British & Irish Lions Squad 2017

First topic message reminder :

Fairly simple, champions cup aside, we have nearly all the information Garland will have to pick the Lions squad, so go ahead name your squad, your captain etc.

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:miaow Gatland ball has been shown to be mostly ineffective vs SH sides with a poor record.

You say that it works when it matters. No it doesn't unless you believe that beating England in the RWC in 2015 is the only game that matters.

NZ have dealt with Wales and Gatland every single time.

He has won about half his games in charge. Has a poor record against most sides.

True but I was focusing more on the record vs the tri nations.

At least when he faces the likes of Ireland,France and England he's got pretty much a 50-50 chance of victory.

My god, this is going to be a depressing announcement isn't it?

Hogg and Doctor James will be the only Scots travelling and we'll be subjected to earnest chin stroking from the broadsheets and Gatland's PR ninjas when they try to defend the undefendable position that a Welsh side which finished behind every other home nation in this years 6N has 11 players on the plane.

If Teo really is the new Jamie Roberts then we are screwed. Teo has played rugby union for less than 3 years and has played 8 test matches. He is going to be badly exposed defensively against the speed and running lines of the centres who are used to stepping and breaking from the side of more developed rucks. If both Teo and JD2 travel and will be involved in the tests, then it points to reputation over form picks and we will lose the series heavily.

Am also tired of these leaks. Why don't the press just shut the f#ck up until the squads are announced? Either the announcement is confidential or it isn't. If it is, then the press should respect the players who are waiting and hold off from publishing all of this nonsense.

More you made your mind up without watching him and now you're descriptions of him are well wide of the mark miaow.

Ben Te'o definitely doesn't deserve selection. Gatland does love to select kiwis though.

George Carlin wrote:My god, this is going to be a depressing announcement isn't it?

Hogg and Doctor James will be the only Scots travelling and we'll be subjected to earnest chin stroking from the broadsheets and Gatland's PR ninjas when they try to defend the undefendable position that a Welsh side which finished behind every other home nation in this years 6N has 11 players on the plane.

If Teo really is the new Jamie Roberts then we are screwed. Teo has played rugby union for less than 3 years and has played 8 test matches. He is going to be badly exposed defensively against the speed and running lines of the centres who are used to stepping and breaking from the side of more developed rucks. If both Teo and JD2 travel and will be involved in the tests, then it points to reputation over form picks and we will lose the series heavily.

Am also tired of these leaks. Why don't the press just shut the f#ck up until the squads are announced? Either the announcement is confidential or it isn't. If it is, then the press should respect the players who are waiting and hold off from publishing all of this nonsense.

Unfortunately it's all about getting that exclusive Mr Mini Modder.

It's easy for the Lions management to fix! Only the coaches know the players until the announcement is made - even the players shouldn't be told in advance!

George Carlin wrote:My god, this is going to be a depressing announcement isn't it?

Hogg and Doctor James will be the only Scots travelling  

I believe the good Doc has been overlooked for this tour.  Pretty certain a tour doctor was already announced and it's this lad

http://www.lionsrugby.com/eanna-falvey.php

Dr Robson may be involved still, but he's not included this far, as far as I can see.

cascough wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I have seen on some of these "leaked teams" that Laidlaw is in with a shout.

I try to be as balanced and as fair as possible but Laidlaw? Really? He is currently injured and there are far more deserving Scottish players than him!

What does nationality have to do with it? Or are you suggesting Price and Pyrgos?

I can see the logic behind taking someone like Laidlaw, he puts the ball in the right areas of the field and for a power game, that's a good thing. I personally think the SH best at doing this is Wigglesworth (plus he's fit!), but he would always be an outside bet as he's in the international wilderness.

That being said, both Murray and Youngs have strong tactical kicking games so I'd pick those 2 and then one of Webb, Care or Davies to provide an alternative.

No, I'm suggesting that Seymour is one of the best wingers the Lions have at their disposal, he probably won't tour. Watson is one of the best opensides the Lions have at their disposal, he probably won't tour.

Laidlaw is currently injured and IMO Murry and Webb are far better and to be honest apart from a boot and good leadership, Laidlaw is a very average scrum half. He fits well into what Cotter did with Scotland and has a lot of fans at Glaws, but Scotland have players (Seymour and Watson) who I think are better than what the other Lions nations have to offer, but will not be considered for one reason or another.

SecretFly wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
My confusion comes when Ringrose gets in and JJ doesn't, JJ is better in pretty much every aspect.

Well he has four years head start as an International so yeah, his record in an International shirt might glisten more than Ringrose's so far.  But better in pretty much every aspect?  Let's wait a few years more and tally them closer to the end of their International careers rather than judging them on their unequal exposure to the International game.

