Warren Gatland announced as Lions coach

First topic message reminder :

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

No 7&1/2 wrote:Complete in this sense, a team less reliant on a smaller selection of players.  

What does that mean? Why? What do you mean reliant? Reliant as in picking the players best able to perform as you wish, rather than anticipating injury (and celebrating it) as you have suggested in the past? Do you not see the issue in spreading the preparatory butter too thinly in trying to get everyone up to the required speed in such a short period of time, particularly when you necessarily have to dismiss most players in order to select a 15 and 23 for match day? If anything, by having fewer piano players, you make yourself less reliant on them: i.e. it is easier to replace them as you don't already have your flair players selected in the backline. In theory, it is also easier to replace the piano movers, as the job is on the surface not reliant on extreme world class ability, but rather discipline, fitness, and mental fortitude. Ultimately, the point is pretty much irrelevant, as all winning teams are necessarily reliant on star players who perform a very specific function for the team and not just related to techincal ability, be it McCaw and Carter, Shane Williams or Adam Jones, or Mahrez and Vardy. Pointless suggestion.

Gatlandball has been as reliant on the piano mover Adam Jones as it has been on the piano player Shane Williams. You're completely misunderstanding my point on this matter. The point is you don't muddy the tactics, and make it too complex, by having too many flair, creative, or playmakers, particularly when you're playing a team that is far more settled and- frankly- comprised of better players than your own. They end up getting in each others' way and compromising each others' effectiveness, and when the dogma is "control" of the scoreboard, when you want to have control either territorially or at the breakdown (as I took f in ages to illuminate for your and others), then you want those rare occasions where the game opens up for you to be utilised: i.e. you want efficiency of those flair players in scoring the tries. It's why Cuthbert has his value under Gatland.

You've just plucked a word from the air- complete- with the antonym being incomplete, in a bizarre, non-specific criticism of Warren Gatland's rugby. It's literally based on no facts, no specific things, just (as I've said) abstract ideas of being better, in spite of whether or not that better may in fact be very much worse for the team, and take a group of players from a point of being able to win against the odds due to the specific tactics Gatlandball demands, to no hope whatsoever because you're putting the cart before the horse, i.e. the "better" before the "win".

No 7&1/2 wrote:So from that you think that Gatland will go with the same tactics he favours with Wales, and from that it follows there'll be a lot of players from Wales as they suit the tactics. Why does he need the sabatical?

I worry if you still don't know what I think about whether Gatland will coach the Lions under similar tactics to those that have made his teams so successful over the years.

It doesn't necessarily mean there will be lots of Wales players simply as a result of familiarity of gameplan. It's merely one factor that informs the subjective act of selection. It may benefit some players to get the nod in a marginal call, but many Wales players will be there due to all their other attributes, too. Your simplistic rendering of selection, based on apparently biased and non-meritocratic grounds, is frankly unfounded. Stop perceiving injustice and sort of childlike ideas of what factors to consider in player selection.

Why does he need a sabbatical? Presumably, in part, due to the nature of modern sport. He's been so tarred with accusations of bias- even now, before any selection is made- there is a negativity and perceived duplicity of interest suggested by many. It doesn't help from the public relations side of things. However, I'm sure there are many more important factors relating to the preparation of the Tour, including the formulation of a Tour plan: from where they stay, and when, the medical staff they employ, how they travel, the days out and days off...in short, all the scheduling that will have to be overseen, at least in part, and along with others, by the Head Coach. However, it also gives him, as the Tour grows closer, the time and space in which to study in depth the players who are available for selection, how big the squad will be, which warm up games to target, which to look to perhaps rest those players likely to start as the Tests grow closer. It seems sensible that it becomes increasingly less effective to do this whilst also juggling the full time coaching of one of the 6Ns teams. In short, preparation of the 1%s is massive in modern sport, and the sabbartical allows him the time and space to do this.

But I think you know this, and your rather facile suggestion that he's simply going to transplant en masse the tactics he uses with Wales, and the Welsh players, is trying to demonstrate the lack of need for a sabbatical. Great. As I keep saying, you're misunderstanding the stress and the lengths to which modern coaches much go, and you're massively oversimplifying Gatland's coaching strategy and tactics, i.e. Gatlandball.

No 7&1/2 wrote:As for arguing, seems to sum you up. Ignore any points of discussion as you don't agree with them.

Succinctly sum up the constructive points I've been ignoring of yours. I literally see none that aren't along the lines of your "complete team" argument, which is frankly platitudes and nonsense.

As far as I can tell, you're saying your "complete" team is better for the team as it is more likely to lead to success. What I'm literally showing you is that- as in the case of Arsenal and Leicester, as is the case with Gatland's pragmatic rugby- is the literal opposite is true. I find it bewildering that you don't see the irony in continuing to see the relevance of the analogy you brought up, only for it to neatly demonstrate your inherent misunderstanding of top level, competitive professional sport.

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:He decided to go the way of Wales in terms of play and unsurprisingly thought that a greater number of Welsh players would suit that. I believe that with 4 teams players available he could pretty much have picked any way to play. ie He did it back to front for me.

