Lions 2017

First topic message reminder :

I understand and respect all the arguments against this kind of post 18 months before but the proper journalists are all having a so we might as well. It happens after every tournament.

For what it's worth I'd pick:

1. Marler
2. Hartley
3. Nel
4. J. Gray
5. AW Jones
6. Faletau
7. Warburton
8. Vunipola
9. Webb
10. Sexton
11. North
12. Henshaw
13. Joseph
14. Watson
15. Hogg

16. McGrath
17. MacInally
18. Lee
19. Itoje
20. Stander
21. Youngs
22. Biggar
23. Halfpenny

Still think it's disappointing that the frontunner for head coach is Gatland.

Chances of winning the tour would go from 5% to 0.5%.

Difficult enough job as it is.

mikey dragon Woodward was a very poor Lions coach, doesn't automatically make Gatland good. As I said before I think any of us could have coached the Lions vs Australia and been on a winning tour - though we might have got 3-0......


It's a sad state of affairs when Gatland is seen as the best option. A NZer with an atrocious record against SH sides. But.... he beat Australia with the Lions.....as fa0019 said - the ABs are on another level compared to the Aussies.

fa0019 wrote:Doesn't take away the fact Gatlands record vs. SANZAR is dreadful. Andy Robinson has more wins with Scotland than Warren Gatland has with Wales That's a fact.  His entire game plan revolves around forward domination and the front foot. Outside of that generally he has no other ideas. Its why SANZAR generally do enough to win (well 93% of the time). In the 13 Lions lets be honest, given that Vunipola and Tom Youngs were packing down and still were dominant upfront.... that AUS pack were pretty weak. To compete with NZ, let alone beat them whoever coaches them will have to come up with something a little different. Has Gatland ever shown a hint of such?

Ah here we go again, I don't know why you feel the need to repeat this every few weeks. Here's a fact for you, Andy Robinson's record with Scotland was dreadful, not only against the SH but every single team they played - that includes Tonga and especially Wales. It's no wonder you continually latch on to SA.

Rugby Fan wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:...So it's okay for Woodward to go with his tried and tested, and get demolished?...

I don't think anyone, anywhere, has made that argument.

The best you can say about Woodward is that there was a logic to his choice. None of the other Home Nations teams had beaten the All Blacks but England managed it twice under Woodward, home and away. He thought he was stiffening the backbone of the squad by looking to players who had been there, and done it.

Read his comments - he's stood up for Woodward. He bitches about Galtand (like everyone else does I guess) at every opportunity, and doesn't give him or the players credit for winning the 2013 series. Gatland went with his method and it was apparently a disaster, despite the win... Woodward does it and it's a case of "ah well he thought it was best, leave him be!" Nobody mentioned that aus team being the weakest to ever have walked the earth until AFTER the tour, funny that. They were not as bad as made out, although by the time that year's RC had rolled around Deans' Australia had passed their sell-by date. NZ and SA both put a similar score on Aus - based on that the Lions, SA, NZ were all on the same level. So I don't buy into the pathetic argument that the Lions team would have been smashed by the all blacks and springboks. The conjecture from bitter 'fans' got tedious in 2013.

Now you mention it I don't really see the logic in Woodward's choice, I didn't back in 05 either. The ABs were a different force, as were England, and also Wales, Scotland and Ireland. The rugby world have long moved on from 2003 and Sir was the one not to realise. I think we have better players available to us this time. Gatland is correct choice for coach if he can see past his own stubborn selections. The fact that Wales aren't 6N champs should help that.

They may well be after next year. Shouldn't really come into consideration for selection as it seemed to last time though.

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Doesn't take away the fact Gatlands record vs. SANZAR is dreadful. Andy Robinson has more wins with Scotland than Warren Gatland has with Wales That's a fact.  His entire game plan revolves around forward domination and the front foot. Outside of that generally he has no other ideas. Its why SANZAR generally do enough to win (well 93% of the time). In the 13 Lions lets be honest, given that Vunipola and Tom Youngs were packing down and still were dominant upfront.... that AUS pack were pretty weak. To compete with NZ, let alone beat them whoever coaches them will have to come up with something a little different. Has Gatland ever shown a hint of such?

Ah here we go again, I don't know why you feel the need to repeat this every few weeks. Here's a fact for you, Andy Robinson's record with Scotland was dreadful, not only against the SH but every single team they played - that includes Tonga and especially Wales. It's no wonder you continually latch on to SA.

Yet however dreadful his record was with Scotland... his record vs. SANZAR was

3 wins; 2 vs. AUS (inc. 1 away) and 1 vs. SA from 6 matches. Even though he had no choice due to lack of quality players but to chose guys like Sean Lamont, Dan Parks, Graeme Morrison... why because that is all he had to work with.

Thats more wins than Gatland has achieved with Wales in 8 years and 30 matches... and the quality of players he has had to work with is streets above that in Scotland. How would Gatland have done with Scotland, with their quality of players? Would he have turned a backline of Parks, Morrison, De Luca, Lamont etc into European champions???

My critique of Gatland is not that he isn't a good coach, not that he hasn't been the most successful coach in the NH over the last decade not that his success in Europe is simply standout and not that he did the business with the Lions in 2013.

Its that does anything ever hint to you that he can be successful in NZ? Gatland welsh side have become are tough to beat sure but in the end SANZAR almost always find a way to work them out. His ideas beyond Warrenball are pretty limited and once frontfoot domination goes, results almost always go against him.

Warrenball will not work against NZ. They may bring one or two close even respectable defeats but I'd rather see the lions develop a plan to go out and win, not simply try a tested method which has never worked vs. NZ.

You fancy Wales to win a single test this summer? Do you know the average deficit of his matches vs. NZ (7 inc. 5 at home) have been 19 points. Its tough enough them being almighty streets ahead of everyone at the moment.

beshocked wrote:mikey dragon Woodward was a very poor Lions coach, doesn't automatically make Gatland good. As I said before I think any of us could have coached the Lions vs Australia and been on a winning tour - though we might have got 3-0......


