Schmitt and cotter interviewing for lions job

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:If you can actually back up your argument great.

To simplify:

More playing time = more risk

Right, easy solution then, clubs and the relevant countries actually rest their players properly ahead of the Lions. As it is the Lions tours in isolation are not a problem.

No 7&1/2 – Thanks for acknowledging “that there is a much greater likelihood of injury with the Lions than with individual Test nations”.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:If you can actually back up your argument great.

To simplify:

More playing time = more risk

Right, easy solution then, clubs and the relevant countries actually rest their players properly ahead of the Lions. As it is the Lions tours in isolation are not a problem.

No 7&1/2 – Thanks for acknowledging “that there is a much greater likelihood of injury with the Lions than with individual Test nations”.

I haven't just moving it on as you can't back there is a greater risk playing for the Lions so you moved it to there is risk playing rugby.

The Great Aukster wrote:

George Carlin wrote:Just found this interesting and increasingly angry thread.

Schmidt and Cotter would have been a fabulous combination as they are good friends and understand each other well. Honesty amongst senior members of a coaching team is a rare and valuable thing indeed.

Now that Joe has ruled himself out for family reasons (allegedly), I think that the best we can hope for is Gats as head coach and Cotter as forwards coach which would be a solid combo. Add the likes of Baxter and Gustard and it would look very serviceable indeed. We would also need a separate attack coach unless Wazzaball is officially vetoed - Townsend would actually be a good choice for this, although I suspect it will never happen.

George - How long did it take Townsend to get the Glasgow backline humming? I seem to remember there was a lot of criticism of him immediately after he arrived.

The Great Aukster wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'd don't think you can assign a specific margin of defeat to construe whether or not a rugby team is competitive in a particular fixture. What is clear as day is that it isn't as simple as win/lose, which was your proposal (for the Lions, but not for Ireland).

Keep trying.

OK

So you only have your own interpretation of what "competing" means, therefore anyone can also have theirs. If as you suggest, everyone has their own interpretation there can be no factual basis to say the Lions were or were not competitive. Or more to the point there is no factual basis to suggest that keeping the score close is any more or less of an indicator than win or lose, or the volume of the crowd or the number of tv viewers or the amount of beer sold by Tennants.

So what is clear, is that in your opinion it isn't as simple as win/lose - fair enough. Yet that is also confusing as you mentioned "glory" as being the essence of the Lions. Normally glory is associated with victory, or do you believe that defeat is just as glorious?

George Carlin wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

George Carlin wrote:Just found this interesting and increasingly angry thread.

Schmidt and Cotter would have been a fabulous combination as they are good friends and understand each other well. Honesty amongst senior members of a coaching team is a rare and valuable thing indeed.

Now that Joe has ruled himself out for family reasons (allegedly), I think that the best we can hope for is Gats as head coach and Cotter as forwards coach which would be a solid combo. Add the likes of Baxter and Gustard and it would look very serviceable indeed. We would also need a separate attack coach unless Wazzaball is officially vetoed - Townsend would actually be a good choice for this, although I suspect it will never happen.

George - How long did it take Townsend to get the Glasgow backline humming? I seem to remember there was a lot of criticism of him immediately after he arrived.

Aukster - the problem for Toonie is that he presided over Scotland's backline for a couple of years when we had the slowest and least creative set of backs that I can ever remember seeing in my 39 years. Scotland were largely 6N whipping boys during this period and that whiff hangs around for a while. A lot of us felt he should have been sacked a long time ago but the simple truth is that you can only coach mediocre players so well.

At Glasgow on the other hand, everything he has touched has very slowly turned to gold - undeniably as a result of him being able to pick and choose his own players and set his own game plan. He is one of the best NH managers for spotting rough diamonds and polishing them to a shine. Nobody (other than 7s fans) had really heard of Nikola Matawalu or Leone Nakarawa when he brought them into the squad - they were sold recently to Bath and Racing respectively as some of the most exciting talent in the game at a huge profit. There are a staggering number of players who were unloved or underrated at their clubs who have made Glasgow their spiritual home and improved tenfold as players - Tommy Seymour, Bernardo Stortoni, DTH van der Merwe, Alex Dunbar, John Welsh, John Barclay, Kelly Brown, Kevin Tkachuk and Johnny Beattie are some of the highest profile.