Such an overly simplistic rendering of the facts and the subjective nature of weighing up factors and coming to a conclusion.

With 4 teams, you can pick any way you want to play. That is true. But would you be successful? What I went to great lengths trying to explain to you was WHY GATLAND WAS SUCCESSFUL, and I picked very carefully over the tactics his teams used to do this. If he were to choose anything other than "Gatlandball", then yes, why not have you, or Cyril, or any other poster on this board coach the Lions to success against Australia (as was often cited as evidence of the ease of the victory!!)? You choose Gatland because of his success, and that comes with him replicating what has made him successful. How is that so hard to understand!? Dear me, honestly, it doesn't matter what sort of ideal you're holding up- that's fun to imagine, but stick to FIFA or fantasy rugby with those ideals. Don't portray them in the garb of reasonable thought and suggestion.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Will be interesting to see if he does it the same way again.

I've suggested where I think- if they are to do the amazing and win the Test series- Gatland will have to introduce a few amendments to the tactics he has displayed recently.

Now, please, one last chance, offer something positive other than the ostrich, with his head in the sand, persistently repeating "yes, well, he won it, but not in the way I would have. It was all back to front for me." Again, for you? Why. You've bought too much into the sport-as-entertainment-and-commodity idea that you, as spectator, are there to be catered to.

If you're going to reply, please come up with something new. I've literally answered all the points you've raised there several pages ago. Now, either answer those points with literal, specific points of opinion on where you disagree, where you think the Lions can be successful, tactical and selection points, or just give up.

http://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads//2015/03/1425_3.jpg

You presume that another tactic would have brought worse results ans yes I do see sport as entertainment. As for being negative you bring up a quote of mine seem to agree with the sentiment but then argue over nothing and ignore answers which you don't agree with.

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Complete in this sense, a team less reliant on a smaller selection of players.  

What does that mean? Why? What do you mean reliant? Reliant as in picking the players best able to perform as you wish, rather than anticipating injury (and celebrating it) as you have suggested in the past? Do you not see the issue in spreading the preparatory butter too thinly in trying to get everyone up to the required speed in such a short period of time, particularly when you necessarily have to dismiss most players in order to select a 15 and 23 for match day? If anything, by having fewer piano players, you make yourself less reliant on them: i.e. it is easier to replace them as you don't already have your flair players selected in the backline. In theory, it is also easier to replace the piano movers, as the job is on the surface not reliant on extreme world class ability, but rather discipline, fitness, and mental fortitude. Ultimately, the point is pretty much irrelevant, as all winning teams are necessarily reliant on star players who perform a very specific function for the team and not just related to techincal ability, be it McCaw and Carter, Shane Williams or Adam Jones, or Mahrez and Vardy. Pointless suggestion.

Gatlandball has been as reliant on the piano mover Adam Jones as it has been on the piano player Shane Williams. You're completely misunderstanding my point on this matter. The point is you don't muddy the tactics, and make it too complex, by having too many flair, creative, or playmakers, particularly when you're playing a team that is far more settled and- frankly- comprised of better players than your own. They end up getting in each others' way and compromising each others' effectiveness, and when the dogma is "control" of the scoreboard, when you want to have control either territorially or at the breakdown (as I took f in ages to illuminate for your and others), then you want those rare occasions where the game opens up for you to be utilised: i.e. you want efficiency of those flair players in scoring the tries. It's why Cuthbert has his value under Gatland.

You've just plucked a word from the air- complete- with the antonym being incomplete, in a bizarre, non-specific criticism of Warren Gatland's rugby. It's literally based on no facts, no specific things, just (as I've said) abstract ideas of being better, in spite of whether or not that better may in fact be very much worse for the team, and take a group of players from a point of being able to win against the odds due to the specific tactics Gatlandball demands, to no hope whatsoever because you're putting the cart before the horse, i.e. the "better" before the "win".

No 7&1/2 wrote:So from that you think that Gatland will go with the same tactics he favours with Wales, and from that it follows there'll be a lot of players from Wales as they suit the tactics. Why does he need the sabatical?

I worry if you still don't know what I think about whether Gatland will coach the Lions under similar tactics to those that have made his teams so successful over the years.

It doesn't necessarily mean there will be lots of Wales players simply as a result of familiarity of gameplan. It's merely one factor that informs the subjective act of selection. It may benefit some players to get the nod in a marginal call, but many Wales players will be there due to all their other attributes, too. Your simplistic rendering of selection, based on apparently biased and non-meritocratic grounds, is frankly unfounded. Stop perceiving injustice and sort of childlike ideas of what factors to consider in player selection.

Why does he need a sabbatical? Presumably, in part, due to the nature of modern sport. He's been so tarred with accusations of bias- even now, before any selection is made- there is a negativity and perceived duplicity of interest suggested by many. It doesn't help from the public relations side of things. However, I'm sure there are many more important factors relating to the preparation of the Tour, including the formulation of a Tour plan: from where they stay, and when, the medical staff they employ, how they travel, the days out and days off...in short, all the scheduling that will have to be overseen, at least in part, and along with others, by the Head Coach. However, it also gives him, as the Tour grows closer, the time and space in which to study in depth the players who are available for selection, how big the squad will be, which warm up games to target, which to look to perhaps rest those players likely to start as the Tests grow closer. It seems sensible that it becomes increasingly less effective to do this whilst also juggling the full time coaching of one of the 6Ns teams. In short, preparation of the 1%s is massive in modern sport, and the sabbartical allows him the time and space to do this.