The future Ringrose may indeed suprass JJ, but the current one doesn't. I'm talking about their abilty rather than any kind of records, JJ is a currently a much better player.

When even Graham Henry describes the Lions' tour schedule as "suicidal", you know that the bean counters who set up this whole ridiculous jamboree were desperately weak negotiators and probably wouldn't know a rugby ball if it bit them on the arse:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lions-tour-2017/news/article.cfm?c_id=697&objectid=11840302

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:miaow Gatland ball has been shown to be mostly ineffective vs SH sides with a poor record.

You say that it works when it matters. No it doesn't unless you believe that beating England in the RWC in 2015 is the only game that matters.

NZ have dealt with Wales and Gatland every single time.

He has won about half his games in charge. Has a poor record against most sides.

He has a 68% winning record vs 6N teams. A 15% record vs SANZAAR (those 3 wins vs Arg help) & a 31% winning record vs all SH teams, making a 51% record overall

Opponent Matches Win %
 Argentina 3 100%
 Australia 9 11%
 Canada 1 100%
 England 12 50%
 Fiji 4 75%
 France 9 56%
 Ireland 12 50%
 Italy 9 100%
 Namibia 1 100%
 New Zealand 10 0%
 Samoa 2 100%
 Scotland 8 100%
 South Africa 11 9%
 Tonga 1 100%
 Uruguay 1 100%
TOTAL 93 51%

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

cascough wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I have seen on some of these "leaked teams" that Laidlaw is in with a shout.

I try to be as balanced and as fair as possible but Laidlaw? Really? He is currently injured and there are far more deserving Scottish players than him!

What does nationality have to do with it? Or are you suggesting Price and Pyrgos?

I can see the logic behind taking someone like Laidlaw, he puts the ball in the right areas of the field and for a power game, that's a good thing. I personally think the SH best at doing this is Wigglesworth (plus he's fit!), but he would always be an outside bet as he's in the international wilderness.

That being said, both Murray and Youngs have strong tactical kicking games so I'd pick those 2 and then one of Webb, Care or Davies to provide an alternative.

No, I'm suggesting that Seymour is one of the best wingers the Lions have at their disposal, he probably won't tour. Watson is one of the best opensides the Lions have at their disposal, he probably won't tour.

Laidlaw is currently injured and IMO Murry and Webb are far better and to be honest apart from a boot and good leadership, Laidlaw is a very average scrum half. He fits well into what Cotter did with Scotland and has a lot of fans at Glaws, but Scotland have players (Seymour and Watson) who I think are better than what the other Lions nations have to offer, but will not be considered for one reason or another.

What do Seymour and Watson have to do with Laidlaw? They're not scrum halves.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
Warrenball's all well and good in the NH - it's served Wales pretty well in the 6N over the past few years. But it doesn't work that well vs SH teams who have the individual skill levels to work around it - the likes of Samoa can give Warrenballing Wales a scare, & the Sanzar teams brush it off more often than not.

It doesn't matter how good your defense is against a 2005-grade Carter or a 2016-17 grade Barrett, they're going to find a way through. Hence you're better off trying to find ways to score as many points as possible.

Yeah, I understand the point, and I agree to an extent. However, you have to separate Warrenball as a premise from the Welshness of Gatland's Wales. The Welsh psyche is something that's hard to really explain to people outside the country. In short, Wales bottle it against big teams, and when in winning positions, when they really, really shouldn't. This is nothing new, and I'm not going to elaborate on why this is the case, that's for another thread. But it's there. It's real, and it disproportionately affects Wales against the SANZAR nations, but is by no means exclusive to them.

"Warrenball" (as a crude simplification) is about keeping the score down, yes. It's also about mitigating against the talents of the opposition. It's about winning Rugby, often against the odds. I make no pretence of the fact that Gatland's tactics can be horribly frustrating, and that Wales lose games where they shouldn't. But I also recognise the utility of it, and its benefits. Wales lost against Australia in 2012 because of their own inability to close out a game, particularly in the 2nd Test. Likewise 3 years later in the RWC. The groundwork for those victories was built by Warrenball, and frankly, the collapse had very little to do with the tactics, and everything to do with mental fragility and individual idiocy/indiscipline.

The Lions will not be going out there to stave off wave after wave of NZ attack. As I've said, it's much more about controlling the game than it is about tackling/playing 'negatively', although this is of course a big part of Rugby, and you do that with and without the ball. The Lions will be going down there to score tries, no doubt, but primarily they can beat the All Blacks through being more disciplined, working harder, and being better goalkickers and defenders than them.