He also has a keen eye for hothousing young talent - Mark Bennett, Jonny Gray, Richie Gray, Finn Russell and Peter Horne all came through as youngfellers and now many are very exciting players. He didn't have stacks of money, but he spent it smartly - this is why when he signs players we haven't heard of (that happens a lot), we know by now to stay quiet and see what will happen.

So how will a coach able to spot diamonds in the rough translate into the Lions set up? It's not clear. I like to think that he understands the UK game and its players very well and will be fairly non-partisan when it comes to choosing good combinations. The other common criticism is that Toonie was a massively talented player who played in a largely unstructured and ad libbed manner. Too much has been made of this, I think, but the argument that what he had cannot be easily taught tends to hang around.

All of that said, he is a calm head and a diplomat who understands first hand how to win a test series with the Lions (he was wearing 10 when we beat SA in 1997). Them's pretty fair credentials.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No limit on squad and they can be rested by club and country. Each player will not play ten games. On a separate note players do get over played so primarily the clubs etc need to deal with it.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'd don't think you can assign a specific margin of defeat to construe whether or not a rugby team is competitive in a particular fixture. What is clear as day is that it isn't as simple as win/lose, which was your proposal (for the Lions, but not for Ireland).

Keep trying.

OK

So you only have your own interpretation of what "competing" means, therefore anyone can also have theirs. If as you suggest, everyone has their own interpretation there can be no factual basis to say the Lions were or were not competitive. Or more to the point there is no factual basis to suggest that keeping the score close is any more or less of an indicator than win or lose, or the volume of the crowd or the number of tv viewers or the amount of beer sold by Tennants.

So what is clear, is that in your opinion it isn't as simple as win/lose - fair enough. Yet that is also confusing as you mentioned "glory" as being the essence of the Lions. Normally glory is associated with victory, or do you believe that defeat is just as glorious?

Let's do this again.

You said that it is naïve to suggest the Lions could "compete". I pointed out the numerous closely fought battles since the game turned professional. You rejected that by saying that "competing" meant "winning" (and also rejected the 2 from 5 stat on the basis that you didn't think 1997 should count). I suggested that a team could be competitive without necessarily winning (see 2009 as a prime example). You appeared to accept that by suggesting that Ireland "competed" against South Africa this summer (despite losing), contradicting your previous position. Which is it?

You are, at best, confused!

As for glory having to necessarily coincide with victory, see Tennyson (not that I would suggest a parallel between the Battle of Balaclava and a Lions tour!).

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No limit on squad and they can be rested by club and country. Each player will not play ten games. On a separate note players do get over played so primarily the clubs etc need to deal with it.

Lions players will see a lot more game time than if they were with their home nations. They will also have a lot more intensive off-field training to try to make up for the lack of understanding between players that normal Test teams won’t have to do.
Throw into that mix that the players are training with/against competitors for their test place that they have maybe just met, have no history with and under the tutelage of a ‘coach’ who has no long term interest in their welfare.

The Great Aukster wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'd don't think you can assign a specific margin of defeat to construe whether or not a rugby team is competitive in a particular fixture. What is clear as day is that it isn't as simple as win/lose, which was your proposal (for the Lions, but not for Ireland).

Keep trying.

OK

So you only have your own interpretation of what "competing" means, therefore anyone can also have theirs. If as you suggest, everyone has their own interpretation there can be no factual basis to say the Lions were or were not competitive. Or more to the point there is no factual basis to suggest that keeping the score close is any more or less of an indicator than win or lose, or the volume of the crowd or the number of tv viewers or the amount of beer sold by Tennants.

So what is clear, is that in your opinion it isn't as simple as win/lose - fair enough. Yet that is also confusing as you mentioned "glory" as being the essence of the Lions. Normally glory is associated with victory, or do you believe that defeat is just as glorious?

Let's do this again.

You said that it is naïve to suggest the Lions could "compete". I pointed out the numerous closely fought battles since the game turned professional. You rejected that by saying that "competing" meant "winning" (and also rejected the 2 from 5 stat on the basis that you didn't think 1997 should count). I suggested that a team could be competitive without necessarily winning (see 2009 as a prime example). You appeared to accept that by suggesting that Ireland "competed" against South Africa this summer (despite losing), contradicting your previous position. Which is it?

You are, at best, confused!

As for glory having to necessarily coincide with victory, see Tennyson (not that I would suggest a parallel between the Battle of Balaclava and a Lions tour!).

