Warren Gatland announced as Lions coach

First topic message reminder :

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

Sin é wrote:Surprise, surprise the British press select a British player for a position.

Definitely starting to sound like a conspiracy.

Could it be that not everyone is as factional on national borders are you? Could it be that pundits (not Stephen Jones the journalist, the fool) use their professional knowledge to make what they believe to be a measured and informed opinion, and not one that simply bigs up their own nation's players? There are those who do it, of course, particularly from recently retired players who don't want to upset their former teammates, but generally, and pundit worth their salt should select honestly. I see no national bias in selecting Byrne over Kearney. Both were very similar, big left booted players in great form during that time, but don't think the fact Kearney's employment with Leinster and their success should tip the scales of history in his favour, and that anyone suggesting otherwise was a nationalist and a liar.

beshocked wrote:miaow 15 tries in 42 appearances for Cuthbert for Wales.

Strike rate of 36% makes Cuthbert one of the best finishers in world rugby really?

On the contrary I would say that Wales with stuck with him for too long.

I rate cuthbert to be fair. He's limited but he's very effective in what he does.

Cuthbert vs. North

Cuthbert

9 tries in 25 vs. 3N + FRA & ENG or 36%.
7 tries in 17 vs other sides or 41%.

North

13 tries in 36 vs. 3N + FRA & ENG or 36%.
16 tries in 29 vs. other sides or 55%

Against the big sides they have equal records. Its only vs. the lesser sides that North extends his record. He has 10 tries in 12 matches vs. the baa baas (that MW test), Italy, Samoa, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga. Against the same opposition Cuthbert has 4 in 7.

As limited as Cuthbert is, hes the sort of guy I'd have around the 23.. let others bash teams up and then bring him on with 25 to go to finish them off.. and stick him furthest away from contact in defence.

Do you reckon we'll be in good stead if Gatland thinks we can get by with a player obviously struggling with form and fitness against NZ, over others who are in better shape?

North, is just a much better player than Cuthbert. Lies, damn lies and stats.

No 7&1/2 wrote:North, is just a much better player than Cuthbert. Lies, damn lies and stats.

Didn't say he wasn't. I said that I think Cuthbert has his merits and is pretty lethal in attack. You feel at times people go a little goo goo eyes for North, he is often very quiet in games but then now and again does something remarkable.

Hmm, wouldn't personally have Cuthbert in my squad at all, but I have North pencilled in already. Probably opposite to Watson.

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Bryne and Kearney were both very close to each other. Bryne was probably form 15 going into tour. Kearney was just breaking through as a top class player. Not surprised Bryne got the nod, not surprised Kearney did well when Bryne got injured.

How can you judge Byrne being the form fullback going into the tour when the only rugby he played prior to the tour (between March & June)was about about 140 mins (v. Edinburgh & Dragons)?

I've no doubt that Byrne was selected on reputation rather than form.

6 Nations? AI series? All that same season... Byrne went off injured against you btw, his ankle injury that would eventually end his career in rugby union. Wales made a mistake by not having Halfpenny in the team that day, the one-dimensional Mark Jones was selected instead.

The AI's om 2008 he was standout if I recall. I can't remember much complaints at the time over his selection. Not sure why its being used as an example as he was in his pomp at the time.

Every nation can be seen as having favoritism. Every nation can be seen as having nightmare players on tour i.e. Vickery, Bryne, Earls, Powell, Hook, Peters, Wright, Wallace

But Bryne vs. Kearney.... hardly clear cut.

Final point on Byrne, perhaps it's easy for non Welsh fans to forget how absolutely mercurial he was in his link up and understanding with Shane Williams. Now, the Lions Tour in '09 was a rare blip of form for Shane, and it was unfortunate, because in the few years leading up to his World Player of the Year award in '08, and then the 18 months subequently, he was fantastic. Gatland saw his value, and relied on him because he knew what he could bring. It was a risk on an out of form player, but one with such incredible pedigree, that it seemed to make sense. However, it was ultimately the "wrong" decision, as he never recaptured his form, despite his tries in the final Test. However, the way Byrne worked in tandem with Shane may well have helped Shane play a little better, and may well have given Byrne an edge of Kearney, who at that point seemed to be something of a flipped coin with Byrne if I recall as to who would play: the current 6N winning full back, or last year's 6N winning full back, both with a huge left boot, great in the air, and good running game (perhaps Byrne edged the last point).

fa0019 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Because Lee Byrne was the starter?

Why would he have been regarded as the starter? He had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup! He was the one who was expected to start (particularly with Luke Fitz & Tommy Bowe on the wings).

Oh and I forgot - the indulgence that a totally out of form Shane Williams was ridiculous on the 2009 tour.

Here you go. Next.

Fitzgerald was a complete joke of a selection. I don't even think an Irish fan could have claimed as such.

Not as much of a joke as Shane Williams though who they persisted with trying to get him into form. Luke wouldn't have got a sniff except that Shane Williams form had fallen over a cliff. Still, they persisted in trying to get him into form. He played 8 out of the 10 games of the tour.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hmm, wouldn't personally have Cuthbert in my squad at all, but I have North pencilled in already. Probably opposite to Watson.

Any thoughts on Tommy Seymour. I think his game suits playing in NZ to the ground.

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Because Lee Byrne was the starter?

Why would he have been regarded as the starter? He had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup! He was the one who was expected to start (particularly with Luke Fitz & Tommy Bowe on the wings).

Oh and I forgot - the indulgence that a totally out of form Shane Williams was ridiculous on the 2009 tour.

Here you go. Next.

Fitzgerald was a complete joke of a selection. I don't even think an Irish fan could have claimed as such.

Not as much of a joke as Shane Williams though who they persisted with trying to get him into form. Luke wouldn't have got a sniff except that Shane Williams form had fallen over a cliff. Still, they persisted in trying to get him into form. He played 8 out of the 10 games of the tour.

Totally off form... judged vs. C grade SA based club sides.

Scores 2 tries in first half of final test.

Gooseberry wrote:It would be lolz if Gatland picked a Welsh lad that Howley had overlooked for the 6 nations

I reckon it's more likely to be the other way round. Howley could select James Davies, only for Gatland to never pick him again until he leaves in 2019.