I mean no offence, but forgive me if I'm a little dubious about Kiwis bemoaning the fact that the Lions won't be coming down to you looking to "score as many points as possible". Yes, I'm sure it would be exhilirating to see NZ win the first Test 55-35. However, if you're going to tactically release the shackles from the game, and allow luck, but more importantly, individual and collective talent to dictate who wins the Test series, then NZ win. Every. Single. Time. You, as fans, are unfortunately hampered by the fact that NZ are perenially the best country in the World at Rugby, and so don't have to worry about playing another country and trying to be competitive/win whilst compensating for the fact that the opposition is- almost to a man- better than you. Add in the scheduling and nature of the Lions, and they're really on a hiding to nothing if they take the approach you're suggesting. And, as I said, forgive me if I think your suggestions aren't necessarily in the best interests of Gatland's resume and a Lions victory...

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I doubt very much that JJ's distribution is a major factor in leaving him out, especially when selecting JD who is pretty poor in this area.

I agree, that's why I said that is an absence of an ability that would have pushed him up the pecking order, rather than a stick to beat him with compared to the other centres. JD2 is a far better handler of the ball than he is given credit for, albeit it a bit inconsistent, but yes, none of the centres available to the Lions are particularly good footballers and playmakers. It's not a major factor, but rather another aspect where Joseph isn't "top drawer". That said, I'm disappointed he's been left out, as he's a fine runner with ball in hand, one of the most potent attackers in Europe.

I'd be amazed if Ringrose made the Tour. The centres for me are Henshaw, Dunbar, and possibly Scott Williams at 12, with JD2 and Te'o (apparently). Farrell will probably play 12 in the Tests, but goes as a 10/12.

cascough wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

cascough wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I have seen on some of these "leaked teams" that Laidlaw is in with a shout.

I try to be as balanced and as fair as possible but Laidlaw? Really? He is currently injured and there are far more deserving Scottish players than him!

What does nationality have to do with it? Or are you suggesting Price and Pyrgos?

I can see the logic behind taking someone like Laidlaw, he puts the ball in the right areas of the field and for a power game, that's a good thing. I personally think the SH best at doing this is Wigglesworth (plus he's fit!), but he would always be an outside bet as he's in the international wilderness.

That being said, both Murray and Youngs have strong tactical kicking games so I'd pick those 2 and then one of Webb, Care or Davies to provide an alternative.

No, I'm suggesting that Seymour is one of the best wingers the Lions have at their disposal, he probably won't tour. Watson is one of the best opensides the Lions have at their disposal, he probably won't tour.

Laidlaw is currently injured and IMO Murry and Webb are far better and to be honest apart from a boot and good leadership, Laidlaw is a very average scrum half. He fits well into what Cotter did with Scotland and has a lot of fans at Glaws, but Scotland have players (Seymour and Watson) who I think are better than what the other Lions nations have to offer, but will not be considered for one reason or another.

What do Seymour and Watson have to do with Laidlaw? They're not scrum halves.

Correct, taking Laidlaw IMO smacks of tokenism.

Laidlaw is being taken because the squad will be light on Scots (presumably) and it's light on Scots potentially because some of Gatland's faves might travel instead of those who are actually worthy of travelling (Watson and Seymour).

Clear it up any?

I've no problem with "Warrenball" against NZ. To try and take them on at their own game would be foolish IMO.

In Beaudan Barrett, they have a 50% kicker. In big games, Halfpenny, Sexton and Farrell hardly miss. If we can bully them even just a bit, we are going to put pressure on them on the scoreboard. Under pressure they, like any other team, make mistakes.

"Laidlaw is being taken because the squad will be light on Scots (presumably)"

I really doubt that Rugger.

I also think Seymour & Watson are well down the pecking order, well my pecking order anyway.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I have seen on some of these "leaked teams" that Laidlaw is in with a shout.

I try to be as balanced and as fair as possible but Laidlaw? Really? He is currently injured and there are far more deserving Scottish players than him!

Perfect midweek captain and goalkicker.

Webb and Murray are comfortably the two front runners. Youngs is a good, if unexceptional, pick, Care and G Davies too inconsistent and poor game managers. I'd be slightly surprised if Youngs didn't sneak in due to his experience, but I can see the rationale of picking Laidlaw. He's unlikely to be in with a shout of making the Test side, but as a man and a leader on the pitch, I think he's an excellent choice, particularly considering that- due to the nature of the midweek games- there's not much room to rotate the side and field a 'weak' 15/23. The concern is if Webb or Murray gets injured, and for that reason I can see Gatland wanting Youngs on the bench for the Tests over Laidlaw. I could be wrong though.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
My confusion comes when Ringrose gets in and JJ doesn't, JJ is better in pretty much every aspect.

Well he has four years head start as an International so yeah, his record in an International shirt might glisten more than Ringrose's so far.  But better in pretty much every aspect?  Let's wait a few years more and tally them closer to the end of their International careers rather than judging them on their unequal exposure to the International game.

The future Ringrose may indeed suprass JJ, but the current one doesn't. I'm talking about their abilty rather than any kind of records, JJ is a currently a much better player.