But I think you know this, and your rather facile suggestion that he's simply going to transplant en masse the tactics he uses with Wales, and the Welsh players, is trying to demonstrate the lack of need for a sabbatical. Great. As I keep saying, you're misunderstanding the stress and the lengths to which modern coaches much go, and you're massively oversimplifying Gatland's coaching strategy and tactics, i.e. Gatlandball.

No 7&1/2 wrote:As for arguing, seems to sum you up. Ignore any points of discussion as you don't agree with them.

Succinctly sum up the constructive points I've been ignoring of yours. I literally see none that aren't along the lines of your "complete team" argument, which is frankly platitudes and nonsense.

As far as I can tell, you're saying your "complete" team is better for the team as it is more likely to lead to success. What I'm literally showing you is that- as in the case of Arsenal and Leicester, as is the case with Gatland's pragmatic rugby- is the literal opposite is true. I find it bewildering that you don't see the irony in continuing to see the relevance of the analogy you brought up, only for it to neatly demonstrate your inherent misunderstanding of top level, competitive professional sport.

Take out Vardy for the whole season I don't think they win the title wheras if Arsenal lost any striker iit doesn't affect them as much.

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:
This isn't a slander on Wales' name.

Telling fibs again.

do you think he has the tactical strength to compete with NZ? His record with wales vs. the 3N is 2 wins in 33 matches.  Wales have been the best team with 3 titles during his tenure. The best vs. the other 6N sides, the worst vs. the 3N sides. Doesn't really match up now does it.

fibs?

Fibs because you always take a pop at Wales, you were the first one to do so after we lost to SA at the world cup - yet another example of your dribble all over SA coat-tails. Gatland is the Lions coach - Bore off, you write the same thing every other week.

Can you find the quote?

Maybe I do dribble over SA, although I don't think I do... yet I've been in SA longer than half of your players have been in Wales so given that I think I am perfectly within my rights to do so, esp. since none of those players nationality are ever put into question. Can you even find one quote where I speak of SA in such light?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I never really get a kick out of discussing anything with you LD as you seem to stubborn to take on points that are made and go down different routes.

LordDowlais wrote:It's the whole, it's not me, it's everybody else attitude that you take on here mikey. Honestly, it's getting a little boring.

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:
This isn't a slander on Wales' name.

Telling fibs again.

do you think he has the tactical strength to compete with NZ? His record with wales vs. the 3N is 2 wins in 33 matches.  Wales have been the best team with 3 titles during his tenure. The best vs. the other 6N sides, the worst vs. the 3N sides. Doesn't really match up now does it.

fibs?

Fibs because you always take a pop at Wales, you were the first one to do so after we lost to SA at the world cup - yet another example of your dribble all over SA coat-tails. Gatland is the Lions coach - Bore off, you write the same thing every other week.

Can you find the quote?

Maybe I do dribble over SA, although I don't think I do... yet I've been in SA longer than half of your players have been in Wales so given that I think I am perfectly within my rights to do so, esp. since none of those players nationality are ever put into question. Can you even find one quote where I speak of SA in such light?

Are you a scout? Sending rejects back to play for Scotland? you're earning your cash fair play.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You presume that another tactic would have brought worse results ans yes I do see sport as entertainment.

I believe that if you're trying to make Warren Gatland coach teams according to some bizarre ideal ("complete team", playing "better") that jars with how he wishes to coach teams, then yes, quite obviously, you will get worse results.

No 7&1/2 wrote:As for being negative you bring up a quote of mine seem to agree with the sentiment but then argue over nothing and ignore answers which you don't agree with.

Please demonstrate- with examples- what you're alluding to.

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:
This isn't a slander on Wales' name.

Telling fibs again.

do you think he has the tactical strength to compete with NZ? His record with wales vs. the 3N is 2 wins in 33 matches.  Wales have been the best team with 3 titles during his tenure. The best vs. the other 6N sides, the worst vs. the 3N sides. Doesn't really match up now does it.

fibs?

Fibs because you always take a pop at Wales, you were the first one to do so after we lost to SA at the world cup - yet another example of your dribble all over SA coat-tails. Gatland is the Lions coach - Bore off, you write the same thing every other week.

Can you find the quote?

Maybe I do dribble over SA, although I don't think I do... yet I've been in SA longer than half of your players have been in Wales so given that I think I am perfectly within my rights to do so, esp. since none of those players nationality are ever put into question. Can you even find one quote where I speak of SA in such light?

Are you a scout? Sending rejects back to play for Scotland? you're earning your cash fair play.

How did you know? Our other office is in London and works with the WRU on the very same thing.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Take out Vardy for the whole season I don't think they win the title wheras if Arsenal lost any striker iit doesn't affect them as much.