TJ wrote:Mieow - yes I would say the captain has to be a definite starter in his position and nailed on at that.  We have all too often seen the consequences of picking a captain then having to find them a place in the team.

Ok then, let's say in a hypothetical situation the only "nailed on" player is someone with no leadership abilities, has never captained their country, but is one or two notches better than their positional competition: someone like Jason Robinson. Do you really make him Tour captain?

miaow wrote:

Sin é wrote:Surprise, surprise the British press select a British player for a position.

Definitely starting to sound like a conspiracy.

Could it be that not everyone is as factional on national borders are you? Could it be that pundits (not Stephen Jones the journalist, the fool) use their professional knowledge to make what they believe to be a measured and informed opinion, and not one that simply bigs up their own nation's players? There are those who do it, of course, particularly from recently retired players who don't want to upset their former teammates, but generally, and pundit worth their salt should select honestly. I see no national bias in selecting Byrne over Kearney. Both were very similar, big left booted players in great form during that time, but don't think the fact Kearney's employment with Leinster and their success should tip the scales of history in his favour, and that anyone suggesting otherwise was a nationalist and a liar.

You seem to be a bit defensive here. The argument about Kearney is whether he was a bolter for the 2009 tour.

He wasn't because he had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup. No one should have been surprised to see him starting v. SA as his form was good, he was the best in the world under the high ball and unlike Byrne, he hadn't been injured for the previous 2 months or so.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hmm, wouldn't personally have Cuthbert in my squad at all, but I have North pencilled in already. Probably opposite to Watson.

Any thoughts on Tommy Seymour. I think his game suits playing in NZ to the ground.

Seymour has started the season in wonderful form (6 tries in two games) and had a cracking season for Scotland last year (and a strong World Cup). We're probably all getting a bit tired already of posters relentlessly advocating their own, but I genuinely believe that there's a case for Tommy Seymour. He also works nicely with Stuart Hogg, a player most neutrals suggest is the Scot most likely to tour.

Still, if you had to make a case against Seymour, his defence isn't always what it should be. Not lacking in commitment, in fact probably the opposite. He likes an interception and can, on occasion, be caught out. You can coach that out of him, but then you lose one of the mercurial aspects of his game.

beshocked wrote:miaow 15 tries in 42 appearances for Cuthbert for Wales.

Strike rate of 36% makes Cuthbert one of the best finishers in world rugby really?

On the contrary I would say that Wales with stuck with him for too long.

You're falling into the statsman trap. So much is conditional on how many times he receives the ball, in what position, what is demanded of him, whether the team tries to win games by solely scoring tries (not Wales), or values penalty kicks at goal (Wales for most of Cuthbert's career).

I say he's one of the best finishers at a very specific kind of try:

miaow wrote:[...]despite the fact he is deficient in almost all rugby playing skills, with ball in hand and some space to get up to speed, he's one of the best finishers in World Rugby. He doesn't have a step, he doesn't have a hand off, he has something of a swerve, but he can score some incredible tries.

The point is, there are very few people who can score the tries that Cuthbert did (look at his try for the Lions vs. Aus, his try in the first Test against SA in 2014 (Summer Test) because of his acceleration and pace. The point is, he can score tries from very marginal 'opportunities'; that's what makes him so useful in the professional game, where taking marginal chances is what it's all about for a coach like Cuthbert. Do it consistently, and you're his golden child (Halfpenny).

This is in no way justifying the fact that Gatland stuck with him. I think his weaknesses outweigh his strengths, and he was too much of a liability to select. That said, when he scores a try like the two mentioned above, which he does still do from time to time, it's a pretty glorious thing to se (you can add the first try against England in 2013 there as well: not many wingers would have got round Mike Brown in that position relying on their pace alone).

fa0019 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Because Lee Byrne was the starter?

Why would he have been regarded as the starter? He had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup! He was the one who was expected to start (particularly with Luke Fitz & Tommy Bowe on the wings).

Oh and I forgot - the indulgence that a totally out of form Shane Williams was ridiculous on the 2009 tour.

Here you go. Next.

Fitzgerald was a complete joke of a selection. I don't even think an Irish fan could have claimed as such.

Not as much of a joke as Shane Williams though who they persisted with trying to get him into form. Luke wouldn't have got a sniff except that Shane Williams form had fallen over a cliff. Still, they persisted in trying to get him into form. He played 8 out of the 10 games of the tour.

Totally off form... judged vs. C grade SA based club sides.

Scores 2 tries in first half of final test.

Yea, it took 7 games to get him into form (against an SA side who could not be arsed at that stage).

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Because Lee Byrne was the starter?

Why would he have been regarded as the starter? He had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup! He was the one who was expected to start (particularly with Luke Fitz & Tommy Bowe on the wings).

Oh and I forgot - the indulgence that a totally out of form Shane Williams was ridiculous on the 2009 tour.

Here you go. Next.

Fitzgerald was a complete joke of a selection. I don't even think an Irish fan could have claimed as such.

Not as much of a joke as Shane Williams though who they persisted with trying to get him into form. Luke wouldn't have got a sniff except that Shane Williams form had fallen over a cliff. Still, they persisted in trying to get him into form. He played 8 out of the 10 games of the tour.

Totally off form... judged vs. C grade SA based club sides.

Scores 2 tries in first half of final test.

Yea, it took 7 games to get him into form (against an SA side who could not be arsed at that stage).

To be honest I don't think the Lions were set up for him. They played quite a direct game and didn't really create that much. People always expect such players to make their own tries from nothing which I think is a little unfair.

Sin é wrote:

miaow wrote:

Sin é wrote:Surprise, surprise the British press select a British player for a position.

Definitely starting to sound like a conspiracy.

Could it be that not everyone is as factional on national borders are you? Could it be that pundits (not Stephen Jones the journalist, the fool) use their professional knowledge to make what they believe to be a measured and informed opinion, and not one that simply bigs up their own nation's players? There are those who do it, of course, particularly from recently retired players who don't want to upset their former teammates, but generally, and pundit worth their salt should select honestly. I see no national bias in selecting Byrne over Kearney. Both were very similar, big left booted players in great form during that time, but don't think the fact Kearney's employment with Leinster and their success should tip the scales of history in his favour, and that anyone suggesting otherwise was a nationalist and a liar.