It's a sad state of affairs when Gatland is seen as the best option. A NZer with an atrocious record against SH sides. But.... he beat Australia with the Lions.....as fa0019 said - the ABs are on another level compared to the Aussies.

Well nobody said that. Learn to read. Also as I said earlier if yourself, LD and Fanster took control of the Lions on that tour it would have been both embarrassing and hilarious .

Who's your choice for coach again? I'm expecting to see someone with a recent and phenomenal record against NZ, as that seems to be the logic. Who might be?

mikey_dragon wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:...So it's okay for Woodward to go with his tried and tested, and get demolished?...

I don't think anyone, anywhere, has made that argument.

The best you can say about Woodward is that there was a logic to his choice. None of the other Home Nations teams had beaten the All Blacks but England managed it twice under Woodward, home and away. He thought he was stiffening the backbone of the squad by looking to players who had been there, and done it.

Read his comments - he's stood up for Woodward. He bitches about Galtand (like everyone else does I guess) at every opportunity, and doesn't give him or the players credit for winning the 2013 series. Gatland went with his method and it was apparently a disaster, despite the win... Woodward does it and it's a case of "ah well he thought it was best, leave him be!" Nobody mentioned that aus team being the weakest to ever have walked the earth until AFTER the tour, funny that. They were not as bad as made out, although by the time that year's RC had rolled around Deans' Australia had passed their sell-by date. NZ and SA both put a similar score on Aus - based on that the Lions, SA, NZ were all on the same level. So I don't buy into the pathetic argument that the Lions team would have been smashed by the all blacks and springboks. The conjecture from bitter 'fans' got tedious in 2013.

Now you mention it I don't really see the logic in Woodward's choice, I didn't back in 05 either. The ABs were a different force, as were England, and also Wales, Scotland and Ireland. The rugby world have long moved on from 2003 and Sir was the one not to realise. I think we have better players available to us this time. Gatland is correct choice for coach if he can see past his own stubborn selections. The fact that Wales aren't 6N champs should help that.

I did stand up for Woodward and still do because whilst it was high stakes rugby and he lost.... there was still method to the madness and no one would have done  better. Whether or not the game has changed since then its not the point, the rules were the same in 05 as they were in 03. The players mostly the same.

Maybe McGeechan could have got more respectable defeats but his chances of winning a series IMO would have been nil and less than Woodwards strategy. I'm perfectly comfortable asserting that.

AUS were a good side in 2013 but upfront they were weak and thats where the Lions won. The 3rd test was nothing to do with BOD being dropped and Foxy coming in, it was because of the pack dominating... a pack with Vunipola and Youngs at the helm (it really says it all for AUS' pack themselves). In those circumstances Gatlands strategy is proven to be successful.

But the critique was not that he wouldn't do the business vs. AUS but can he do the business vs. NZ? His strategy has been pretty miserable vs. them and SANZAR so how can he/someone else find a way to genuinely compete next year? Gatland is notorious for keeping to his method and not really having a plan B.

AUS for instance do not have a strong pack traditionally... how do they compete vs. NZ? I'd say that looking at their game is probably the key to finding a way to beat NZ. The Lions possess better front five forwards than AUS combined; how can they use that to their advantage and alter their strategy outside of this to chip away at NZ?

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Doesn't take away the fact Gatlands record vs. SANZAR is dreadful. Andy Robinson has more wins with Scotland than Warren Gatland has with Wales That's a fact.  His entire game plan revolves around forward domination and the front foot. Outside of that generally he has no other ideas. Its why SANZAR generally do enough to win (well 93% of the time). In the 13 Lions lets be honest, given that Vunipola and Tom Youngs were packing down and still were dominant upfront.... that AUS pack were pretty weak. To compete with NZ, let alone beat them whoever coaches them will have to come up with something a little different. Has Gatland ever shown a hint of such?

Ah here we go again, I don't know why you feel the need to repeat this every few weeks. Here's a fact for you, Andy Robinson's record with Scotland was dreadful, not only against the SH but every single team they played - that includes Tonga and especially Wales. It's no wonder you continually latch on to SA.

Yet however dreadful his record was with Scotland... his record vs. SANZAR was

3 wins; 2 vs. AUS (inc. 1 away) and 1 vs. SA from 6 matches. Even though he had no choice due to lack of quality players but to chose guys like Sean Lamont, Dan Parks, Graeme Morrison... why because that is all he had to work with.

Thats more wins than Gatland has achieved with Wales in 8 years and 30 matches... and the quality of players he has had to work with is streets above that in Scotland. How would Gatland have done with Scotland, with their quality of players? Would he have turned a backline of Parks, Morrison, De Luca, Lamont etc into European champions???

My critique of Gatland is not that he isn't a good coach, not that he hasn't been the most successful coach in the NH over the last decade not that his success in Europe is simply standout and not that he did the business with the Lions in 2013.

Its that does anything ever hint to you that he can be successful in NZ? Gatland welsh side have become are tough to beat sure but in the end SANZAR almost always find a way to work them out. His ideas beyond Warrenball are pretty limited and once frontfoot domination goes, results almost always go against him.

Warrenball will not work against NZ. They may bring one or two close even respectable defeats but I'd rather see the lions develop a plan to go out and win, not simply try a tested method which has never worked vs. NZ.

You fancy Wales to win a single test this summer? Do you know the average deficit of his matches vs. NZ (7 inc. 5 at home) have been 19 points. Its tough enough them being almighty streets ahead of everyone at the moment.

Interesting and I think they did well, but still dreadful however much gloss you try to put on it. I noticed you left out games against the ABs, and all the other ones Robinson's team lost. I remember on the eve of a match against NZ where Robber and Laidlaw were asked "what are you going to say to motivate your players" or something along those lines, to which they replied they didn't know. Said it all really, as did the 45-3 score.