EXACTLY! HOW ARE YOU STILL NOT GETTING THIS!? IT'S CALLED WINNING AGAINST THE SYSTEMIC ODDS, WHICH IS WHAT THE LIONS HAVE TO DO! IT'S WHAT THEY HAD TO DO IN AUSTRALIA, AND THE TASK IS EVEN MORE DAUNTING AGAINST THE ALL BLACKS!!!

Arsenal can go out and buy world class players, because they are one of the wealthiest clubs in the world, in a desirable City for players to live, paying them high wages.

International teams cannot. Wales cannot. The Lions cannot. Leicester cannot compete in the transfer market, therefore they have to utilise a player like Vardy, or have a scouting system that finds players like Mahrez, to get success against TECHINCALLY BETTER TEAMS! That means playing a brand of football that is conducive to that, and in the hope that you prosper against the systemic odds which favour more teams in your competition than it does you.

How on God's Earth do you not see the analogy with the Lions!?!?!

Furthermore, why do you take out Vardy!? Why do you take out McCaw or Carter? You don't. Quite clearly, there is no benefit for Arsenal in terms of success by having lots of playmakers, or being less reliant on a few key technical players (you could argue how their lack of succes is in fact due to the loss of the mental strength of Patrick Viera, but that's far too complex to add into the equation if you're not understanding the point I'm making).

How are you not getting this!? It's genuinely embarrassing.

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You presume that another tactic would have brought worse results ans yes I do see sport as entertainment.

I believe that if you're trying to make Warren Gatland coach teams according to some bizarre ideal ("complete team", playing "better") that jars with how he wishes to coach teams, then yes, quite obviously, you will get worse results.

No 7&1/2 wrote:As for being negative you bring up a quote of mine seem to agree with the sentiment but then argue over nothing and ignore answers which you don't agree with.

Please demonstrate- with examples- what you're alluding to.

I think Gatland is a better coach than you make out.

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Take out Vardy for the whole season I don't think they win the title wheras if Arsenal lost any striker iit doesn't affect them as much.

EXACTLY! HOW ARE YOU STILL NOT GETTING THIS!? IT'S CALLED WINNING AGAINST THE SYSTEMIC ODDS, WHICH IS WHAT THE LIONS HAVE TO DO! IT'S WHAT THEY HAD TO DO IN AUSTRALIA, AND THE TASK IS EVEN MORE DAUNTING AGAINST THE ALL BLACKS!!!

Arsenal can go out and buy world class players, because they are one of the wealthiest clubs in the world, in a desirable City for players to live, paying them high wages.

International teams cannot. Wales cannot. The Lions cannot. Leicester cannot compete in the transfer market, therefore they have to utilise a player like Vardy, or have a scouting system that finds players like Mahrez, to get success against TECHINCALLY BETTER TEAMS! That means playing a brand of football that is conducive to that, and in the hope that you prosper against the systemic odds which favour more teams in your competition than it does you.

How on God's Earth do you not see the analogy with the Lions!?!?!

Furthermore, why do you take out Vardy!? Why do you take out McCaw or Carter? You don't. Quite clearly, there is no benefit for Arsenal in terms of success by having lots of playmakers, or being less reliant on a few key technical players (you could argue how their lack of succes is in fact due to the loss of the mental strength of Patrick Viera, but that's far too complex to add into the equation if you're not understanding the point I'm making).

How are you not getting this!? It's genuinely embarrassing.

What exactly are arguing? You're all over the shop.

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:
This isn't a slander on Wales' name.

Telling fibs again.

do you think he has the tactical strength to compete with NZ? His record with wales vs. the 3N is 2 wins in 33 matches.  Wales have been the best team with 3 titles during his tenure. The best vs. the other 6N sides, the worst vs. the 3N sides. Doesn't really match up now does it.

fibs?

Fibs because you always take a pop at Wales, you were the first one to do so after we lost to SA at the world cup - yet another example of your dribble all over SA coat-tails. Gatland is the Lions coach - Bore off, you write the same thing every other week.

Can you find the quote?

Maybe I do dribble over SA, although I don't think I do... yet I've been in SA longer than half of your players have been in Wales so given that I think I am perfectly within my rights to do so, esp. since none of those players nationality are ever put into question. Can you even find one quote where I speak of SA in such light?

Are you a scout? Sending rejects back to play for Scotland? you're earning your cash fair play.

How did you know? Our other office is in London and works with the WRU on the very same thing.

Well we (Wales) don't have any SA players so they can't be up to much. Stopped dribbling yet?

No 7&1/2 wrote:
What exactly are arguing? You're all over the shop.

True. I wish you'd stop quoting it him, it means I have to read that crap after putting him ignore (best thing I did I suggest you try it). For the record I don't have an issue with your posts and you have subtle way of putting your view across which some folk don't seem to understand.. Well two folk at least, both of whom behave like muppets on here.

found a friend, 7.5

https://aos.iacpublishinglabs.com/question/aq/1400px-788px/ostriches-stick-heads-sand_f6014aa539bbc417.jpg?domain=cx.aos.ask.com

Miaow, you might want to relax for he sake of you health. Getting all shouty and emotional can't be good for your blood pressure. Try making a point in just a few words instead of an essay and then don't get upset if someone doesn't 'get it'.