You seem to be a bit defensive here. The argument about Kearney is whether he was a bolter for the 2009 tour.

He wasn't because he had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup. No one should have been surprised to see him starting v. SA as his form was good, he was the best in the world under the high ball and unlike Byrne, he hadn't been injured for the previous 2 months or so.

He didn't start. Lee Byrne did. Kearney got his opportunity because Byrne came off injured. The pundits widely predicted Byrne to start both before and during the tour (as I have demonstrated), and McGeechan obliged. When Byrne got injured, the second choice fullback came off the bench and played a blinder. A nice example of a Test XV outsider who came through to play a hugely influential part in the Test series.

Sin é wrote:Bearing in mind what POC just said, I'd be surprised if at the end of the tour most players would have known the gameplan inside out, though JD2 looked decidedly out of kilter when he was playing inside centre for the Lions due to Roberts injury.

There's a difference between knowing/understanding the gameplan, and the ability to execute it time after time to the required standards. After the 2008 Grand Slam, it took 3 years and a whole new generation of players to get it right for Wales.

I'd also hope you acknowledge that PoC is being both a bit tongue in cheek in damning Gatland with faint praise, whilst also oversimplifying for the public record: as you said with Wood, his opinions are subject to the medium and audience to which they are addressed. He's not going to add a caveat to include the more nuanced aspects of Gatland's tactics, and perhaps he doesn't know those nuances that Gatland employs for Wales. It's not as if he transplanted his tactics piece by piece for the Lions. It was, and will, only ever be a near approximation of the rugby that he tries to engender in his players.

JD2 isn't an inside centre, so I'm not surprised. That said, I thought he did pretty well considering he was played out of position. It clearly helped when he played in his preferred position.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you reckon we'll be in good stead if Gatland thinks we can get by with a player obviously struggling with form and fitness against NZ, over others who are in better shape?

Define better shape please. Would you pick the bodybuilder who plays for your local amateur club over a professional Home Nations player recently returned from injury?

fa0019 wrote:

As limited as Cuthbert is, hes the sort of guy I'd have around the 23.. let others bash teams up and then bring him on with 25 to go to finish them off.. and stick him furthest away from contact in defence.

I would agree, or at least be sympathetic to that point of view, as long as he didn't defend with his back, along with a whole host of other dreadful things that he does on a rugby field that I don't want to list, lest I break out into a cold sweat (look at Rory Best's try at the Aviva in 2014 I think?)

fa0019 wrote:Didn't say he wasn't. I said that I think Cuthbert has his merits and is pretty lethal in attack. You feel at times people go a little goo goo eyes for North, he is often very quiet in games but then now and again does something remarkable.

He's certainly given more credit or leeway than most, but that's because most people know his potential. If he continues at his current rate and performance for Wales, however, I think there will be a sense of underachivement come the end of his career (although I should add he looked very good prior to his injury down in NZ this Summer). It's a case of not wanting to break such a talent (think Henson, Hooketc. in the public eye, even Barry John) instead trying to encourage him, because there's an awareness of what he can do, and the player he could become. Also, he's a winger who scores great tries and makes great runs, and one of those from time to time is enough to suspend a crowd's ire. Cuthbert, on the other hand...everyone can see his weaknesses, and there's a presumption he will never be able to bridge the gap to become 'sufficient' as a player. That, and a few other things like his attitude, means he gets a fair bit of stick. But as I've said from the start, he's still capable of scoring glorious tries.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

miaow wrote:

Sin é wrote:Surprise, surprise the British press select a British player for a position.

Definitely starting to sound like a conspiracy.

Could it be that not everyone is as factional on national borders are you? Could it be that pundits (not Stephen Jones the journalist, the fool) use their professional knowledge to make what they believe to be a measured and informed opinion, and not one that simply bigs up their own nation's players? There are those who do it, of course, particularly from recently retired players who don't want to upset their former teammates, but generally, and pundit worth their salt should select honestly. I see no national bias in selecting Byrne over Kearney. Both were very similar, big left booted players in great form during that time, but don't think the fact Kearney's employment with Leinster and their success should tip the scales of history in his favour, and that anyone suggesting otherwise was a nationalist and a liar.

You seem to be a bit defensive here. The argument about Kearney is whether he was a bolter for the 2009 tour.

He wasn't because he had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup. No one should have been surprised to see him starting v. SA as his form was good, he was the best in the world under the high ball and unlike Byrne, he hadn't been injured for the previous 2 months or so.

He didn't start. Lee Byrne did. Kearney got his opportunity because Byrne came off injured. The pundits widely predicted Byrne to start both before and during the tour (as I have demonstrated), and McGeechan obliged. When Byrne got injured, the second choice fullback came off the bench and played a blinder. A nice example of a Test XV outsider who came through to play a hugely influential part in the Test series.

I know he didn't start. What I said was that no one SHOULD have been surprised to see Kearney start.

It gets better - it seems that the Wales management wanted an unfit Lee Byrne in the side to help an out of form Shane Williams get into form ...

Sin é wrote:

miaow wrote:

Sin é wrote:Surprise, surprise the British press select a British player for a position.

Definitely starting to sound like a conspiracy.

Could it be that not everyone is as factional on national borders are you? Could it be that pundits (not Stephen Jones the journalist, the fool) use their professional knowledge to make what they believe to be a measured and informed opinion, and not one that simply bigs up their own nation's players? There are those who do it, of course, particularly from recently retired players who don't want to upset their former teammates, but generally, and pundit worth their salt should select honestly. I see no national bias in selecting Byrne over Kearney. Both were very similar, big left booted players in great form during that time, but don't think the fact Kearney's employment with Leinster and their success should tip the scales of history in his favour, and that anyone suggesting otherwise was a nationalist and a liar.

You seem to be a bit defensive here. The argument about Kearney is whether he was a bolter for the 2009 tour.

He wasn't because he had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup. No one should have been surprised to see him starting v. SA as his form was good, he was the best in the world under the high ball and unlike Byrne, he hadn't been injured for the previous 2 months or so.

