Warren Gatland announced as Lions coach

First topic message reminder :

Apparently, according to Ian McGeechan anyway Gatland has been given the job again.

TightHEAD wrote:Because when the England players get back they will be battered and bruised, and it will be for nothing if Gatland is in charge as his game plan and tactics don't work against SH opposition.

Ok, despite him being picked for being in charge of the first successful Lions tour since 1997, who would you have instead ?

munkian wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Because when the England players get back they will be battered and bruised, and it will be for nothing if Gatland is in charge as his game plan and tactics don't work against SH opposition.

Ok, despite him being picked for being in charge of the first successful Lions tour since 1997, who would you have instead ?

Someone/Anyone with a game plan that can beat the All Blacks, Warren Ball will fail miserably v NZ, as it always does.

Wazzer to be announced at noon today from their Facebook feed:
https://www.facebook.com/BritishandIrishLions/

I won't wade into the todger comparison exercise which seems to have occurred above - suffice to say that captain is hugely difficult as that player would need to be categorically nailed on as a test starter and there are very, very players in that position. If the Mighty Bombhead retains the head coach's slot, then the obvious presumption is that it will be Warbuton again, but I wouldn't necessarily support that because I don't believe that Warbs has had the chance to demonstrate clearly that he is pre-eminent NH openside.

I am actually worried that it might be Halfpenny - again, potentially the best goalkicker in the world (18 from 18 in the Top 14 so far this season) but we would hugely limit our ability to beat the Blacks without a Hogg, L Williams or Brown counter attacker at the back.

Tough. It might well be Robshaw. I wouldn't say no to Hartley provided he keeps taking his anger management medication.

TightHEAD wrote:I wouldn't go, its an outdated format that destroys players.

Well thats one potential captain ruled out

We can probably stop pretending it's going to be anyone other than Itoje after the AIs.

I hope no England players are taken, I'd rather rack up a couple of more Grand slams wins and build players confidence instead of subjecting them to a 3-0 series whitewash vs NZ and a few hard fought wins in warm up matches that don't matter.

Oh well, tough luck TH.

Player welfare means nothing to you then 7&1/2?

Yes it does. On another thread to this I've written about it, and there's better ways to go about it than axing the Lions as it would affect a small amount of total players. But there are existing threads on that.

TightHEAD wrote:Player welfare means nothing to you then 7&1/2?

Well, he was glad when Warburton was injured.

Was a fortunate injury that helped the Lions overall.

Shocking behavior wishing an injury on someone.

I'd agree. No one has here.

Yup, just wanted to check on the fact that it was you TightHead who wanted to see players targted for injury and it was. Feel free to check his posting history for proof.

That's allowed as long as its done within the laws of the game and very different form wishing injury on someone. Don't be so soft.

NZ do it all the time btw. which is why I don't want England players down-under.

No, I haven't seen any team go out to systematically try and injure opposition players.

At the end of that other thread you also admitted to just wumming as well.

[quote="TightHEAD"]

munkian wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

Someone/Anyone with a game plan that can beat the All Blacks

Good luck finding anyone who guarantees that, or a coach who- on paper and in practice- has a seemingly a better chance than Gatland at doing that. Sport isn't an exact science, and winning isn't everything. You'd seriously rather not support the Lions and refuse English players going on the Tour simply because they might lose?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Was a fortunate injury that helped the Lions overall.

That's a pretty disgraceful statement, even from the comfort of an armchair. Really not in keeping with the ethos of the game, particularly as it is merely your subjective opinion that the team became better when Warburton was unavailable.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No, I haven't seen any team go out to systematically try and injure opposition players.

You haven't watched/played much rugby then, targeting players weaknesses is done every time you cross the white line as long as you've done your homework that is.

miaow wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

munkian wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

Someone/Anyone with a game plan that can beat the All Blacks

Good luck finding anyone who guarantees that, or a coach who- on paper and in practice- has a seemingly a better chance than Gatland at doing that. Sport isn't an exact science, and winning isn't everything. You'd seriously rather not support the Lions and refuse English players going on the Tour simply because they might lose?

.