You will recall I asked what you meant exactly by closely fought and you were unable to define that. Therefore in the absence of any objective measure your definition of closely fought is no different to anyone else's - i.e. their own. It was pointed out that if you chose one score as a measure of a closely fought contest, your assertion of competing didn't stand up either. So you have chosen not to define what you mean by "competing" - so you know whatever that is but no one else does.

I am indeed confused that everyone is expected to take your word that the Lions were competitive when you haven't actually said what you mean by that.

As for glorious defeat, I agree it is the stuff of folk lore and poetry. The idea that it is 'the taking part rather than the winning' that is important is exactly the psychological edge that the Lions may take from the tour and back to their normal teams - one that I don't think is particularly positive.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No limit on squad and they can be rested by club and country. Each player will not play ten games. On a separate note players do get over played so primarily the clubs etc need to deal with it.

Lions players will see a lot more game time than if they were with their home nations. They will also have a lot more intensive off-field training to try to make up for the lack of understanding between players that normal Test teams won’t have to do.
Throw into that mix that the players are training with/against competitors for their test place that they have maybe just met, have no history with and under the tutelage of a ‘coach’ who has no long term interest in their welfare.

You can't really say what the training intensity will be like. From snippets Gatland seems to work his players really hard, similar stories from POC when Schmidt came in and criticism on Englands wc prep. All players compete for whatever jersey no big deal. Club and country put players health first and foremost do they? Must have missed that. You just want Ireland to be the only thing Irish players are bothered as you are. Just ignore the Lions.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'd don't think you can assign a specific margin of defeat to construe whether or not a rugby team is competitive in a particular fixture. What is clear as day is that it isn't as simple as win/lose, which was your proposal (for the Lions, but not for Ireland).

Keep trying.

OK

So you only have your own interpretation of what "competing" means, therefore anyone can also have theirs. If as you suggest, everyone has their own interpretation there can be no factual basis to say the Lions were or were not competitive. Or more to the point there is no factual basis to suggest that keeping the score close is any more or less of an indicator than win or lose, or the volume of the crowd or the number of tv viewers or the amount of beer sold by Tennants.

So what is clear, is that in your opinion it isn't as simple as win/lose - fair enough. Yet that is also confusing as you mentioned "glory" as being the essence of the Lions. Normally glory is associated with victory, or do you believe that defeat is just as glorious?

Let's do this again.

You said that it is naïve to suggest the Lions could "compete". I pointed out the numerous closely fought battles since the game turned professional. You rejected that by saying that "competing" meant "winning" (and also rejected the 2 from 5 stat on the basis that you didn't think 1997 should count). I suggested that a team could be competitive without necessarily winning (see 2009 as a prime example). You appeared to accept that by suggesting that Ireland "competed" against South Africa this summer (despite losing), contradicting your previous position. Which is it?

You are, at best, confused!

As for glory having to necessarily coincide with victory, see Tennyson (not that I would suggest a parallel between the Battle of Balaclava and a Lions tour!).

You will recall I asked what you meant exactly by closely fought and you were unable to define that. Therefore in the absence of any objective measure your definition of closely fought is no different to anyone else's - i.e. their own. It was pointed out that if you chose one score as a measure of a closely fought contest, your assertion of competing didn't stand up either. So you have chosen not to define what you mean by "competing" - so you know whatever that is but no one else does.

I am indeed confused that everyone is expected to take your word that the Lions were competitive when you haven't actually said what you mean by that.

As for glorious defeat, I agree it is the stuff of folk lore and poetry. The idea that it is 'the taking part rather than the winning' that is important is exactly the psychological edge that the Lions may take from the tour and back to their normal teams - one that I don't think is particularly positive.

Are you a rugby fan? Surely you can understand that the measure of whether a side was able to "compete" in a rugby match cannot simply be measured by a black and white points deficit. But, since you crave black and white certainly, I would say that in each of the following scenarios a side was "competitive":

1. the team won (we can both agree on this)
2. the team lost, but was within a score (thus the theory behind the losing bonus point)
3. the played a Test series and it went down to the final Test (I would argue that, by definition, it was a competitive series)
4. the team was within a score with five minutes to play, and in an attacking effort to seal the game, the ball was turned over and the opposition scored at the other end

There you have it. Your definition only includes 1 (for the Lions but not for Ireland), which I think is too narrow for the word "compete".

Anyway, I don't think Tennyson was suggesting that its the taking part that counts rather than winning. You need a bit more poetry in your life me thinks.