Not being argumentative here or anything, but that was definitely Byrne mate - not that I doubt Kearney under the high ball or anything.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

miaow wrote:

Sin é wrote:Surprise, surprise the British press select a British player for a position.

Definitely starting to sound like a conspiracy.

Could it be that not everyone is as factional on national borders are you? Could it be that pundits (not Stephen Jones the journalist, the fool) use their professional knowledge to make what they believe to be a measured and informed opinion, and not one that simply bigs up their own nation's players? There are those who do it, of course, particularly from recently retired players who don't want to upset their former teammates, but generally, and pundit worth their salt should select honestly. I see no national bias in selecting Byrne over Kearney. Both were very similar, big left booted players in great form during that time, but don't think the fact Kearney's employment with Leinster and their success should tip the scales of history in his favour, and that anyone suggesting otherwise was a nationalist and a liar.

You seem to be a bit defensive here. The argument about Kearney is whether he was a bolter for the 2009 tour.

He wasn't because he had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup. No one should have been surprised to see him starting v. SA as his form was good, he was the best in the world under the high ball and unlike Byrne, he hadn't been injured for the previous 2 months or so.

Not being argumentative here or anything, but that was definitely Byrne mate - not that I doubt Kearney under the high ball or anything.

added to that... did Rob ever get signed to the cash for gold TV campaign? I think not... case closed.

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

miaow wrote:

Sin é wrote:Surprise, surprise the British press select a British player for a position.

Definitely starting to sound like a conspiracy.

Could it be that not everyone is as factional on national borders are you? Could it be that pundits (not Stephen Jones the journalist, the fool) use their professional knowledge to make what they believe to be a measured and informed opinion, and not one that simply bigs up their own nation's players? There are those who do it, of course, particularly from recently retired players who don't want to upset their former teammates, but generally, and pundit worth their salt should select honestly. I see no national bias in selecting Byrne over Kearney. Both were very similar, big left booted players in great form during that time, but don't think the fact Kearney's employment with Leinster and their success should tip the scales of history in his favour, and that anyone suggesting otherwise was a nationalist and a liar.

You seem to be a bit defensive here. The argument about Kearney is whether he was a bolter for the 2009 tour.

He wasn't because he had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup. No one should have been surprised to see him starting v. SA as his form was good, he was the best in the world under the high ball and unlike Byrne, he hadn't been injured for the previous 2 months or so.

He didn't start. Lee Byrne did. Kearney got his opportunity because Byrne came off injured. The pundits widely predicted Byrne to start both before and during the tour (as I have demonstrated), and McGeechan obliged. When Byrne got injured, the second choice fullback came off the bench and played a blinder. A nice example of a Test XV outsider who came through to play a hugely influential part in the Test series.

I know he didn't start. What I said was that no one SHOULD have been surprised to see Kearney start.

It gets better - it seems that the Wales management wanted an unfit Lee Byrne in the side to help an out of form Shane Williams get into form ...

I wasn't surprised. What was surprising was that Kearney had to rely on Stephen Jones to make him look good .

Sin é wrote:Not as much of a joke as Shane Williams though who they persisted with trying to get him into form. Luke wouldn't have got a sniff except that Shane Williams form had fallen over a cliff. Still, they persisted in trying to get him into form. He played 8 out of the 10 games of the tour.

Shane Williams was a World Player of the Year, one of the top try scorers of all time, and will go down as a Welsh and Rugby great.

Whilst I don't wish to disaparage a player who has had their career cut short by injury, but wasn't the highlight of Fitzgerald's career being called up to that Lions Tour?

Do you see why perhaps there might be a discrepancy in the way both players are handled?

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

miaow wrote:

Sin é wrote:Surprise, surprise the British press select a British player for a position.

Definitely starting to sound like a conspiracy.

Could it be that not everyone is as factional on national borders are you? Could it be that pundits (not Stephen Jones the journalist, the fool) use their professional knowledge to make what they believe to be a measured and informed opinion, and not one that simply bigs up their own nation's players? There are those who do it, of course, particularly from recently retired players who don't want to upset their former teammates, but generally, and pundit worth their salt should select honestly. I see no national bias in selecting Byrne over Kearney. Both were very similar, big left booted players in great form during that time, but don't think the fact Kearney's employment with Leinster and their success should tip the scales of history in his favour, and that anyone suggesting otherwise was a nationalist and a liar.

You seem to be a bit defensive here. The argument about Kearney is whether he was a bolter for the 2009 tour.

He wasn't because he had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup. No one should have been surprised to see him starting v. SA as his form was good, he was the best in the world under the high ball and unlike Byrne, he hadn't been injured for the previous 2 months or so.

He didn't start. Lee Byrne did. Kearney got his opportunity because Byrne came off injured. The pundits widely predicted Byrne to start both before and during the tour (as I have demonstrated), and McGeechan obliged. When Byrne got injured, the second choice fullback came off the bench and played a blinder. A nice example of a Test XV outsider who came through to play a hugely influential part in the Test series.

I know he didn't start. What I said was that no one SHOULD have been surprised to see Kearney start.

It gets better - it seems that the Wales management wanted an unfit Lee Byrne in the side to help an out of form Shane Williams get into form ...

Given Byrne was widely predicted to start, an almost unanimous choice among pundits, I think many WOULD have been surprised to see Kearney start, regardless of your opinion (which I'm afraid didn't make it into the mainstream media).

Still, I'd agree that no-one should have been surprised to see Kearney do such a good job. A very good fullback and a significant upgrade for Leinster and Ireland from the one dimensional plodder that was Girvan Dempsey.

miaow wrote:

Sin é wrote:Not as much of a joke as Shane Williams though who they persisted with trying to get him into form. Luke wouldn't have got a sniff except that Shane Williams form had fallen over a cliff. Still, they persisted in trying to get him into form. He played 8 out of the 10 games of the tour.

Shane Williams was a World Player of the Year, one of the top try scorers of all time, and will go down as a Welsh and Rugby great.

Whilst I don't wish to disaparage a player who has had their career cut short by injury, but wasn't the highlight of Fitzgerald's career being called up to that Lions Tour?

Do you see why perhaps there might be a discrepancy in the way both players are handled?