Yep, the whole Lions tour schedule, dates and timings are all geared so that they win. so yes I'd rather no England player toured this time

TightHEAD wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No, I haven't seen any team go out to systematically try and injure opposition players.

You haven't watched/played much rugby then, targeting players weaknesses is done every time you cross the white line as long as you've done your homework that is.

But not targeting them for injury but like you said you were just wumming.

miaow wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

munkian wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

Someone/Anyone with a game plan that can beat the All Blacks

Good luck finding anyone who guarantees that, or a coach who- on paper and in practice- has a seemingly a better chance than Gatland at doing that. Sport isn't an exact science, and winning isn't everything. You'd seriously rather not support the Lions and refuse English players going on the Tour simply because they might lose?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Was a fortunate injury that helped the Lions overall.

That's a pretty disgraceful statement, even from the comfort of an armchair. Really not in keeping with the ethos of the game, particularly as it is merely your subjective opinion that the team became better when Warburton was unavailable.

Why is it disgraceful?

Its low!

TightHEAD wrote:

miaow wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

munkian wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

Someone/Anyone with a game plan that can beat the All Blacks

Good luck finding anyone who guarantees that, or a coach who- on paper and in practice- has a seemingly a better chance than Gatland at doing that. Sport isn't an exact science, and winning isn't everything. You'd seriously rather not support the Lions and refuse English players going on the Tour simply because they might lose?

.

Yep, the whole Lions tour schedule, dates and timings are all geared so that they win. so yes I'd rather no England player toured this time

The only end result from this charade is a big cash injection for the NZ rugby union which is to use an understatement strapped for cash, a whole plethora of injuries given the nonsensical schedule NZ proposed and Lions management meekly agreed to, and NZ winning the series easily no doubt by 3-0. There's a RWC in 2019 and from an Irish point of view (and I'd imagine Eng. Sco and Wal) it would make far more sense to go on a tour where preparations for RWC can begin, blood some new players etc, try new systems etc - than be involved in a tour like the Lions with its ludicrous schedule.

And it really makes my blood boil when I hear Irish players (Bowe I think the most recent) go on about the Lions being the ultimate accolade for a player. Bullsh1te, the ultimate accolade for any player - Irish or anybody else - should be pulling on his own national colours, hearing his own anthem and fighting like hell to beat the opposition.

TightHEAD wrote:Its low!

Why?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Its low!

Why?

Wishing injuries on underperforming players goes against all the values Rugby Union stands for imo.

TightHEAD wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Its low!

Why?

Wishing injuries on underperforming players goes against all the values Rugby Union stands for imo.

Yeah I'd agree like I said but that's not what I stated. I said it was fortunate that Warburton was injured ie a judgment on the consequence to the team after his injury.

Though you yourself hoped that your team would go out and target opposition players for injury.

TightHEAD wrote:

miaow wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

munkian wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

Someone/Anyone with a game plan that can beat the All Blacks

Good luck finding anyone who guarantees that, or a coach who- on paper and in practice- has a seemingly a better chance than Gatland at doing that. Sport isn't an exact science, and winning isn't everything. You'd seriously rather not support the Lions and refuse English players going on the Tour simply because they might lose?

.

Yep, the whole Lions tour schedule, dates and timings are all geared so that they win. so yes I'd rather no England player toured this time

You're missing the point. Sport isn't solely about the 'bottom line' result, i.e. the scoreline. Where do you draw the line? If they were playing Australia, who are far weaker than NZ, would the English players tour? How many raw eggs would the Lions have to take with them to guarantee the All Blacks Test team suffered from food poisoning? If it's merely because the Lions face a tough ask in winning, what does it take for you to support them tour? Or, at least, what would it take for you to support the tour from the distance of a year out: I'd be amazed if you refused to watch or engage with anything from the Lions Tour when it comes around next Summer.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why is it disgraceful?