They also had more wooden spoons and more losses than Gatland, so again I've seen past your false gloss. Nice conjecture again. Let me answer by just saying he brought a Wasps team from being in the basement to double, back-to-back champions. He brought a Wales team that was dodging the wooden spoon and had exited the world cup early to CHAMPIONS.

You repeat the same thing every few weeks, I'm merely saying it's getting boring. You also don't really do it constructively, you just come across bitter like most Scots and Irish were during BODgate. You don't really give a solution, unless it's more conjecture. You just like to criticise Wales and have been doing so since before the world cup.

Warrenball could work. It might not. But what would do better; Schmidtball? Cotterball? Jones' gob-ball? Have either of them worked? Come on, you think you know everything, what's the answer?

Looks like an average deficit better than both Ireland and Scotland's. Probably not SA's, but that is why you latch onto them when it suits you, right? I think we could win one test and it would more than likely need to be the first one. I don't see us losing multiple tests by 60 points like Ireland, put it that way.

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Doesn't take away the fact Gatlands record vs. SANZAR is dreadful. Andy Robinson has more wins with Scotland than Warren Gatland has with Wales That's a fact.  His entire game plan revolves around forward domination and the front foot. Outside of that generally he has no other ideas. Its why SANZAR generally do enough to win (well 93% of the time). In the 13 Lions lets be honest, given that Vunipola and Tom Youngs were packing down and still were dominant upfront.... that AUS pack were pretty weak. To compete with NZ, let alone beat them whoever coaches them will have to come up with something a little different. Has Gatland ever shown a hint of such?

Ah here we go again, I don't know why you feel the need to repeat this every few weeks. Here's a fact for you, Andy Robinson's record with Scotland was dreadful, not only against the SH but every single team they played - that includes Tonga and especially Wales. It's no wonder you continually latch on to SA.

Yet however dreadful his record was with Scotland... his record vs. SANZAR was

3 wins; 2 vs. AUS (inc. 1 away) and 1 vs. SA from 6 matches. Even though he had no choice due to lack of quality players but to chose guys like Sean Lamont, Dan Parks, Graeme Morrison... why because that is all he had to work with.

Thats more wins than Gatland has achieved with Wales in 8 years and 30 matches... and the quality of players he has had to work with is streets above that in Scotland. How would Gatland have done with Scotland, with their quality of players? Would he have turned a backline of Parks, Morrison, De Luca, Lamont etc into European champions???

My critique of Gatland is not that he isn't a good coach, not that he hasn't been the most successful coach in the NH over the last decade not that his success in Europe is simply standout and not that he did the business with the Lions in 2013.

Its that does anything ever hint to you that he can be successful in NZ? Gatland welsh side have become are tough to beat sure but in the end SANZAR almost always find a way to work them out. His ideas beyond Warrenball are pretty limited and once frontfoot domination goes, results almost always go against him.

Warrenball will not work against NZ. They may bring one or two close even respectable defeats but I'd rather see the lions develop a plan to go out and win, not simply try a tested method which has never worked vs. NZ.

You fancy Wales to win a single test this summer? Do you know the average deficit of his matches vs. NZ (7 inc. 5 at home) have been 19 points. Its tough enough them being almighty streets ahead of everyone at the moment.

Interesting and I think they did well, but still dreadful however much gloss you try to put on it. I noticed you left out games against the ABs, and all the other ones Robinson's team lost. I remember on the eve of a match against NZ where Robber and Laidlaw were asked "what are you going to say to motivate your players" or something along those lines, to which they replied they didn't know. Said it all really, as did the 45-3 score.

They also had more wooden spoons and more losses than Gatland, so again I've seen past your false gloss. Nice conjecture again. Let me answer by just saying he brought a Wasps team from being in the basement to double, back-to-back champions. He brought a Wales team that was dodging the wooden spoon and had exited the world cup early to CHAMPIONS.

You repeat the same thing every few weeks, I'm merely saying it's getting boring. You also don't really do it constructively, you just come across bitter like most Scots and Irish were during BODgate. You don't really give a solution, unless it's more conjecture. You just like to criticise Wales and have been doing so since before the world cup.

Warrenball could work. It might not. But what would do better; Schmidtball? Cotterball? Jones' gob-ball? Have either of them worked? Come on, you think you know everything, what's the answer?

Looks like an average deficit better than both Ireland and Scotland's. Probably not SA's, but that is why you latch onto them when it suits you, right? I think we could win one test and it would more than likely need to be the first one. I don't see us losing multiple tests by 60 points like Ireland, put it that way.

Actually didn't leave out NZ like you suggested. Scotland during Robinson's tenure played the following matches

2 vs. AUS. Won both.
2 vs. SA. Won one, lost one.
3 vs. NZ. Lost both.

6 games, 3 wins, 3 losses.

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:...So it's okay for Woodward to go with his tried and tested, and get demolished?...

I don't think anyone, anywhere, has made that argument.

The best you can say about Woodward is that there was a logic to his choice. None of the other Home Nations teams had beaten the All Blacks but England managed it twice under Woodward, home and away. He thought he was stiffening the backbone of the squad by looking to players who had been there, and done it.

Read his comments - he's stood up for Woodward. He bitches about Galtand (like everyone else does I guess) at every opportunity, and doesn't give him or the players credit for winning the 2013 series. Gatland went with his method and it was apparently a disaster, despite the win... Woodward does it and it's a case of "ah well he thought it was best, leave him be!" Nobody mentioned that aus team being the weakest to ever have walked the earth until AFTER the tour, funny that. They were not as bad as made out, although by the time that year's RC had rolled around Deans' Australia had passed their sell-by date. NZ and SA both put a similar score on Aus - based on that the Lions, SA, NZ were all on the same level. So I don't buy into the pathetic argument that the Lions team would have been smashed by the all blacks and springboks. The conjecture from bitter 'fans' got tedious in 2013.