4 tries in his entire career. 2 of which came against Italy (the only tries he scored prior to the Lions tour in 12 tests during a high point of Irish rugby).

Sin é wrote:

He wasn't because he had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup. No one should have been surprised to see him starting v. SA as his form was good, he was the best in the world under the high ball and unlike Byrne, he hadn't been injured for the previous 2 months or so.

Just to play Devils advocate here. Byrne was very decent under the high ball, maybe not as good as Kearney in his prime but very good himself. One thing that Byrne had over Kearney was his last man defending which was much better than Kearney's. That has never been Kearney's strong spot.

I do believe that Kearney was in the better position to be the starter though as his form and match fitness showed but I can also understand Byrne being selected above him at the time. Some times credit in the bank for previous performances takes the lead. Just happy that Kearney did so well when given the chance. I think that tour was the making of him.

Sin é wrote:
You seem to be a bit defensive here. The argument about Kearney is whether he was a bolter for the 2009 tour.

He wasn't because he had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup. No one should have been surprised to see him starting v. SA as his form was good, he was the best in the world under the high ball and unlike Byrne, he hadn't been injured for the previous 2 months or so.

You seem a bit like a conspiracy theorist here.

I don't really care for your shifting of the semantic goalposts. As fES has already tries to explain to you, according to the manner in which the original poster employed the world 'bolter', I could see how someone like Kearney could come under that bracket: as someone who wasn't a nailed on starter, yet will be seen as one of the symbolic of the '09 Tour. It's a similar manner to the way in which JD2 was a 'bolter' in '09, in that he had just won a 6N and was in great form (had he just agreed to join Clermont?) but few would have picked him to start the Tests over BoD, yet come the end of it he was a key player in the Tour Tests (although the symbolic nature he has is of a rather more unsavoury kind than Kearney's, unfortunately).

As I've said, Kearney's employment for Leinster- and their then success- is in no way an argument for his inclusion. As other posters have factually pointed out, the professional consensus was that Byrne would start over Kearney. Yet when you're presented with these literal facts- because they don't comply with your viewpoint- you filter them out. They're not correct. They're not really their views, it's just the views they're paid for. All of them. Liars, nationalistic liars, or ones who will sell their opinion for the Queen's gold.

The inability to have your opinion challenged, whereby any dissent is just a 'bad' opinion, and any factual evidence is corrupted and not true, is genuinely the kind of thing you expect from a fanatic, from a so called "extremist".

I've already assessed the historical merits of both those players, it's there for you to see. I have no real argument here about whether or not someone qualifies under the apparently arguable semantic definition of the term we're discussing. What I do have issue with is just really ill thought out and petty nationalist posting, particularly on a thread which should encourage the shedding of nationalism, but instead seems only to encourage it.

eirebilly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

He wasn't because he had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup. No one should have been surprised to see him starting v. SA as his form was good, he was the best in the world under the high ball and unlike Byrne, he hadn't been injured for the previous 2 months or so.

Just to play Devils advocate here. Byrne was very decent under the high ball, maybe not as good as Kearney in his prime but very good himself. One thing that Byrne had over Kearney was his last man defending which was much better than Kearney's. That has never been Kearney's strong spot.

I do believe that Kearney was in the better position to be the starter though as his form and match fitness showed but I can also understand Byrne being selected above him at the time. Some times credit in the bank for previous performances takes the lead. Just happy that Kearney did so well when given the chance. I think that tour was the making of him.

Careful now. You've made two errors in the post:

1. It's far too well reasoned and balanced. This is a Lions thread, and players are either World Class or completely rubbish.

2. You've dared to suggest that the Lions can actually help advance a players career. The party line, particularly from Irish posters on these boards, is that it serves only to ruin Irish players and cripple them. Down with this sort of thing.

For the record, I'd agree with you. It's a bit like Tom Smith or Jeremy Davidson in 1997. Players coming into the Lions with decent form who were very handy at specific jobs and ideally suited for facing up to the Boks. Neither made any predicted Test XVs at the start of the tour, with Leonard and Weir expected to start as I recall, but when the time came both played vital roles in the Test series. It's one of the things I love about the Lions.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

He wasn't because he had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup. No one should have been surprised to see him starting v. SA as his form was good, he was the best in the world under the high ball and unlike Byrne, he hadn't been injured for the previous 2 months or so.

Just to play Devils advocate here. Byrne was very decent under the high ball, maybe not as good as Kearney in his prime but very good himself. One thing that Byrne had over Kearney was his last man defending which was much better than Kearney's. That has never been Kearney's strong spot.

I do believe that Kearney was in the better position to be the starter though as his form and match fitness showed but I can also understand Byrne being selected above him at the time. Some times credit in the bank for previous performances takes the lead. Just happy that Kearney did so well when given the chance. I think that tour was the making of him.

Careful now. You've made two errors in the post:

1. It's far too well reasoned and balanced. This is a Lions thread, and players are either World Class or completely rubbish.

2. You've dared to suggest that the Lions can actually help advance a players career. The party line, particularly from Irish posters on these boards, is that it serves only to ruin Irish players and cripple them. Down with this sort of thing.

For the record, I'd agree with you. It's a bit like Tom Smith or Jeremy Davidson in 1997. Players coming into the Lions with decent form who were very handy at specific jobs and ideally suited for facing up to the Boks. Neither made any predicted Test XVs at the start of the tour, with Leonard and Weir expected to start as I recall, but when the time came both played vital roles in the Test series. It's one of the things I love about the Lions.

 just for the two Father Ted references alone.

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hmm, wouldn't personally have Cuthbert in my squad at all, but I have North pencilled in already. Probably opposite to Watson.

Any thoughts on Tommy Seymour. I think his game suits playing in NZ to the ground.

Not the sort of player Gatland likes nor would he flourish playing Gatlandball.  Seymour likes an unstructured fast paced offloading game and he likes to counter-attack from deep.  I would be very surprised if he gets into the test side.  He might go on tour to appease the scots fans and be treated like Hogg ie badly

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hmm, wouldn't personally have Cuthbert in my squad at all, but I have North pencilled in already. Probably opposite to Watson.

Any thoughts on Tommy Seymour. I think his game suits playing in NZ to the ground.