Have you played the game? How many people- at whatever level- have you known who have either had to cut back or stop playing rugby completely because of injury? I'd suggest with a comment like that, with the complete lack of sympathy you've shown, you probably have very little experience at all. The effects of an injury can be devastating, and wishing it on anyone, or celebrating it, is pretty diabolical behaviour, completely against the unwritten code of rugby. You sound like an armchair, fantasy rugby fan, glad that SOB can come in because he might possibly be able to add something different to the team based on your opinion. Fine. That has its place in the modern world where rugby is a commodity for the distant, removed spectator. But don't then play dumb when your opinion is called out for what it is; disgraceful, uninformed, and completely lacking in regard for the very serious and very real danger that injuring yourself on the rugby field can bring.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Was a fortunate injury...

miaow wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

miaow wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

munkian wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

Someone/Anyone with a game plan that can beat the All Blacks

Good luck finding anyone who guarantees that, or a coach who- on paper and in practice- has a seemingly a better chance than Gatland at doing that. Sport isn't an exact science, and winning isn't everything. You'd seriously rather not support the Lions and refuse English players going on the Tour simply because they might lose?

.

Yep, the whole Lions tour schedule, dates and timings are all geared so that they win. so yes I'd rather no England player toured this time

You're missing the point. Sport isn't solely about the 'bottom line' result, i.e. the scoreline. Where do you draw the line? If they were playing Australia, who are far weaker than NZ, would the English players tour? How many raw eggs would the Lions have to take with them to guarantee the All Blacks Test team suffered from food poisoning? If it's merely because the Lions face a tough ask in winning, what does it take for you to support them tour? Or, at least, what would it take for you to support the tour from the distance of a year out: I'd be amazed if you refused to watch or engage with anything from the Lions Tour when it comes around next Summer.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why is it disgraceful?

Have you played the game? How many people- at whatever level- have you known who have either had to cut back or stop playing rugby completely because of injury? I'd suggest with a comment like that, with the complete lack of sympathy you've shown, you probably have very little experience at all. The effects of an injury can be devastating, and wishing it on anyone, or celebrating it, is pretty diabolical behaviour, completely against the unwritten code of rugby. You sound like an armchair, fantasy rugby fan, glad that SOB can come in because he might possibly be able to add something different to the team based on your opinion. Fine. That has its place in the modern world where rugby is a commodity for the distant, removed spectator. But don't then play dumb when your opinion is called out for what it is; disgraceful, uninformed, and completely lacking in regard for the very serious and very real danger that injuring yourself on the rugby field can bring.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Was a fortunate injury...

Never wished an injury on anyone, simply making a judgment on the team after it. So get over it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Though you yourself hoped that your team would go out and target opposition players for injury.

Weaknesses. get it right!

Like I said you admitted to wumming over it in the end. Bump that topic back up if you like.

brennomac wrote:
And it really makes my blood boil when I hear Irish players (Bowe I think the most recent) go on about the Lions being the ultimate accolade for a player. Bullsh1te, the ultimate accolade for any player - Irish or anybody else - should be pulling on his own national colours, hearing his own anthem and fighting like hell to beat the opposition.  

Until you're a professional rugby player, you simply cannot contradict him. As the Lions is far more exclusive, and far harder to be selected for, than each of the four national teams, then it is understandable that- from a professional perspective- it is indeed a far greater accomplishment. The infrequency with which they come around as well makes it even harder to call yourself a Lion, let alone a Test Lion. It puts you in very exclusive company.

Now, the matter of whether it means more than playing for their country is another one. There are all sorts of things that go into this, and indentity, childhood expectations and dreams all come into this, and I think for most 'indigenous' players, playing for the national side has at least a different, perhaps more 'full' feeling of pride if not 'better', per se, than playing for the Lions. But then what about Jared Payne, or any other 'non-indigenous' import? Can we really say that, if he were to be selected for the Lions, playing for Ireland would trump the experience, that it would mean more to him? You're entering murky waters there, and making the mistake of applying the fans' national logic to a game that is becoming increasingly 'professional', i.e. the importance of solid things like identity are being blurred on the basis of performance, according to the current rules of what qualifies someone for international rugby.

My biggest issue, and fear for this tour, is purely parochial.

In 2001 Henry broke a number of England players.
In 2005 Woodward almost broke the Lions.
In 2009 Geech broke Stephen Ferris
In 2013 Gatland broke Ben Youngs and Manu*

Who will be broken on this tour?