Good grief the lions is still a year away and it's already like this.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Take out Vardy for the whole season I don't think they win the title wheras if Arsenal lost any striker iit doesn't affect them as much.

So whats their excuse for not winning it for donkeys years then?

Just another 114 posts of this to go before we can lock this thread and drop it in the ocean.

Can we start another one asking if the Lions should be scrapped after that? Havent rehashed that argument for at least two weeks.

Gooseberry wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Take out Vardy for the whole season I don't think they win the title wheras if Arsenal lost any striker iit doesn't affect them as much.

So whats their excuse for not winning it for donkeys years then?

Multiple reasons. Lack of a strong reliable goalkeeper after Lehmann is one of the main ones for me. Not really a football forum though.

miaow wrote:found a friend, 7.5

https://aos.iacpublishinglabs.com/question/aq/1400px-788px/ostriches-stick-heads-sand_f6014aa539bbc417.jpg?domain=cx.aos.ask.com

So whats your point then miaow?

offload wrote:Miaow, you might want to relax for he sake of you health. Getting all shouty and emotional can't be good for your blood pressure.  Try making a point in just a few words instead of an essay and then don't get upset if someone doesn't 'get it'.  

This 100%!

miaow the Lions aren't akin to Leicester City though.

The Lions don't seem to have a manager/coach who has the capability to work a miracle.

Leicester City also have an entire season to gel as a team, the Lions do not.

The Lions do have quality players to pick from.

It's only daunting because it's the ABs, Aus in 2013 wasn't daunting.

Gatland is not a world class coach, he's decent if you want to defeat NH opposition but is generally out of his depth when it comes to the tri nations.

On the 2013 tour it wasn't just Gatland and Welsh players who won the tour, they haven't been able to beat Australia on their own.

True BS and the Lions dont have a reliable goalkeeper either so apparently they are screwed.

Rugby doesn't have goalkeepers. Strange.

The whole crutch of all this is if we think Gatland is up to the job and if he under or over performed during the last Lions

Answer those questions and enlightenment will be yours

Riskysports wrote:The whole crutch of all this is if we think Gatland is up to the job and if he under or over performed during the last Lions

Answer those questions and enlightenment will be yours

Fantastic Freudian Slip!

Gooseberry wrote:True BS and the Lions dont have a reliable goalkeeper either so apparently they are screwed.

Brown has been known to do a good impression of one.

offload wrote:Miaow, you might want to relax for he sake of you health. Getting all shouty and emotional can't be good for your blood pressure.  Try making a point in just a few words instead of an essay and then don't get upset if someone doesn't 'get it'.  

Cheers for the concern. I'm sure you're aware of the phenomenon 0f the internet, where people can amplify the tone of their typed words to have the desired effect, without actually uttering said words in the scribed manner? But, again, thanks for the concern. The persistent banging of my head against a brick wall- or rather, trying to converse with sand dwelling birds- is frustrating, but I seem to have gained enough support and commendation from posters that validates my "essays". If brevity suffices for you, that's fine, but it's quite arrogant to critique my posts when you're apparently happy to allow and enourage the boring, tired, and already played out arguments (that effectively boil down to my country is better than yours) that have plagued this new site, and are- as far as I can see- one of the main reasons for decent posters leaving the hall empty for the kind of jokers we have chirping up now.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So whats your point then miaow?

What's yours? Was my post not "complete" enough for you?

mikey_dragon wrote:This 100%!

Have you seen natural light in the last three years? You're on this forum from noon til night!

beshocked wrote:miaow the Lions aren't akin to Leicester City though.

Apart from, you know, all the reasons I listed above. But yeah, apart from those reasons, where the analogy can be made across sport, yeah, apart from those, you're probably right. Not comparable in the slightest.

The point originally made which you seem to disagree with was that a team finishing above another in a league (in my example) wouldn't necessarily have more players included than the one below it and you would really need to look at other factors, performances....a whole great detail of stuff other than 1st and 2nd.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The point originally made which you seem to disagree with was that a team finishing above another in a league (in my example) wouldn't necessarily have more players included than the one below it and you would really need to look at other factors, performances....a whole great detail of stuff other than 1st and 2nd.

That is not what you inferred though. You were saying that teams that finish higher in their respective leagues, are not better than the one's that finish below them at the time. Like Leicester in the Premiership last season, and Wales in 2012-2013.

If you want to be a good WUM, then you need to be a good liar with a good memory, you are neither of these.

Both Leicester and Lions begin with the letter "L".

Just trying to be helpful.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The point originally made which you seem to disagree with was that a team finishing above another in a league (in my example) wouldn't necessarily have more players included than the one below it and you would really need to look at other factors, performances....a whole great detail of stuff other than 1st and 2nd.

That is not what you inferred though. You were saying that teams that finish higher in their respective leagues, are not better than the one's that finish below them at the time. Like Leicester in the Premiership last season, and Wales in 2012-2013.

If you want to be a good WUM, then you need to be a good liar with a good memory, you are neither of these.