Should stand a great chance in going, think the wings look quite open at the moment. north is the only guy who could be classed in the world class kind of bracket if it were being picked now, depends how many he takes (and I hope who impresses out there).

TJ wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hmm, wouldn't personally have Cuthbert in my squad at all, but I have North pencilled in already. Probably opposite to Watson.

Any thoughts on Tommy Seymour. I think his game suits playing in NZ to the ground.

Not the sort of player Gatland likes nor would he flourish playing Gatlandball.  Seymour likes an unstructured fast paced offloading game.  I would be very surprised if he gets into the test side.  He might go on tour to appease the scots fans and be treated like Hogg ie badly

To be honest I really don't think Gatland gives a monkeys about appeasing the Scots, and rightly so. I'd rapidly lose interest if I felt that we were reverting back to tokenism.

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you reckon we'll be in good stead if Gatland thinks we can get by with a player obviously struggling with form and fitness against NZ, over others who are in better shape?

Define better shape please. Would you pick the bodybuilder who plays for your local amateur club over a professional Home Nations player recently returned from injury?

Someone with form and fitness in this case, who may even be deemed a poorer player.

miaow wrote:

Sin é wrote:Not as much of a joke as Shane Williams though who they persisted with trying to get him into form. Luke wouldn't have got a sniff except that Shane Williams form had fallen over a cliff. Still, they persisted in trying to get him into form. He played 8 out of the 10 games of the tour.

Shane Williams was a World Player of the Year, one of the top try scorers of all time, and will go down as a Welsh and Rugby great.

Whilst I don't wish to disaparage a player who has had their career cut short by injury, but wasn't the highlight of Fitzgerald's career being called up to that Lions Tour?

Do you see why perhaps there might be a discrepancy in the way both players are handled?

Shane Williams should have been banned from rugby for bringing it into disrepute. Nothing but a toerag would lie in an attempt to destroy someone's career by getting them labelled as a racist.

Luke Fitz was a starter on the wing for Ireland that won a Grand Slam a few months before going on the Lions. He also won a Heineken Cup that year as well - so no, being called up on the Lions wouldn't have been the highlight of his career at that point.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you reckon we'll be in good stead if Gatland thinks we can get by with a player obviously struggling with form and fitness against NZ, over others who are in better shape?

Define better shape please. Would you pick the bodybuilder who plays for your local amateur club over a professional Home Nations player recently returned from injury?

Someone with form and fitness in this case, who may even be deemed a poorer player.

Where, and how, would you decide that?

Form is such a hard thing to discuss. It's an abstract idea discussed as if it's tangible. Waburton tends to be pretty average for the Blues, yet steps up exponentially when playing for Wales. What does that mean then, with regards to his form? Do the club games mean more than the international performances.

Also, how do you decide 'form': how is someone with it, and someone without it? Is 'good form' a player excelling above their usual standards? Or is it simply playing as they usually would? Is bad form, therefore, the opposite: to be playing worse than they usually do? And for how long do you factor in for form? How many games? The season as a whole? The previous season? The last few games?

Ultimately, what good is "good form" against all the other factors I described a few pages back; the kind of judgements that account for a player's pedigree, their class, their ability. Case in point; Haskell, as part of a very successful pack, playing for a resurgent club, with a new coach and tactics, playing teams that were mostly in some period of transition after the RWC, was deemed to be in blistering form as he's playing better than he has for most of his career. Yet take him out of that environment. Take away his English teammates that give him a dominant platform, take away his new coach that hinders the opposition's pre match analysis, and put him in an environment like the Lions.

What happens to his form? It is so conditional on so many other things that I think it's somewhat foolish to take such a small sample such as half a season or so to prescribe someone as being "in good form", or at least for that form to mean anything more solid than simply "they are playing well in the current environment they find themselves in". I find good form a pretty poor reason to select someone when it is so different from the previous performances they have put in, particularly when they good form goes alongside the good form/success of the team environment.

Now, what I would warn against is poor form. This is not just a levelling out of performance after breaking onto the scene, this is the kind of run of underachievement that will have an impact on a proven and previously quality rugby player's mind and psyche. It is a hard thing to break, and I would suggest that perhaps ignoring people who are quite obviously playing below their expected standard would be advisable for the Lions.

However, I'm very dubious of picking the flavour of the month, or season. It may well work if you can replciate the environment wherein said player(s) have excelled to find themselves in "good form", but that is a big risk, and pretty much impossible for the Lions to do, particularly against NZ. It's I think a failing of sports fans to buy into the kind of quick paced fanaticism that is encouraged by the media to hold such mentality.

With so much surrounding form being mental, I believe, it's very interesting to consider what happens to confidence and mentality when all those familiar and successful associations you are used to with your club or country are taken away. Are they the same player, with the same form? And what happens when they no longer have that familiar environment, and they are put under pressure against the best team in the World. It is there that pedigree and preparation takes precedence over form, for me.

Fitness is somewhat easier. Modern professional medical teams are frankly amazing. Most players seem able to get back up to fitness within a couple of games, perhaps a few more for Test matches, but then again each player is quite different; some players require a good run of games to find their pace, some (like Warburton) seemingly require very little club rugby to be ready for internationals.

How would you discount someone based on fitness? How 'unfit' would they have to be? Does this mean how many games they've missed over the previous season? If so, does it matter if they are consecutive (i.e. one big injury), or broken up (i.e. lots of little injuries)? Is it simply the players who are injured towards the end of the season, but who would be fit by the time of the Tour, who miss out? Also, what kind of lack of fitness do you accept, and what do you not?

Form and fitness is such a lazy platitude in and of itself.

Sin é wrote:Shane Williams should have been banned from rugby for bringing it into disrepute. Nothing but a toerag would lie in an attempt to destroy someone's career by getting them labelled as a racist.

Luke Fitz was a starter on the wing for Ireland that won a Grand Slam a few months before going on the Lions. He also won a Heineken Cup that year as well - so no, being called up on the Lions wouldn't have been the highlight of his career at that point.

Ok, fine, we get it. You're Irish. You derive a vicarious sense of pride and a personal achievement from the endeavours and triumps of anyone Irish. Whenever the Irish strive against persecution (perceived, in the instances you have mentioned, incidentally), you take heart, and take a slither from the large, national pie that is that pride.