Now you mention it I don't really see the logic in Woodward's choice, I didn't back in 05 either. The ABs were a different force, as were England, and also Wales, Scotland and Ireland. The rugby world have long moved on from 2003 and Sir was the one not to realise. I think we have better players available to us this time. Gatland is correct choice for coach if he can see past his own stubborn selections. The fact that Wales aren't 6N champs should help that.

I did stand up for Woodward and still do because whilst it was high stakes rugby and he lost.... there was still method to the madness and no one would have done  better. Whether or not the game has changed since then its not the point, the rules were the same in 05 as they were in 03. The players mostly the same.

Maybe McGeechan could have got more respectable defeats but his chances of winning a series IMO would have been nil and less than Woodwards strategy. I'm perfectly comfortable asserting that.

AUS were a good side in 2013 but upfront they were weak and thats where the Lions won. The 3rd test was nothing to do with BOD being dropped and Foxy coming in, it was because of the pack dominating... a pack with Vunipola and Youngs at the helm (it really says it all for AUS' pack themselves). In those circumstances Gatlands strategy is proven to be successful.

But the critique was not that he wouldn't do the business vs. AUS but can he do the business vs. NZ? His strategy has been pretty miserable vs. them and SANZAR so how can he/someone else find a way to genuinely compete next year? Gatland is notorious for keeping to his method and not really having a plan B.

AUS for instance do not have a strong pack traditionally... how do they compete vs. NZ? I'd say that looking at their game is probably the key to finding a way to beat NZ. The Lions possess better front five forwards than AUS combined; how can they use that to their advantage and alter their strategy outside of this to chip away at NZ?

Right - so why in your highly esteemed opinion was there no method to what Gatland did, despite the fact that his Lions WON the series? It just seems like an idiot's logic to me. It certainly is the point because some players had moved on and other players had come in, so there was no logic to what Woodward was trying to do IMO. The manner of the series loss just confirms it for me.

fa, assume that stands for f*/k all because that's how much you know - those front row players didn't start the final test. Corbs and Hibbard did. You're right about Gatland's strategy being successful at least.

I don't know. Do you? It seems like you do given what your type, so I'd like to hear what it is. Let me guess, is it based on Scotland's brilliant recent record against NZ, or somebody else's?

fa0019 wrote:

Actually didn't leave out NZ like you suggested. Scotland during Robinson's tenure played the following matches

2 vs. AUS. Won both.
2 vs. SA. Won one, lost one.
3 vs. NZ. Lost both.

6 games, 3 wins, 3 losses.

Thanks - but if you read what you wrote you didn't mention NZ. I previously assumed all 6 matches were against Aus and SA. Also 2+2+3 = 7. That's better than most teams percentage-wise during a coaches tenure but what I would be interested to know is how often did Scotland play those teams compared to others back then? I would also be interested to see the winning ratio against teams like Tonga and Wales, and most other teams as surely that should come into the equation? You didn't answer any of my other questions as expected.

Mikey

Comparing Scotland and Wales success wise is not apples and apples. The frank truth is that Wales' players are superior and have been for a number of years. Coaching Wales, coaching Scotland is not simply "me vs. my peers". They may play in the same tournaments but success with one doesn't mean you would have success with the other.

Dan Parks, Greame Morrison, De Luca, Ansbro, Lamont.... they were the best Scotland had available.

Gatland was not a messiah in 2008 who turned water into wine. Like Jones in 2016 the talent was always there. The difference was harbouring it. Jenkins was as flawed as Lancaster, maybe more so.

I don't for instance think Cotter is the answer and I did say I think Gatland should take the role but he really needs to develop a strategy beyond his tried and tested. I think Schmidt potentially would be more suited as I think his backline play is more suited to competing vs. NZ. Maybe Jones would be better too but I doubt England would allow him in reailty (albeit say so publically). The other answer could be someone else.

Lets be honest Jake White would probably jump at the chance and to be frank he turned teams like the Brumbies, the Sharks into title contenders within their first season from pretty low beginnings.. likewise with Montpelier now. He knows the SH game and would love a crack at NZ... touring with the Lions to NZ is probably the next best thing after facing them in a RWC final.

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Actually didn't leave out NZ like you suggested. Scotland during Robinson's tenure played the following matches

2 vs. AUS. Won both.
2 vs. SA. Won one, lost one.
3 vs. NZ. Lost both.

6 games, 3 wins, 3 losses.

Thanks - but if you read what you wrote you didn't mention NZ. I previously assumed all 6 matches were against Aus and SA. Also 2+2+3 = 7. That's better than most teams percentage-wise during a coaches tenure but what I would be interested to know is how often did Scotland play those teams compared to others back then? I would also be interested to see the winning ratio against teams like Tonga and Wales, and most other teams as surely that should come into the equation? You didn't answer any of my other questions as expected.

sorry it wasn't 3 vs NZ, it was 2. So 3 wins, 3 losses in 6 matches is valid.

fa0019 wrote:Mikey

Comparing Scotland and Wales success wise is not apples and apples. The frank truth is that Wales' players are superior and have been for a number of years. Coaching Wales, coaching Scotland is not simply "me vs. my peers". They may play in the same tournaments but success with one doesn't mean you would have success with the other.

Dan Parks, Greame Morrison, De Luca, Ansbro, Lamont.... they were the best Scotland had available.

Gatland was not a messiah in 2008 who turned water into wine. Like Jones in 2016 the talent was always there. The difference was harbouring it. Jenkins was as flawed as Lancaster, maybe more so.

I don't for instance think Cotter is the answer and I did say I think Gatland should take the role but he really needs to develop a strategy beyond his tried and tested. I think Schmidt potentially would be more suited as I think his backline play is more suited to competing vs. NZ. Maybe Jones would be better too but I doubt England would allow him in reailty (albeit say so publically). The other answer could be someone else.