*Youngs was selected for the second test, despite carrying an injury so that Mike Phillips could rest his injury. It was late in the 2013/14 season that Lenny fully recovered.
Manu had a shoulder injury yet was selected on the bench to facilitate Gats tough stance on BOD (note I agree with JD2 being selected, just not the manner in which Fats chose to do it). This directly led to the massive pec injury that ruled Manu out for a year.


The tour is brutal, the first 3 franchises will be at full strength, it comes far to close to the end of the NH season yet will not give the elite players sufficient rest before the 2017/18 season starts and the non-stop rush towards RWC 19. I love the Lions tours, but no longer want them in the calendar.

miaow wrote:

brennomac wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:
And it really makes my blood boil when I hear Irish players (Bowe I think the most recent) go on about the Lions being the ultimate accolade for a player. Bullsh1te, the ultimate accolade for any player - Irish or anybody else - should be pulling on his own national colours, hearing his own anthem and fighting like hell to beat the opposition.  

Until you're a professional rugby player, you simply cannot contradict him. As the Lions is far more exclusive, and far harder to be selected for, than each of the four national teams, then it is understandable that- from a professional perspective- it is indeed a far greater accomplishment. The infrequency with which they come around as well makes it even harder to call yourself a Lion, let alone a Test Lion. It puts you in very exclusive company.

Now, the matter of whether it means more than playing for their country is another one. There are all sorts of things that go into this, and indentity, childhood expectations and dreams all come into this, and I think for most 'indigenous' players, playing for the national side has at least a different, perhaps more 'full' feeling of pride if not 'better', per se, than playing for the Lions. But then what about Jared Payne, or any other 'non-indigenous' import? Can we really say that, if he were to be selected for the Lions, playing for Ireland would trump the experience, that it would mean more to him? You're entering murky waters there, and making the mistake of applying the fans' national logic to a game that is becoming increasingly 'professional', i.e. the importance of solid things like identity are being blurred on the basis of performance, according to the current rules of what qualifies someone for international rugby.

I didn't write that!!!!!

LondonTiger wrote:My biggest issue, and fear for this tour, is purely parochial.

In 2001 Henry broke a number of England players.
In 2005 Woodward almost broke the Lions.
In 2009 Geech broke Stephen Ferris
In 2013 Gatland broke Ben Youngs and Manu*

Who will be broken on this tour?


*Youngs was selected for the second test, despite carrying an injury so that Mike Phillips could rest his injury. It was late in the 2013/14 season that Lenny fully recovered.
Manu had a shoulder injury yet was selected on the bench to facilitate Gats tough stance on BOD (note I agree with JD2 being selected, just not the manner in which Fats chose to do it). This directly led to the massive pec injury that ruled Manu out for a year.


The tour is brutal, the first 3 franchises will be at full strength, it comes far to close to the end of the NH season yet will not give the elite players sufficient rest before the 2017/18 season starts and the non-stop rush towards RWC 19. I love the Lions tours, but no longer want them in the calendar.

100% agree

No 7&1/2 wrote:Never wished an injury on anyone, simply making a judgment on the team after it. So get over it.

Not explicitly, but you were most definitely celebrating it, which is as bad.

miaow wrote:The effects of an injury can be devastating, and wishing it on anyone, or celebrating it, is pretty diabolical behaviour, completely against the unwritten code of rugby...

There's a way of stating that the team improved after Warburton's injury, and you did not do that. You don't gloat, and refer to an injury as 'fortunate', unless you're celebrating an injury. I understand the petty partisanship here on 606, and how the internet can make you lose perspective, but that doesn't excuse you betraying the values of the game in order to goad a few Welsh posters, intentionally or otherwise.

Don't worry, I'm "over it" (...? ), I'm just addressing why your comment was disgraceful, as you seemed interested in me filling you in on why that was a short while ago. It just means that your opinion on rugby cannot be taken seriously, because you'd rather revel in the injury of a player, to treat them as disposable commodities in the internet world of fantasy, opinion based rugby, than adhere to the very human code of respect that exists in rugby. As I said, that's fine, modern sport encourages those sort of armchair fans, but don't expect to be taken seriously when you posit your opinion on the Lions, or any other topic.

