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:
Why did Gatland only start coaching Wales two years ago? There were big wing options about then, like Jamie Roberts v Scotland in 08? Czekaj? So you choose to say Shane retired two years ago? Think you've lost that one. But if you want another small winger if Shane retired two years ago, then check the giant Harry Robinson out.

Gutted. Poor Sin.

I was crediting Gatland for having more than one gameplan (or more than likely he knew his goose would be cooked in Wales if he dropped Shane Williams)!

How many caps for Wales does Harry Robinson have since his game against the Babas in June 2012?

You might be able to use him as an example if Gatland actually picked him. Was he even used in the debacle in Japan?

You tell me, mr know it all. If you want me to answer you, then the answer is yes.

Wiki doesn't mention that he played against Japan. Probably trying to wipe that tour off his cv  

So, Gatland has never selected him for a test except in a meaningless game against the Babas over a year ago.

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

rodders wrote:I can't speak for Wood (who's a terrible pundit imo) but there seems to be an attitude that because the Lions won the series that Gatland is above criticism and that everyone unhappy about the selection(s) has to bow down and eat humble pie in all Lions debates henceforth.

You certainly won't get that attitude from me. He got plenty right, but, for example, only taking two fly halves was not a good decision, and the "Hogg experiment" at 10 unravelled against the Brumbies.

The composition of the squad wasn't perfect, and in some positions the Lions had a lack of depth as a result. The Brumbies defeat in particularly was most certainly avoidable.

I think you could also crititique the selection and approach to the 2nd Test.

However, Wood criticised (and most importantly maintains his criticism) Gatland's selection, tactics and approach to the 3rd Test. When you win a match that emphatically, I think you can quite rightly expect Keith Wood to eat some humble pie with respect to his comments about lack of flair, the Lions not geling as four nations and the "traditions" of the Lions being betrayed.

I think Wood's point was that there should be a mix of the nations. Picking 10 Welsh players for the last test doesnt really represent a mix. I dont see how winning the test changes anything in that respect.

I also said from the start when a mostly Welsh side played v the BaBa's that makes the team feel like less of a Lions team when there is a clear majority of one nations players. I think you are just going to have to accept that because of its unique make up the Lions will always have a different meaning to different people and long may it continue..

It is not about equal representation. The Scots missed out, but tell me where they could hand on heart say they deserved a player in a start? Hogg? No. Maitland? No (especially given the fact try scorer Cuthbert didn't feature again. Gray? Best shout but AWJ and Parling did well enough. Grant? Possibly deserved a bench slot, but Mako was never a bad replacement.

Hogg, Maitland or Zebo were never going to get a look-in in their normal positions as they couldn't fit into Gatland's gameplan. I hope Gatland hasn't wrecked Hogg's head.

Hogg seems happy enough, so don't panic. Plenty of interviews for you to read on that. Maitland played wing like he does for Scotland mostly and Zebo isn't Scottish, so nothing to do with what I raised. You had an Irish winger in Bowe who shouldn't have toured already.

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:
Why did Gatland only start coaching Wales two years ago? There were big wing options about then, like Jamie Roberts v Scotland in 08? Czekaj? So you choose to say Shane retired two years ago? Think you've lost that one. But if you want another small winger if Shane retired two years ago, then check the giant Harry Robinson out.

Gutted. Poor Sin.

I was crediting Gatland for having more than one gameplan (or more than likely he knew his goose would be cooked in Wales if he dropped Shane Williams)!

How many caps for Wales does Harry Robinson have since his game against the Babas in June 2012?

You might be able to use him as an example if Gatland actually picked him. Was he even used in the debacle in Japan?

You tell me, mr know it all. If you want me to answer you, then the answer is yes.

Wiki doesn't mention that he played against Japan. Probably trying to wipe that tour off his cv  

So, Gatland has never selected him for a test except in a meaningless game against the Babas over a year ago.

Hahahahaha. Wiki. Game over. I bow down to reliable wiki.

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Couldn't get it sorry, but that's fine that POC should be renowned as a terrible professional.

So you are making judgements on something you know nothing about.  

And then has the cheek to accuse me of lying.

You couldn't make it up  

Why wouldn't I take you at your word when I couldn't access your link? Maybe because you think that you can call JD2 a liar, as you can't see the abusive tweets, after I told you about the way to complain about twitter abuse easily found in the news.

I'm making a judgement based on the fact that me as a player would not nearly miss a coach to a game (if injured) even as an amateur. If you think that's professional, then again you're blinded by your alleged saints. Anybody who agrees with you has clearly not been a rugby player and more importantly a team player and/or a valued squad member. If somebody pulled a stroke like that in a squad I played in, I'd hope my coaches would punish him. In POC's case, I'd cut his win bonus I'm sure he gladly snapped up, as he clearly didn't care about turning up in time.

You couldn't access the link and so I must be telling lies.  

If I were you, I'd listen to it before making a complete boobie of yourself

You can't find the abusive tweets, so JD must be telling lies

If I were you, I'd read my old link about twitter abuse and stop making a booby (singular) of yourself

aucklandlaurie wrote: I was reading somewhere that, in early Sepetember Brian O'Driscoll is going to be joined by team mates and coaches from the Irish and Leinster rugby teams, to celebrate his career to date on a TV show called the "Late, Late show".

There was no mention of any of the coaches or teammates from the Lions.....guess they just werent selected.