I'm not a good liar true. But I don't aspire to be a good wum. Feel free to read back and understand my points or ask for clarification. I didn't comment on whether Leicester were a better team than Arsenal last year, I was commenting that if you were to consider which players you would take from those 2 to create one team you would probably (I would definitely) pick more Arsenal players.

In regards to the 6Ns yes, I've stated that the format of the comp doesn't necessarily give you the best team and when considering who the best team in the NH is why would you ignore summer tours, AIs anyway.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The point originally made which you seem to disagree with was that a team finishing above another in a league (in my example) wouldn't necessarily have more players included than the one below it and you would really need to look at other factors, performances....a whole great detail of stuff other than 1st and 2nd.

No, that is literally incorrect. You said you didn't care about league position in and of itself, whilst others were being absolute in aruging against that, saying the best team should have the most players in the Lions. I was never contesting that point. I was moving it on from the two pages of "best team has the most players" "no they shouldn't, the league table isn't fair" argument that was literally going nowhere.

What I was illuminating for you was your blinkered adjudication of sport and the merits of players, which was neatly demonstrated by the Arsenal-Leicester comparison you made. The fact that you've been very quiet on that topic, to the point where you're trying to change the subject, demonstrates you probably agree with me (as you do with the other factors coming into play) but cannot bring yourself to admit it.

The way fans view players, and sport in general, is one of the key problems I think here, and one of those is a result of looking solely at techinical ability (or, as demonstrated with the apoplectic reaction to BoD being dropped, other obvious qualities a player may have) whilst not considering the picture as a whole: or, to put it in other terms, the conditions in which a player, and team is most successful. This can mean play the prettiest rugby, but I think most people would decree that success is winning. You brought the idea of a "complete" team, which was really confusing, and didn't actually seem to be arguing for anything, such is the (ironic) emptiness of the word 'complete' without actually fleshing out what that means (the reliance on players was, if anything, a point against your argument).

So what of success? Of winning against the odds? As I demonstrated with the examples of Leicester, Iceland, and (the particularly relevant) Portugal, football teams that are unable to simply outspend the biggest teams (i.e. are weakened by the system in which they must operate, sport is not a meritocracy etc.) often adopt "pragmatic" tactics. Indeed, those three teams follow- as I took the time to explain- the template of "Gatlandball", and have had very recent 'success' with it, triumphing against teams with better conditions in which to prosper. I could go into more detail if people are really confused by the footballing analogy, and see no comparison between them, if they really need more (after all, this is a rugby forum, and I know most rugby fans are still a bit adverse to the sport, hence probably being a bit ignorant of it).

This is why I felt it was an interesting thing to move the conversation on to, because it's so relevant to the topic of the Lions, the perception of tactics, Gatland, and ideas about how best to win. You're really getting down to how fans/spectators see sport. Simply choosing "Arsenal" type players- as you suggested- and playing a game conducive to their techincal ability will benefit the All Blacks moreso than it would the Lions, because the players are still techincally inferior to the All Blacks (see Arsenal playing Barcelona) or indeed SA and Aus in some/many cases, are not used to playing with one another, do not have the same conditions that lead to their success with their international teams so may not replicate international form...I could keep going, but I think we all know how difficult [/i]any[/i] Lions Tour is, including the 2013 one.

The point is I don't want to keep reading the "league position matters" " no it doesn't", even if they are only short sentences (something that is apparently vital to this forum). I'm trying to have a proper discussion, something you seem blissfully ignorant of, and happy to bury your head in the sand to avoid.

See, you are changing your point of tact again, to suit your agenda, then accuse me of going off point. Fine. I cannot do it with you anymore. You win the internet.


Edit: This was a reply to 7&1/2.

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The point originally made which you seem to disagree with was that a team finishing above another in a league (in my example) wouldn't necessarily have more players included than the one below it and you would really need to look at other factors, performances....a whole great detail of stuff other than 1st and 2nd.

No, that is literally incorrect. You said you didn't care about league position in and of itself, whilst others were being absolute in aruging against that, saying the best team should have the most players in the Lions. I was never contesting that point. I was moving it on from the two pages of "best team has the most players" "no they shouldn't, the league table isn't fair" argument that was literally going nowhere.

What I was illuminating for you was your blinkered adjudication of sport and the merits of players, which was neatly demonstrated by the Arsenal-Leicester comparison you made. The fact that you've been very quiet on that topic, to the point where you're trying to change the subject, demonstrates you probably agree with me (as you do with the other factors coming into play) but cannot bring yourself to admit it.

The way fans view players, and sport in general, is one of the key problems I think here, and one of those is a result of looking solely at techinical ability (or, as demonstrated with the apoplectic reaction to BoD being dropped, other obvious qualities a player may have) whilst not considering the picture as a whole: or, to put it in other terms, the conditions in which a player, and team is most successful. This can mean play the prettiest rugby, but I think most people would decree that success is winning. You brought the idea of a "complete" team, which was really confusing, and didn't actually seem to be arguing for anything, such is the (ironic) emptiness of the word 'complete' without actually fleshing out what that means (the reliance on players was, if anything, a point against your argument).