Lets be honest Jake White would probably jump at the chance and to be frank he turned teams like the Brumbies, the Sharks into title contenders within their first season from pretty low beginnings.. likewise with Montpelier now. He knows the SH game and would love a crack at NZ... touring with the Lions to NZ is probably the next best thing after facing them in a RWC final.

There we go. An eloquent and constructive discussion wasn't beyond the realms of impossibility, was it? I would agree Gatland like all coaches needs to develop new strategies and I think he has been trying to do so in the recent 6N, didn't pay off that well but maybe they're heading in the right direction. I wouldn't mind Schmidt coaching the Lions, and would probably prefer that he did to Gatland based on the reaction to Gatland and Wales in 2013. I'm actually surprised Gatland didn't rule himself out based on that. I'm not so sure Jake White is the right choice as he seems a bit stale - I know Montpellier have improved but what team wouldn't improve when it brings in those SA players?

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Mikey

Comparing Scotland and Wales success wise is not apples and apples. The frank truth is that Wales' players are superior and have been for a number of years. Coaching Wales, coaching Scotland is not simply "me vs. my peers". They may play in the same tournaments but success with one doesn't mean you would have success with the other.

Dan Parks, Greame Morrison, De Luca, Ansbro, Lamont.... they were the best Scotland had available.

Gatland was not a messiah in 2008 who turned water into wine. Like Jones in 2016 the talent was always there. The difference was harbouring it. Jenkins was as flawed as Lancaster, maybe more so.

I don't for instance think Cotter is the answer and I did say I think Gatland should take the role but he really needs to develop a strategy beyond his tried and tested. I think Schmidt potentially would be more suited as I think his backline play is more suited to competing vs. NZ. Maybe Jones would be better too but I doubt England would allow him in reailty (albeit say so publically). The other answer could be someone else.

Lets be honest Jake White would probably jump at the chance and to be frank he turned teams like the Brumbies, the Sharks into title contenders within their first season from pretty low beginnings.. likewise with Montpelier now. He knows the SH game and would love a crack at NZ... touring with the Lions to NZ is probably the next best thing after facing them in a RWC final.

There we go. An eloquent and constructive discussion wasn't beyond the realms of impossibility, was it? I would agree Gatland like all coaches needs to develop new strategies and I think he has been trying to do so in the recent 6N, didn't pay off that well but maybe they're heading in the right direction. I wouldn't mind Schmidt coaching the Lions, and would probably prefer that he did to Gatland based on the reaction to Gatland and Wales in 2013. I'm actually surprised Gatland didn't rule himself out based on that. I'm not so sure Jake White is the right choice as he seems a bit stale - I know Montpellier have improved but what team wouldn't improve when it brings in those SA players?

you mean where you called me out for being a gatland hater and having my head up the boks backside purely because of complicated circumstances. To be fair Mikey I don't think I was the one who was ever being petty and only ever gave my own opinion on the matter whilst trying to remain unbiased.... although is that ever possible.

yet I agree let bygones be bygones.

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Mikey

Comparing Scotland and Wales success wise is not apples and apples. The frank truth is that Wales' players are superior and have been for a number of years. Coaching Wales, coaching Scotland is not simply "me vs. my peers". They may play in the same tournaments but success with one doesn't mean you would have success with the other.

Dan Parks, Greame Morrison, De Luca, Ansbro, Lamont.... they were the best Scotland had available.

Gatland was not a messiah in 2008 who turned water into wine. Like Jones in 2016 the talent was always there. The difference was harbouring it. Jenkins was as flawed as Lancaster, maybe more so.

I don't for instance think Cotter is the answer and I did say I think Gatland should take the role but he really needs to develop a strategy beyond his tried and tested. I think Schmidt potentially would be more suited as I think his backline play is more suited to competing vs. NZ. Maybe Jones would be better too but I doubt England would allow him in reailty (albeit say so publically). The other answer could be someone else.

Lets be honest Jake White would probably jump at the chance and to be frank he turned teams like the Brumbies, the Sharks into title contenders within their first season from pretty low beginnings.. likewise with Montpelier now. He knows the SH game and would love a crack at NZ... touring with the Lions to NZ is probably the next best thing after facing them in a RWC final.

There we go. An eloquent and constructive discussion wasn't beyond the realms of impossibility, was it? I would agree Gatland like all coaches needs to develop new strategies and I think he has been trying to do so in the recent 6N, didn't pay off that well but maybe they're heading in the right direction. I wouldn't mind Schmidt coaching the Lions, and would probably prefer that he did to Gatland based on the reaction to Gatland and Wales in 2013. I'm actually surprised Gatland didn't rule himself out based on that. I'm not so sure Jake White is the right choice as he seems a bit stale - I know Montpellier have improved but what team wouldn't improve when it brings in those SA players?

The one problem White will have is that players don't tend to get along with him. He's like Woodward.. some love him, most hate him.

Well fa that was actually based on months of comments and it doesn't get less tedious reading that about Wales, etc. and not from just you. That said I apologise for insinuating so.
I was surprised to read that the Du Plessis brothers didn't like White and tried to back out of their Montpellier contract. I'm not sure why but given what he coached SA to do on the back of what was a very dark year for them, he's surely due some respect by South Africans. If he had say a S15 or Top 14 title on his CV since then he would be a good candidate.

mikey_dragon wrote:Well fa that was actually based on months of comments and it doesn't get less tedious reading that about Wales, etc. and not from just you. That said I apologise for insinuating so.
I was surprised to read that the Du Plessis brothers didn't like White and tried to back out of their Montpellier contract. I'm not sure why but given what he coached SA to do on the back of what was a very dark year for them, he's surely due some respect by South Africans. If he had say a S15 or Top 14 title on his CV since then he would be a good candidate.