The Great Aukster wrote:An objective position is one that is measured against a standard. A win or loss is a fact and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to look at win/loss as a measure of success. Equally the margin of victory is something that can be definitively measured so if that is your definition of competitiveness what is the points margin that you consider competitive?

miaow wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:An objective position is one that is measured against a standard. A win or loss is a fact and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to look at win/loss as a measure of success. Equally the margin of victory is something that can be definitively measured so if that is your definition of competitiveness what is the points margin that you consider competitive?

There is no such thing as an objective truth when it comes to how statistics are applied. 'You can prove anything with statistics' is never truer in this case: where you dismiss the '97 tour as non-professional for some strange arbitrary reason (your own personal bias) to conclude the Lions have lost 3 of the last 4 Tours, FES can apply statistics to show that the Lions have won 1 out of 1. There is no objectivity, and your constant shifting of the goalposts- as FES has neatly (and repeatedly) tried to illumiate for you- gains no more gravitas merely by evoking the 'higher truth' of numbers.

Anyway, in answer to you question (more fool me), I would say most people say that around 7 points, give or take, would be competitve: to be within a score when the final whistle approaches. That said, it is utterly reliant on context. There is a big difference between a team going 28-0 up, taking their foot off the pedal (to avoid fatigue, injuries...those things you seem so adamant to protect for Irish players), and then the other team coming back into it late in the game, and racking up a few scores. Say the final score is 28-21, with the other team scoring a converted try with the last phase of play.

Now, if the game was boobie for tat, with each team responding to the other with 7 point scores, leaving it 21-21 until the final moment, before one of the teams scored, winning the game 28-21, that is a very different scenario. The bottom line statistics show the same state of competitiveness, yet without the context of everything that went on in the game, it will only ever show a narrow view of the 'truth' of the game.

Equally, if a team is getting absolutely hammered on their own line for 80 minutes, battered in the set piece, dominated at the rucks, you would be compelled to say that they are not particularly competitive if you did not allude to the scoreline. This would be the case if such a performance resulted in the other team putting 20-30 points between the two sides. However, if the exact same dominant performance resulted in a very close scoreline, then- despite their apparent deficiencies on the field- the team that was on the receiving end of much of the dominance is still very much competitive.

The two- context and statistics- have to work in tandem. Your interpretation of the two is what leads to an opinion, one that is hopefully measured and considerate of as much information as possible, and not as a means to justify what is increasingly appearing to be a rather reactionary and hostile nationalism (which is absolutely fine, all opinions are welcome, but don't dress it up in the garb of objectivity, or pretend to argue for the benefits and wants of B&I players). Being reductive solves nothing, particularly when you run away from the dissections that I and other posters, notably FES, confront you with.

RDW_Scotland wrote:In related news:

https://www.606v2.com/t63798-gregor-townsend-to-become-scotland-head-coach-in-june-2017#3417806

Cotter as Lions forwards coach?

mikey_dragon wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:In related news:

https://www.606v2.com/t63798-gregor-townsend-to-become-scotland-head-coach-in-june-2017#3417806

Cotter as Lions forwards coach?

He has to be on board now surely?

kingelderfield wrote:How do you guys feel about a reconstituted Celtic Lions minus us english?

Its just we've got a world cup to win and realistically the Lions gig is an old hat side show that needs to be parked in yesteryear.

doctor_grey wrote:I still would prefer Cockers to lead the Lions.  Brendon Venter as his media relations guy.  We will win all the interviews.

kingelderfield wrote:How do you guys feel about a reconstituted Celtic Lions minus us english?

Its just we've got a world cup to win and realistically the Lions gig is an old hat side show that needs to be parked in yesteryear.

yappysnap wrote:Media are saying Gatland is the man with the job, can't help but feel he's the only guy who'd take it.

Oh well we were never going to win anyway.

Pot Hale wrote:It would appear that Gatland is Last Man Standing when the music got switched off.

He's due to be announced as lions coach on 7 Sept and will take an immediate sabbatical from his Welsh role.  

He probably needs one after the mauling in June.   English Asst coaches to likely join him including Borthwick and Farrell.  

funnyExiledScot wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:How do you guys feel about a reconstituted Celtic Lions minus us english?

Its just we've got a world cup to win and realistically the Lions gig is an old hat side show that needs to be parked in yesteryear.

I'd just worry about getting out of the group.