So what of success? Of winning against the odds? As I demonstrated with the examples of Leicester, Iceland, and (the particularly relevant) Portugal, football teams that are unable to simply outspend the biggest teams (i.e. are weakened by the system in which they must operate, sport is not a meritocracy etc.) often adopt "pragmatic" tactics. Indeed, those three teams follow- as I took the time to explain- the template of "Gatlandball", and have had very recent 'success' with it, triumphing against teams with better conditions in which to prosper. I could go into more detail if people are really confused by the footballing analogy, and see no comparison between them, if they really need more (after all, this is a rugby forum, and I know most rugby fans are still a bit adverse to the sport, hence probably being a bit ignorant of it).

This is why I felt it was an interesting thing to move the conversation on to, because it's so relevant to the topic of the Lions, the perception of tactics, Gatland, and ideas about how best to win. You're really getting down to how fans/spectators see sport. Simply choosing "Arsenal" type players- as you suggested- and playing a game conducive to their techincal ability will benefit the All Blacks moreso than it would the Lions, because the players are still techincally inferior to the All Blacks (see Arsenal playing Barcelona) or indeed SA and Aus in some/many cases, are not used to playing with one another, do not have the same conditions that lead to their success with their international teams so may not replicate international form...I could keep going, but I think we all know how difficult [/i]any[/i] Lions Tour is, including the 2013 one.

The point is I don't want to keep reading the "league position matters" " no it doesn't", even if they are only short sentences (something that is apparently vital to this forum). I'm trying to have a proper discussion, something you seem blissfully ignorant of, and happy to bury your head in the sand to avoid.

So you agree with me good. The complete team comment in regards to Arsenal was the fact they rely less heavily on individuals. Said it a couple of times now.

LordDowlais wrote:See, you are changing your point of tact again, to suit your agenda, then accuse me of going off point. Fine. I cannot do it with you anymore. You win the internet.


Edit: This was a reply to 7&1/2.

Not changed any of initial thoughts LD. Feel free to quote me anythingnack where you think I'm flip flapping. You can't hence you do your normal, accuse other people of being wums so you slope off.

miaow the reasons Leicester City and Lions are not alike:

Leicester City have had a much lighter workload than their main rivals, they only had to focus on the league.
They could pool their limited resources to a very specific goal.

The Lions have a much more strenuous schedule than NZ.

The Lions will be touring after the normal club rugby season is over. Leicester City played their matches throughout.

Lions are made up of 4 countries, Leicester can play players from any country.

Leicester City had much more preparation time than the Lions have.

Lions are playing away from home against the best rugby side in the world.

Leicester play in a league where one loss is not the end of the world. You play home and away, plus there are weak teams and strong teams.

If Leicester played Real Madrid or Barcelona in a 3 match series it might be similar.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you agree with me good.

You know how people like Derren Brown use suggestion and psychology to influence what people say, to the point where they think they're making a free choice and statement? I've somehow managed to do it with you, convincing you that what I've said was in fact your original opinion. Amazing! If you were cute it could adopt you as a pet! Sadly, I'm going to bank on the fact that you're not.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The complete team comment in regards to Arsenal was the fact they rely less heavily on individuals. Said it a couple of times now.

That's just meaningless, as I said. What does that actually mean? Does that mean Portugal don't build a team around Ronaldo? Does that mean the Lions train everyone equally? Does that mean you give Luke Fitzgerald as much opportunity in the Test jersey as you do Shane Williams? No, you don't. That's just hollow empty sentiment. "Complete". Dear me. Give it a rest. As Leicester is a neat example of, you go out and find a Mahrez and Vardy, and then you set your team up to make the best of their talents whilst limiting the effect of the (techinically superior) opposition. This is done by defensive and disciplined tactics, with liberty given to the few piano players to shine. You literally agreed with me on this point, why the change of heart?

Is it just going to take another few pages of head-in-the-sand until you pretend this was your opinion all along?

beshocked wrote:miaow the reasons Leicester City and Lions are not alike:

Leicester City have had a much lighter workload than their main rivals, they only had to focus on the league.
They could pool their limited resources to a very specific goal.

The Lions have a much more strenuous schedule than NZ.

The Lions will be touring after the normal club rugby season is over. Leicester City played their matches throughout.

Lions are made up of 4 countries, Leicester can play players from any country.

Leicester City had much more preparation time than the Lions have.

Lions are playing away from home against the best rugby side in the world.

Leicester play in a league where one loss is not the end of the world. You play home and away, plus there are weak teams and strong teams.

If Leicester played Real Madrid or Barcelona in a 3 match series it might be similar.

That's great, but it doesn't dismiss the points of similarity that exist between the two teams. You know how someone compares a mother to her daughter, because they have several similarities: physical, personal, mental etc. You don't then negate those by turning around and saying "yeah, but, I mean, one's older than the other". Yeah, great. I'm not contesting those points. I'm merely saying the points I made are highly relevant to the Lions re: tactics, selection, and prospering against the odds. It's not the most obvious comparison, but as it was referenced by another poster making what was evidently a flawed and illogical assessment of selection, I carried it through to demonstrate how it was actually a nice justification for the point I spent a long time fleshing out several pages back, but which hasn't been specifically addressed by any poster who disagrees with me.