Without stating more I know the DP brothers loosely and whilst Jannie is a top guy, smart and very genuine.. Bissie is a bit of a meat head/cry baby and IMO it has stopped him from being made captain of the boks and even automatic first choice as hooker. Don't get me wrong he's a great player but he comes across quite negative.
White is pretty clear cut. My way or the highway.

mikey_dragon wrote:

beshocked wrote:mikey dragon Woodward was a very poor Lions coach, doesn't automatically make Gatland good. As I said before I think any of us could have coached the Lions vs Australia and been on a winning tour - though we might have got 3-0......


It's a sad state of affairs when Gatland is seen as the best option. A NZer with an atrocious record against SH sides. But.... he beat Australia with the Lions.....as fa0019 said - the ABs are on another level compared to the Aussies.

Well nobody said that. Learn to read. Also as I said earlier if yourself, LD and Fanster took control of the Lions on that tour it would have been both embarrassing and hilarious .

Who's your choice for coach again? I'm expecting to see someone with a recent and phenomenal record against NZ, as that seems to be the logic. Who might be?

Mikey Dragon I already suggested Jake White or Wayne Smith as options. Even Laporte would be better than Gatland.

You can't know for sure it would be embarrassing unless it happened.

I suggested Borthwick,Gustard and Jones for England - they've gone on to get a GS.

beshocked wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

beshocked wrote:mikey dragon Woodward was a very poor Lions coach, doesn't automatically make Gatland good. As I said before I think any of us could have coached the Lions vs Australia and been on a winning tour - though we might have got 3-0......


It's a sad state of affairs when Gatland is seen as the best option. A NZer with an atrocious record against SH sides. But.... he beat Australia with the Lions.....as fa0019 said - the ABs are on another level compared to the Aussies.

Well nobody said that. Learn to read. Also as I said earlier if yourself, LD and Fanster took control of the Lions on that tour it would have been both embarrassing and hilarious .

Who's your choice for coach again? I'm expecting to see someone with a recent and phenomenal record against NZ, as that seems to be the logic. Who might be?

Mikey Dragon I already suggested Jake White or Wayne Smith as options. Even Laporte would be better than Gatland.

You can't know for sure it would be embarrassing unless it happened.

I suggested Borthwick,Gustard and Jones for England - they've gone on to get a GS.

The one thing I agree with many though is the importance of culture. Breeding an old school rugby tour culture which SH coaches may not truly understand. The tour manager should be a proper old boy esteemed in Lions history.. the Davies, the McBrides, the Calders, the Irvines, the Cottons.

Someone like Jason Leonard I think would be perfect for the job. Probably Mr Lion outside of McGeechan.

Could Gatland work with Jones as a 1 & 2 and vice versa?

Jim Telfer was coach in 83 but assistant in 97. McGeechan was head in 89,93,97 but assistant in 05 before being head in 09 again. Not saying Gatland should be no2 but could those 2 work together. Jones has skills Gatland will never possess and vice-versa.

The only real issue with Gatland is the fact he decided on a gameplan, seemingly the only one he would like to implement these days, then decided who to play ignoring any form on the tour. I'd like to see some more flexibility.

Good call on the coaching staff beshocked, soothsayer standard. I can only imagine we would have won the GS with a game to spare had your first choice come into the fold.

beshocked wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

beshocked wrote:mikey dragon Woodward was a very poor Lions coach, doesn't automatically make Gatland good. As I said before I think any of us could have coached the Lions vs Australia and been on a winning tour - though we might have got 3-0......


It's a sad state of affairs when Gatland is seen as the best option. A NZer with an atrocious record against SH sides. But.... he beat Australia with the Lions.....as fa0019 said - the ABs are on another level compared to the Aussies.

Well nobody said that. Learn to read. Also as I said earlier if yourself, LD and Fanster took control of the Lions on that tour it would have been both embarrassing and hilarious .

Who's your choice for coach again? I'm expecting to see someone with a recent and phenomenal record against NZ, as that seems to be the logic. Who might be?

Mikey Dragon I already suggested Jake White or Wayne Smith as options. Even Laporte would be better than Gatland.

You can't know for sure it would be embarrassing unless it happened.

I suggested Borthwick,Gustard and Jones for England - they've gone on to get a GS.

Laporte would be a good choice. Not sure about Wayne Smith, what is he even up to these days?

Based on all of your rugby comments it would be nothing short of embarrassing. You're not so bad yourself, but Lloyd and Harry on the other hand...

Haven't they ruled themselves out? What about you Beshocked? You're so convinced you could have lead the Lions to be Aus 100 nil in every test, why don't you go take it to the All Blacks?

Smith has signed on with the AB's. I doubt he'd ever sign on with the Lions against NZ even if he was available.

Was hoping he would have been that temp attack coach Jones mentioned. Oh well.

Smith will never do it. Couldn't do it vs. NZ.

mikey dragon not 100-0 no but a victory yes, perhaps even 3-0 against the Aussies.

Don't think I would be given the job sadly. Plus it's probably one of the toughest jobs out there - win a series against the ABs away with a hotch potch of 4 nations. Trying to gel them into a team. I would be struggling before the game's started.

If Gatland's sensible he'll turn it down because there's no chance he'll succeed. Poisoned chalice springs to mind.

Best to maintain the adulation of Welsh fans who are still pleased with his efforts instead of risking ire with the toughest assignment on offer.

beshocked wrote:mikey dragon not 100-0 no but a victory yes, perhaps even 3-0 against the Aussies.

Don't think I would be given the job sadly. Plus it's probably one of the toughest jobs out there - win a series against the ABs away with a hotch potch of  3 nations. Trying to gel them into a team. I would be struggling before the game's started.

If Gatland's sensible he'll turn it down because there's no chance he'll succeed. Poisoned chalice springs to mind.

Best to maintain the adulation of Welsh fans who are still pleased with his efforts instead of risking ire with the toughest assignment on offer.

Fixed that for you.