LondonTiger wrote:My biggest issue, and fear for this tour, is purely parochial.

In 2001 Henry broke a number of England players.
In 2005 Woodward almost broke the Lions.
In 2009 Geech broke Stephen Ferris
In 2013 Gatland broke Ben Youngs and Manu*

Who will be broken on this tour?


*Youngs was selected for the second test, despite carrying an injury so that Mike Phillips could rest his injury. It was late in the 2013/14 season that Lenny fully recovered.
Manu had a shoulder injury yet was selected on the bench to facilitate Gats tough stance on BOD (note I agree with JD2 being selected, just not the manner in which Fats chose to do it). This directly led to the massive pec injury that ruled Manu out for a year.


The tour is brutal, the first 3 franchises will be at full strength, it comes far to close to the end of the NH season yet will not give the elite players sufficient rest before the 2017/18 season starts and the non-stop rush towards RWC 19. I love the Lions tours, but no longer want them in the calendar.

Well said.

LondonTiger wrote:My biggest issue, and fear for this tour, is purely parochial.

In 2001 Henry broke a number of England players.
In 2005 Woodward almost broke the Lions.
In 2009 Geech broke Stephen Ferris
In 2013 Gatland broke Ben Youngs and Manu*

Who will be broken on this tour?

I don't disagree with this, aside from the slightly simplikstic rendering of the Head Coach being directly/solely responsible for each player being "broken", per se, but that doesn't seem like a particularly unacceptable loss to injury considering the number of games played, the large size of the squad, and the standard of rugby that the Tour demands.

It would be interesting to see each of the four countries' record with regards to World Cups, and see how many players suffered from serious injury set backs, or even career affecting/ending ones, as a result of the run up and duration of a RWC. I'd say it's probably somewhat similar, in which case- as you've alluded to- it's just parochial bias coming in to play; an injury of your country's player for the Lions means "less" than if they were putting their body on the line in striving for victory for their country.

If someone has the time to record their country's significant injuries as a result of World Cups, that would be good, but going on purely anecdotal, off the top of my head evidence of the last World Cup, Halfpenny hasn't played international rugby since the warm up games, over a year ago. I'm hazard a guess that there are more for Wales alone in previous World Cups.

I think World Cups are probably just as damaging as Lions Tours in that a couple of players have long lay offs in the aftermath of them, such is the demand of the competition, and the rush to get them fit for it. As such, I'm not sure it's a valid reason in and of itself to end the Lions, or to disparage it as if it's something of an anomaly. There have also only been 5 in the professional era, and I'm sure mistakes will be learnt from. Expect a much larger squad this time than 4 years ago to deal with the gruelling schedule they have laid out ahead of them.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Also, and I will say this now. I do not think we will be fortunate to lose anybody through injury. That really is a nasty thing to say.

Why? Even at the time it was seen as a blessing in disguise.

What kind of sicko see's a person's misfortune as a whole nations fortune ? I would not see any players injury as fortunate, to anyone.

In relation to the 3rd test it was fortunnate as it had become obvious he was undroppable. Without that its doubtful we would have seen the change.

What difference would have dropping Warburton or not have made ? SOB was not the sole reason why 10/11 Welsh players, along with a few other put 41pts on Australia.

Simple experimental evidence. 10/11 welsh players + 5/4 more welsh players = no wins over Australia for ages and ages and ages

10/11 welsh players plus 5/4 non welsh = 2-1 series win

That would seem to suggest where the difference between winning and losing might lie...

(And must not mention that 15 English - or X english + Y mercenaries if you are that way inclined = 3-0 series win over Aus)

I'd be quite happy if no English players went. We did the arguments over the last Lions to death last time, and no a close series victory does not mean that the team selections cannot be criticized either.

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Never wished an injury on anyone, simply making a judgment on the team after it. So get over it.

Not explicitly, but you were most definitely celebrating it, which is as bad.

miaow wrote:The effects of an injury can be devastating, and wishing it on anyone, or celebrating it, is pretty diabolical behaviour, completely against the unwritten code of rugby...