I then went on to branch out and mention international teams- which have more relevant selection issues and teamwork issues to the Lions- that demonstrated very similar tactics that led them to success in this championship. Are you going to say Portugal isn't a relevant comparison to the Lions because they play in a different shade of red?

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you agree with me good.

You know how people like Derren Brown use suggestion and psychology to influence what people say, to the point where they think they're making a free choice and statement? I've somehow managed to do it with you, convincing you that what I've said was in fact your original opinion. Amazing! If you were cute it could adopt you as a pet! Sadly, I'm going to bank on the fact that you're not.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The complete team comment in regards to Arsenal was the fact they rely less heavily on individuals. Said it a couple of times now.

That's just meaningless, as I said. What does that actually mean? Does that mean Portugal don't build a team around Ronaldo? Does that mean the Lions train everyone equally? Does that mean you give Luke Fitzgerald as much opportunity in the Test jersey as you do Shane Williams? No, you don't. That's just hollow empty sentiment. "Complete". Dear me. Give it a rest. As Leicester is a neat example of, you go out and find a Mahrez and Vardy, and then you set your team up to make the best of their talents whilst limiting the effect of the (techinically superior) opposition. This is done by defensive and disciplined tactics, with liberty given to the few piano players to shine. You literally agreed with me on this point, why the change of heart?

Is it just going to take another few pages of head-in-the-sand until you pretend this was your opinion all along?

Because where we differ is you feel that Arsenal lack the piano movers and are all players. It's actually Leicester that rely more on their 'players'.

miaow I still don't agree that the Lions and Leicester City are that similar.

Also even though Vardy is a good player, I don't think he'll ever be in the same league as Messi or Ronaldo, quite literally too.

The Lions does have players with the potential to be world class.

With the right coaches and players, the Lions IMO could challenge the ABs.

Sadly I think Gatland is the wrong man.

No, believe me, I understand your point. The example is so wonderfully fitting as it shows that actually how hard it is for teams that aren't pragmatic with a few star players- or "too reliant" on these players as you seem to be arguing- regularly bottle the big games and consistently underachieve.

My point- which again you've failed to grasp- is that yes, if you're playing FIFA, you're going to choose Arsenal. In real life, in a tournament such as the Lions, where the odds are stacked against them? I'm going to go for pragmatism, even if that takes a risk on being "too reliant" on a few players, because the examples prove that a well drilled and well set up team can be better than the sum of their parts, whereas a more "complete" team often is less than the sum.

You seem to be arguing to the Lions to lose simply so you can have a more "fair" or "complete" Lions. It all comes back to selection and tactics. Gatland gets it right, and often prospers against the odds when it matters most. Your preferences are redundant.

beshocked wrote:miaow I still don't agree that the Lions and Leicester City are that similar.

Also even though Vardy is a good player, I don't think he'll ever be in the same league as Messi or Ronaldo, quite literally too.

The Lions does have players with the potential to be world class.

With the right coaches and players, the Lions IMO could challenge the ABs.

Sadly I think Gatland is the wrong man.

1. Ok, that's fine, however I think you're willfully ignoring the argument that is being made.
2. All the more reason that Leicester's tactics and set up should be replicated! They made a player with raw talents but not holistic pedigree and techincal ability to be searingly effective at scoring goals (Alex Cuthbert...!?). What a wonderful commendation the team, coaches, scouting etc. should receive, and how useful such tactics and methodology might be for teams trying to equally prosper against teams that have the circumstances in their favour.
3. They have very good players, but the All Blacks have 1-15, and maybe even 1-23, who are better in most if not all departments. Add all the other circumstantial factors that will benefit the All Blacks and hinder the Lions, and you'd be a fool to simply reply on the "potential" qualities of the players alone to flourish and get them over the line
4. Gatland is deemed to be the best and most reasonable option for this, according to pretty much all people.
5. I fail to see how you come to that conclusion, but please suggest a reasonable alternative that isn't as fanciful and naive as 7.5's idea of "complete": i.e. one whereby- when you weigh up the evidence- they provide a better chance for the Lions to win out in NZ, and not one that could possibly get the Lions scoring more tries etc. The bottom line: suggest me a coach that is available to the Lions that could do better than Gatland, based on evidence.

Great thread!

A proud day for the Internet.

Cyril wrote: Great thread!

A proud day for the Internet.

Come to think of it I was wondering what this thread was doing in a rugby forum..

Cyril wrote: Great thread!

A proud day for the Internet.

Cheers man. Let's hope it's the first step in the fans getting behind the Lions- Gatland and all- and making a difference down in NZ!

"suggest me a coach that is available to the Lions that could do better than Gatland, based on evidence."

Claudio Ranieri?

Kevin Costner is well known for making incredibly long repetitive and utterly dull movies hammering away at a point on a topic that others had long since lost interest in, and certainly had done by the 4th hour of his self produced epic.

But this isn't a movie forum

I liked his 'Dances with Lions' film tho'