Why which nation are you missing out? Perhaps Gatland wouldn't pick Scottish players but he should if they warrant selection.

beshocked wrote:mikey dragon not 100-0 no but a victory yes, perhaps even 3-0 against the Aussies.

Don't think I would be given the job sadly. Plus it's probably one of the toughest jobs out there - win a series against the ABs away with a hotch potch of 4 nations. Trying to gel them into a team. I would be struggling before the game's started.

If Gatland's sensible he'll turn it down because there's no chance he'll succeed. Poisoned chalice springs to mind.

Best to maintain the adulation of Welsh fans who are still pleased with his efforts instead of risking ire with the toughest assignment on offer.

then again... a decent showing could parachute him into the NZ job, thats the one he really wants.

fa0019 wrote:

beshocked wrote:mikey dragon not 100-0 no but a victory yes, perhaps even 3-0 against the Aussies.

Don't think I would be given the job sadly. Plus it's probably one of the toughest jobs out there - win a series against the ABs away with a hotch potch of 4 nations. Trying to gel them into a team. I would be struggling before the game's started.

If Gatland's sensible he'll turn it down because there's no chance he'll succeed. Poisoned chalice springs to mind.

Best to maintain the adulation of Welsh fans who are still pleased with his efforts instead of risking ire with the toughest assignment on offer.

then again... a decent showing could parachute him into the NZ job, thats the one he really wants.

I genuinely believe that this is why Wazzer would like the job.

He gets to remind the Kiwi press who he is and if he can take a few scalps, so much the better. If he tanks, then the raw material he has to work with may be to blame.

George Carlin wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

beshocked wrote:mikey dragon not 100-0 no but a victory yes, perhaps even 3-0 against the Aussies.

Don't think I would be given the job sadly. Plus it's probably one of the toughest jobs out there - win a series against the ABs away with a hotch potch of 4 nations. Trying to gel them into a team. I would be struggling before the game's started.

If Gatland's sensible he'll turn it down because there's no chance he'll succeed. Poisoned chalice springs to mind.

Best to maintain the adulation of Welsh fans who are still pleased with his efforts instead of risking ire with the toughest assignment on offer.

then again... a decent showing could parachute him into the NZ job, thats the one he really wants.

I genuinely believe that this is why Wazzer would like the job.

He gets to remind the Kiwi press who he is and if he can take a few scalps, so much the better. If he tanks, then the raw material he has to work with may be to blame.

Do you truly think that Gatland ( will ) land the NZ coach job. Honestly?

I just do not think that his CV will be good enough for the NZ coaches job.

He as been good against NH teams. but against SH teams, not so good.

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Doesn't take away the fact Gatlands record vs. SANZAR is dreadful. Andy Robinson has more wins with Scotland than Warren Gatland has with Wales That's a fact.  His entire game plan revolves around forward domination and the front foot. Outside of that generally he has no other ideas. Its why SANZAR generally do enough to win (well 93% of the time). In the 13 Lions lets be honest, given that Vunipola and Tom Youngs were packing down and still were dominant upfront.... that AUS pack were pretty weak. To compete with NZ, let alone beat them whoever coaches them will have to come up with something a little different. Has Gatland ever shown a hint of such?

Ah here we go again, I don't know why you feel the need to repeat this every few weeks. Here's a fact for you, Andy Robinson's record with Scotland was dreadful, not only against the SH but every single team they played - that includes Tonga and especially Wales. It's no wonder you continually latch on to SA.

Wrong. Robinsons Scotland beat Aus twice and SA once IIRC. thats more wins against the Sanzar teams than wales in a similar period

Where was I wrong there? I think you've ignored another dozen posts, or struggle with comprehension. I suggest you go back and try again.

Firstly, there has become a trend in the last decade or so of Welsh coaches going on to the NZ job, and those Welsh coaches coaching the lions also beforehand.

Of course Gtland wants the NZ job, he'd be stupid not to, and they'd be stupid not to be looking at him, however they don't have a tendancy to chop and change coaches, and continuity is king.

Secondly, lets be honest, of the Scotland SH wins, 2/3 of the games circumstances have to be taken into acount, Australia fielded a weakened team in order to save their very best for Wales the week after, and another was in a cyclone crazy mudfest storm that leveled the playing field.

beshocked wrote:Why which nation are you missing out? Perhaps Gatland wouldn't pick Scottish players but he should if they warrant selection.

Absolutely he should. But he won't.

As it stands, and bearing in mind that there are probably 7-8 Scots that should definitely tour, Gatland would pick English and Welsh players with a smattering of Irish. Perhaps a token Scot (Hogg).

Fanster wrote:Firstly, there has become a trend in the last decade or so of Welsh coaches going on to the NZ job, and those Welsh coaches coaching the lions also beforehand.

Of course Gtland wants the NZ job, he'd be stupid not to, and they'd be stupid not to be looking at him, however they don't have a tendancy to chop and change coaches, and continuity is king.

Secondly, lets be honest, of the Scotland SH wins, 2/3 of the games circumstances have to be taken into acount, Australia fielded a weakened team in order to save their very best for Wales the week after, and another was in a cyclone crazy mudfest storm that leveled the playing field.

Yawn.

Fanster wrote:Firstly, there has become a trend in the last decade or so of Welsh coaches going on to the NZ job, and those Welsh coaches coaching the lions also beforehand.

Of course Gtland wants the NZ job, he'd be stupid not to, and they'd be stupid not to be looking at him, however they don't have a tendancy to chop and change coaches, and continuity is king.

Secondly, lets be honest, of the Scotland SH wins, 2/3 of the games circumstances have to be taken into acount, Australia fielded a weakened team in order to save their very best for Wales the week after, and another was in a cyclone crazy mudfest storm that leveled the playing field.

Does that mean Wales' victory over SA in 2014 doesn't count either because the team was a B-C side?

The backline was

Le Roux, Hendricks, Serfontein, De Villiers, Mvovo, Lambie, Reinach

Only one of those were first choice players.