Yet you're neatly displaying the distaste I have with nationalism as a genuine outlook on life, off the sporting field. I fully endorse it as a means of defence, but loathe it as a way of being in any way (pseudo) progressive, as pride, or as a means of attack. It should of course be used to protect and fight for the existence and defence of culture, language, history, and to ward off the threat of hegemony in its economic and culturally homogenising forms, because that merely gives fewer dissenting voices, which in turn means more abuse of power.

However, as a means of building an outward looking identity, as a means of engaging with the rest of the world? Na. This kind of woefully blinkered viewpoint, seeking offence and bias in every action, is just ridiculous. It's a "we're better than you" mentality, regardless of the lack of threat to autonomy and sovereignity of that culture. I don't doubt that this is still the case with Ireland and Irish culture, but dear me, explain to me the kind of thinking that's led you to make the kind of claims you have in this thread about the motivations of Irish pundits selecting Byrne over Kearney? That Shane Williams and Luke Fitzgerald are somehow comparable in terms of the way they should have been treated on the Lions Tour as rugby players? This is why nationalism is so corrosive. It's a dehumanising of everyone but "us". It's the kind of filtering out of any information that doesn't confirm such a viewpoint, and uses any information that does to reinforce it. It's the same kind of fanatical logic that justifies fascism.

Four Legs Good. Two Legs Bad.
Luke Fitzgerald Good. Shane Williams Bad.

Get over yourself.

miaow wrote:Form and fitness is such a lazy platitude in and of itself.

Fair enough, I was just going by your thoughts Gatland picked players on rep ( or past performance) seemingly ignoring fitnness and form and was asking will he get away with that against NZ?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

miaow wrote:Form and fitness is such a lazy platitude in and of itself.

Fair enough, I was just going by your thoughts Gatland picked players on rep ( or past performance) seemingly ignoring fitnness and form and was asking will he get away with that against NZ?

He's not ignoring fitness and form though, is he. It's just one part of the whole criteria that a coach considers when selecting a team, and the relative lack of fitness of some players was deemed worth the risk because of the "rep" as you put it of certain players. In the case of Sam Warburton, it worked, as he had an excellent performance in the second Test, and left the pitch due to injury with the Lions leading. In the case of Shane Williams in 2009, it didn't work, as he never really recaptured any amount of form, and was still playing below the standard you'd expect from him, by the time the Tests came round. But that's judging the decision after the fact, which I will say more on later.

Now, your opinion is that there was a better option because they were "fitter". I'm saying that that's a really simplistic way of understanding things, and that if you go back to the long list of reasons I made as to why Gatland would probably want Warburton in his team, and the past experience and knowledge he had that Warburton would be "fit" or match ready without very many matches, then you see why it's just too simplistic to pick the man who's been getting the headlines for the last six months, or someone who's "fitter" than his competition.

Will he get away with it in NZ? If the Lions play well, and are competitive, they could lose all three Tests and come away with good credit. That's the situation they face, the All Blacks are that good. However, this is such a pivotal moment for Gatland, due to the fact that I think he is treating this as a means to eventually land the All Blacks job himself, as you've probably read I've written elsewhere. There is no way he is going to be anything other than his own man in this regard, and whilst he doesn't want to receive the same kind of negative reaction as '13 (which means he may well select Hartley as captain, it's plausible) from the British and Irish press, he's not going to deviate too much from what he has done to be successful up until this point. In short: Gatland usually gets it there or thereabouts when it really matters. He's proven it with Wales and the Lions. That means he will select the players he trusts to execute the rugby he thinks best suited to compete with the All Blacks, and history has proven that that means he values "rep" and "past performance" (i.e. the ability to consistently perform at a standard deemed sufficient for him, and his rugby) over whoever has hit the headlines in the weeks and months prior to selection. If anything, he can be quite stubborn in selecting those form players in the place of those who have been quality or even just adequate in the past, even when it seems like they would improve the team (think Cuthbert vs. Liam Williams, Tipuric vs. Lydiate, although it's not quite analagous).

So do I think he will get away with it in NZ? It's not really the right question to be asking. If there's a whitewash and Gatland has selected several (or even just one or two) players who seemingly weren't the "form" players, then no, I expect he will receive quite the criticism. The wise response would be to just say "fair enough, the All Blacks are a supreme team in all of sport, and the Lions did well to compete for as long as they did" if they are truly rolled over due to their opponents' quality. Yet the media wouldn't have that. It'll look for scapegoats, and of course the fans will lap it up, because it's easy to digest. You saw the pre-emptive hysteria from much of the media in the last Tour, only for said hysteria and bile to be made to look quite foolish due to the margin of victory in the final game. If the Lions were to win? Then all this is forgotten, nobody cares a bit if he's selected contrary towhat the supposedly "common sense" consensus of the media and casual rugby fans would like him to. But therein lies the problem. It's judgement of the methodology after the fact. If it is successful more times than it is not, yet there is hysteria and uproar when it doesn't work, what good does that do?

The question isn't whether he will get away with it or not, whatever that means. I assume you're asking me whether he'll escape the ire of rugby fans and the media. As Australia proved, even regardless of the result (which is quite perverse for this sort of flip-flop media support which is usually based on success) he will come under a lot of criticism from certain factions of the Home Nations, and probably NZ too. I don't really care about that, and Gatland probably doesn't either: those who are predisposed to hate him, and waiting with baited breath to criticise him, will do so regardless, or praise him through gritted teeth if he does the remarkable and pulls off a Tour win. The question should be "is this methodology the most likely to allow the Lions to win at least 2 out of 3 Test matches?", and with Gatland at the helm, then yes, evidently it is. You don't select somebody based on their success, only to then hold them to different standards than they have been working under, to demand they mediate the way in which they manage. That's called setting someone up for failure, and I dare say there are large swathes on this board who would rather see that happen than for Gatland to pull off a Tour win using such methods.