There's a way of stating that the team improved after Warburton's injury, and you did not do that. You don't gloat, and refer to an injury as 'fortunate', unless you're celebrating an injury. I understand the petty partisanship here on 606, and how the internet can make you lose perspective, but that doesn't excuse you betraying the values of the game in order to goad a few Welsh posters, intentionally or otherwise.

Don't worry, I'm "over it" (...? ), I'm just addressing why your comment was disgraceful, as you seemed interested in me filling you in on why that was a short while ago. It just means that your opinion on rugby cannot be taken seriously, because you'd rather revel in the injury of a player, to treat them as disposable commodities in the internet world of fantasy, opinion based rugby, than adhere to the very human code of respect that exists in rugby. As I said, that's fine, modern sport encourages those sort of armchair fans, but don't expect to be taken seriously when you posit your opinion on the Lions, or any other topic.

Not really something you can celebrate but it is certainly something which you can judge the impact on surely? I'm simply saying it benefitted the team to have SOB and no Warburton. I'm assuming you wouldn't mind assessing the differing impacts of the players even if some would agree SOB was better for the team; the fact that the change came about because of injury is fortunate as it bebenfitted the team and Warburton wasn't going to be dropped for his below par performances (while admittedly coming back from injury).

Gatland confirmed.
https://twitter.com/lionsofficial

Can't recall a more anticlimactic 'announcement' recently.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm simply saying it benefitted the team to have SOB and no Warburton

How ?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not really something you can celebrate but it is certainly something which you can judge the impact on surely? I'm simply saying it benefitted the team to have SOB and no Warburton.

I don't think you were, and I think you know you weren't as well, there was far more loaded into your use of language and tone, and I think being reductive now doesn't amend the fact.

Some interesting quotes from Gatland plucked from his interview which perhaps signal there won't be a grand upheaval in terms of playing and coaching personnel from the last Tour, or perhaps that continuity in terms of country- i.e. coaching and positional units- will be selected instead of hoping to forge a partnership in certain positions comprised of players from differing nations.

Warren Gatland wrote:"We've got some talented players with some experience as well.

"There is a limited amount of preparation time, so some continuity is important.

Could be reading too much into the sort of banal management type speech, as he then counters this:

Warren Gatland wrote:"It is also important you get some fresh faces and some fresh ideas as well."

But yeah, interesting. 13 Welsh players in the Test 23 again?

Better balance in the backrow and Warburton was off form. Should never have been picked.

Blimey, this miaow character takes himself very seriously

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not really something you can celebrate but it is certainly something which you can judge the impact on surely? I'm simply saying it benefitted the team to have SOB and no Warburton.

I don't think you were, and I think you know you weren't as well, there was far more loaded into your use of language and tone, and I think being reductive now doesn't amend the fact.

Some interesting quotes from Gatland plucked from his interview which perhaps signal there won't be a grand upheaval in terms of playing and coaching personnel from the last Tour, or perhaps that continuity in terms of country- i.e. coaching and positional units- will be selected instead of hoping to forge a partnership in certain positions comprised of players from differing nations.

Warren Gatland wrote:"We've got some talented players with some experience as well.

"There is a limited amount of preparation time, so some continuity is important.

Could be reading too much into the sort of banal management type speech, as he then counters this:

Warren Gatland wrote:"It is also important you get some fresh faces and some fresh ideas as well."

But yeah, interesting. 13 Welsh players in the Test 23 again?

No, there are a few looking ulterior motives though. And yes from those comments Gatland will go in the same and maybe improve as we go through the tests.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Better balance in the backrow and Warburton was off form. Should never have been picked.

So, nothing to do with not picking BOD ?

Do you think Warburton going off in the second test cost us ? It must have made a difference, as you have already implied.

I think it was more down to not picking the following players BOD,Mako Vunipola,Tom Youngs, Jamie Heaslip.

Yet you seem to think the sole contributing fact was the "fortunate" injury of Sam Warburton.

You sir are a true class act.

Cyril wrote:Blimey, this miaow character takes himself very seriously

Tell me about it.