Whereas Wales fielded

Halfpenny, Cuthbert, Jonathan Davies, Roberts, Liam Williams, Biggar, Webb

The SA pack was a little stronger than the backline..... 4 first team players.

In the end you can only play those in front of you and given in that 3 year period Scotland beat AUS twice and SA once you would expect coaches to have said... look the Scotland game is a banana skin, don't field a weakened team. If they did then and they lost then its there own fault.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:

beshocked wrote:Why which nation are you missing out? Perhaps Gatland wouldn't pick Scottish players but he should if they warrant selection.

Absolutely he should. But he won't.

As it stands, and bearing in mind that there are probably 7-8 Scots that should definitely tour, Gatland would pick English and Welsh players with a smattering of Irish. Perhaps a token Scot (Hogg).

That is one biased view...

Hogg would be a certainty to tour at present, probably with 6/7 other players from around the home nations, however there are no definates!

Right now leading Scottish tourists would be Nel, Gray, Barclay, Taylor, Hogg, however there may possibly be more or less than the 5 highlighted come next year.

With regards to the yawn, they're facts, dismiss them if you may, it doesn't change them.

The only fact I'll acknowledge is that Scotland won those games.

That's what's in the record books, so I'm comfortable with that.

fa0019 wrote:

Fanster wrote:Firstly, there has become a trend in the last decade or so of Welsh coaches going on to the NZ job, and those Welsh coaches coaching the lions also beforehand.

Of course Gtland wants the NZ job, he'd be stupid not to, and they'd be stupid not to be looking at him, however they don't have a tendancy to chop and change coaches, and continuity is king.

Secondly, lets be honest, of the Scotland SH wins, 2/3 of the games circumstances have to be taken into acount, Australia fielded a weakened team in order to save their very best for Wales the week after, and another was in a cyclone crazy mudfest storm that leveled the playing field.

Does that mean Wales' victory over SA in 2014 doesn't count either because the team was a B-C side?

The backline was

Le Roux, Hendricks, Serfontein, De Villiers, Mvovo, Lambie, Reinach

Only one of those were first choice players.

Whereas Wales fielded

Halfpenny, Cuthbert, Jonathan Davies, Roberts, Liam Williams, Biggar, Webb

The SA pack was a little stronger than the backline..... 4 first team players.

In the end you can only play those in front of you and given in that 3 year period Scotland beat AUS twice and SA once you would expect coaches to have said... look the Scotland game is a banana skin, don't field a weakened team. If they did then and they lost then its there own fault.

100% agree, that SA side was very poor, and in reality should've been whitewashed (possibly not the Italy match), and i'm pretty sure that going into that game Wales were favourites, and heavily criticised for not scoring tries?

I never said Scotlands wins didn't count, but adding perspective and context to some stats helps the validity of those stats.

3rd party results mean little.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:The only fact I'll acknowledge is that Scotland won those games.

That's what's in the record books, so I'm comfortable with that.

Along with records such as an U18's team in Scotland has never seen a Scotland team score a try against England at Murrayfield? Do you feel this accurately reflects the strength of Scottish rugby?

Or that in the last 6 seasons Scotland are only 1 win ahead of Italy in 6N results logger? Or that going into this years 6N they were one win behind?

Record books reflect outcomes, not circumstances, such as the England demolishing of NZ...

Ah the fit and firing NZ who were sick the week before for the Wales game....which they easily won.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah the fit and firing NZ who were sick the week before for the Wales game....which they easily won.

That was England. They weren't sick facing us. #suzie

Rewriting history mikey? The sickness hit them ahead of the Wales game.

I don't remember it ever being mentioned that it had done. So not re-writing something that didn't happen.

Fanster wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:The only fact I'll acknowledge is that Scotland won those games.

That's what's in the record books, so I'm comfortable with that.

Along with records such as an U18's team in Scotland has never seen a Scotland team score a try against England at Murrayfield? Do you feel this accurately reflects the strength of Scottish rugby?

Or that in the last 6 seasons Scotland are only 1 win ahead of Italy in 6N results logger? Or that going into this years 6N they were one win behind?

Record books reflect outcomes, not circumstances, such as the England demolishing of NZ...

single games sure.... multiple games over years if the pattern is the same... its pretty stark. You can't have excuses for all of them

During Gatlands tenure vs. SANZAR win rates and games won

Ireland 22%. 4 wins in 18.
Scotland 20%. 3 wins in 15.
England 19%. 5 wins in 27.
France 17%. 4 wins in 23.
Wales 7%. 2 wins in 30.

Wales have had more bites at the cherry and the least wins. In addition all 4 outside of Wales have achieved victory away from home as well as at home whereas Wales' 2 victories have come only in the MS.

Scotland has inferior players to Wales, maybe SANZAR rests players for Scotland but its proved to be a naive tactic, just like when Meyer rested 2/3 of his team for the loss to Wales in that outside window test match in 2014. In any case I'd rather have a bunch of players who out play their potential than those who fail to reach it even above trophies. That's all you can ever ask of players.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Rewriting history mikey? The sickness hit them ahead of the Wales game.

Is this a valid comment on my circumstance explenation? Or an attack at Welsh rugby and myself personally based on a fact you dislike? Seems a bit WUMy to me, and not sure it's justified.

mikey_dragon wrote:I don't remember it ever being mentioned that it had done. So not re-writing something that didn't happen.

NZ come up with lame excuses for every loss they experience. My favourite one is not suzi, the flu etc but those grey jersey's.

Fanster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Rewriting history mikey? The sickness hit them ahead of the Wales game.

Is this a valid comment on my circumstance explenation? Or an attack at Welsh rugby and myself personally based on a fact you dislike? Seems a bit WUMy to me, and not sure it's justified.

Just correcting a mistake.

mikey_dragon wrote:I don't remember it ever being mentioned that it had done. So not re-writing something that didn't happen.

I'm just correcting you. You're welcome.