I would be more than happy if Gatland pulls of a tour win using any methods. My problem is I believe he is the wrong man and the tactics he employs and the way he selects make this highly unlikely.

miaow wrote:

Sin é wrote:Shane Williams should have been banned from rugby for bringing it into disrepute. Nothing but a toerag would lie in an attempt to destroy someone's career by getting them labelled as a racist.

Luke Fitz was a starter on the wing for Ireland that won a Grand Slam a few months before going on the Lions. He also won a Heineken Cup that year as well - so no, being called up on the Lions wouldn't have been the highlight of his career at that point.

Ok, fine, we get it. You're Irish. You derive a vicarious sense of pride and a personal achievement from the endeavours and triumps of anyone Irish. Whenever the Irish strive against persecution (perceived, in the instances you have mentioned, incidentally), you take heart, and take a slither from the large, national pie that is that pride.

Yet you're neatly displaying the distaste I have with nationalism as a genuine outlook on life, off the sporting field. I fully endorse it as a means of defence, but loathe it as a way of being in any way (pseudo) progressive, as pride, or as a means of attack. It should of course be used to protect and fight for the existence and defence of culture, language, history, and to ward off the threat of hegemony in its economic and culturally homogenising forms, because that merely gives fewer dissenting voices, which in turn means more abuse of power.

However, as a means of building an outward looking identity, as a means of engaging with the rest of the world? Na. This kind of woefully blinkered viewpoint, seeking offence and bias in every action, is just ridiculous. It's a "we're better than you" mentality, regardless of the lack of threat to autonomy and sovereignity of that culture. I don't doubt that this is still the case with Ireland and Irish culture, but dear me, explain to me the kind of thinking that's led you to make the kind of claims you have in this thread about the motivations of Irish pundits selecting Byrne over Kearney? That Shane Williams and Luke Fitzgerald are somehow comparable in terms of the way they should have been treated on the Lions Tour as rugby players? This is why nationalism is so corrosive. It's a dehumanising of everyone but "us". It's the kind of filtering out of any information that doesn't confirm such a viewpoint, and uses any information that does to reinforce it. It's the same kind of fanatical logic that justifies fascism.

Four Legs Good. Two Legs Bad.
Luke Fitzgerald Good. Shane Williams Bad.

Get over yourself.

My main point was that Shane Williams should not have been given all the opportunities he was given because a) he was completely off form and b) he shouldn't have even been on the tour because he told lies to a citing commission which would have destroyed a fellow professional's career and when he was caught out telling lies, he didn't even have the bottle to apologise to him. To add insult to injury on the Lions, Paul O'Connell was tasked with rooming with him as some kind of a protector.

Luke Fitz was in form back then and deserved his starts - nothing to do with nationalism. I'd have been quite happy to see Ugo Monye starting if he was fit enough.

Since when did this forum become a series of puffed up philosophical essays? Dear me. Half of this page is unreadable nonsense.

This is a rugby forum.

Now Now - Mieow ( tho I disagree with him) is making his points and explaining them well using decent english

TJ wrote:Now Now - Mieow ( tho I disagree with him) is making his points and explaining them well using decent english

His points are rubbish - basically, if you don't rate Gatland or think some* of the Welsh players are the bees knees and the cat's pajamas, it all down to nationalism

*I have great time for plenty of Welsh players - for example, AW Jones & Stephen Jones. Faletau deserved his start over Heaslip on the 2013 Lions Tour. I also rated Martyn Williams highly and had no problem with him starting ahead of David Wallace for the last Test in 2009.

TJ wrote:Now Now - Mieow ( tho I disagree with him) is making his points and explaining them well using decent english

What do his opinions on nationalism and Irish culture have to do with the Lions?

Mumbo jumbo.

miaow wrote:

Sin é wrote:Shane Williams should have been banned from rugby for bringing it into disrepute. Nothing but a toerag would lie in an attempt to destroy someone's career by getting them labelled as a racist.

Luke Fitz was a starter on the wing for Ireland that won a Grand Slam a few months before going on the Lions. He also won a Heineken Cup that year as well - so no, being called up on the Lions wouldn't have been the highlight of his career at that point.

Ok, fine, we get it. You're Irish. You derive a vicarious sense of pride and a personal achievement from the endeavours and triumps of anyone Irish. Whenever the Irish strive against persecution (perceived, in the instances you have mentioned, incidentally), you take heart, and take a slither from the large, national pie that is that pride.

Yet you're neatly displaying the distaste I have with nationalism as a genuine outlook on life, off the sporting field. I fully endorse it as a means of defence, but loathe it as a way of being in any way (pseudo) progressive, as pride, or as a means of attack. It should of course be used to protect and fight for the existence and defence of culture, language, history, and to ward off the threat of hegemony in its economic and culturally homogenising forms, because that merely gives fewer dissenting voices, which in turn means more abuse of power.

However, as a means of building an outward looking identity, as a means of engaging with the rest of the world? Na. This kind of woefully blinkered viewpoint, seeking offence and bias in every action, is just ridiculous. It's a "we're better than you" mentality, regardless of the lack of threat to autonomy and sovereignity of that culture. I don't doubt that this is still the case with Ireland and Irish culture, but dear me, explain to me the kind of thinking that's led you to make the kind of claims you have in this thread about the motivations of Irish pundits selecting Byrne over Kearney? That Shane Williams and Luke Fitzgerald are somehow comparable in terms of the way they should have been treated on the Lions Tour as rugby players? This is why nationalism is so corrosive. It's a dehumanising of everyone but "us". It's the kind of filtering out of any information that doesn't confirm such a viewpoint, and uses any information that does to reinforce it. It's the same kind of fanatical logic that justifies fascism.

Four Legs Good. Two Legs Bad.
Luke Fitzgerald Good. Shane Williams Bad.

Get over yourself.

Think you're the one who needs to get over yourself, miaow.

You appear to be deflecting from the fact that either Williams or the Ospreys lied about Horan, and possibly in an attempt to soften the blow of a citing against one of their players for stamping on Horans head.



Edited for reason of cyber tourettes...

...although your post is nonsense.

Down here we are really looking forward to the Lions coming next year, and Warren Gatland and Edwards wearing their Lions tracksuits appear to be focusing on it already.

Interesting comment Gatty said to Justin Marshall the other night, that Aaron Smith at the moment is the best rugby player in the game.