Ability is proven now with each game that comes...not records.  Ringrose is now an International - it's up to him now on each occasion he's picked to prove your view of him in comparison to JJ invalid.  That's where the coaches come in and make their choices.  They decide who gets picked to either embellish their reputations or ruin them.  It's pointless saying who is best on the past, the Lions tour and future Internationals  are all out there in the future.

I personally think Gats might be loving all the fuss and maybe he has spun some releases to get the journalistic juices flowing.  Let's wait for Wednesday, isn't that naming day?  Frankly I think denying JJ or indeed Launchbury a trip to New Zealand would be undefendable in terms of form.  Gats is coach so he won't have to do much defending - "It's my opinion and that's all that matters" - but that'll be lucky for him as there is not much defending in it if he doesn't pick either.

I just stall on your man kok-sure certainty that from here on in, JJ is better in every department to young rookie Ringrose.  The future will tell.

Sonny Bill Williams will remember Ben Te'o from their league days where only Sam Burgess could get the better of him physically. He'll make mince meat out of Davies and won't be concerned in the slightest what's coming towards him.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

cascough wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

cascough wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I have seen on some of these "leaked teams" that Laidlaw is in with a shout.

I try to be as balanced and as fair as possible but Laidlaw? Really? He is currently injured and there are far more deserving Scottish players than him!

What does nationality have to do with it? Or are you suggesting Price and Pyrgos?

I can see the logic behind taking someone like Laidlaw, he puts the ball in the right areas of the field and for a power game, that's a good thing. I personally think the SH best at doing this is Wigglesworth (plus he's fit!), but he would always be an outside bet as he's in the international wilderness.

That being said, both Murray and Youngs have strong tactical kicking games so I'd pick those 2 and then one of Webb, Care or Davies to provide an alternative.

No, I'm suggesting that Seymour is one of the best wingers the Lions have at their disposal, he probably won't tour. Watson is one of the best opensides the Lions have at their disposal, he probably won't tour.

Laidlaw is currently injured and IMO Murry and Webb are far better and to be honest apart from a boot and good leadership, Laidlaw is a very average scrum half. He fits well into what Cotter did with Scotland and has a lot of fans at Glaws, but Scotland have players (Seymour and Watson) who I think are better than what the other Lions nations have to offer, but will not be considered for one reason or another.

What do Seymour and Watson have to do with Laidlaw? They're not scrum halves.

Correct, taking Laidlaw IMO smacks of tokenism.

Laidlaw is being taken because the squad will be light on Scots (presumably) and it's light on Scots potentially because some of Gatland's faves might travel instead of those who are actually worthy of travelling (Watson and Seymour).

Clear it up any?

I don't think Gatland would go in for tokenism. Especially not to the point where he would be using it as a reason not to select other players.

He's not an idiot, if he was going to go in for tokenism, he'd be looking to select 2 or 3 of the "best" Scots. He does want to win, after all.

miaow wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
Warrenball's all well and good in the NH - it's served Wales pretty well in the 6N over the past few years. But it doesn't work that well vs SH teams who have the individual skill levels to work around it - the likes of Samoa can give Warrenballing Wales a scare, & the Sanzar teams brush it off more often than not.

It doesn't matter how good your defense is against a 2005-grade Carter or a 2016-17 grade Barrett, they're going to find a way through. Hence you're better off trying to find ways to score as many points as possible.

Yeah, I understand the point, and I agree to an extent. However, you have to separate Warrenball as a premise from the Welshness of Gatland's Wales. The Welsh psyche is something that's hard to really explain to people outside the country. In short, Wales bottle it against big teams, and when in winning positions, when they really, really shouldn't. This is nothing new, and I'm not going to elaborate on why this is the case, that's for another thread. But it's there. It's real, and it disproportionately affects Wales against the SANZAR nations, but is by no means exclusive to them.

"Warrenball" (as a crude simplification) is about keeping the score down, yes. It's also about mitigating against the talents of the opposition. It's about winning Rugby, often against the odds. I make no pretence of the fact that Gatland's tactics can be horribly frustrating, and that Wales lose games where they shouldn't. But I also recognise the utility of it, and its benefits. Wales lost against Australia in 2012 because of their own inability to close out a game, particularly in the 2nd Test. Likewise 3 years later in the RWC. The groundwork for those victories was built by Warrenball, and frankly, the collapse had very little to do with the tactics, and everything to do with mental fragility and individual idiocy/indiscipline.

The Lions will not be going out there to stave off wave after wave of NZ attack. As I've said, it's much more about controlling the game than it is about tackling/playing 'negatively', although this is of course a big part of Rugby, and you do that with and without the ball. The Lions will be going down there to score tries, no doubt, but primarily they can beat the All Blacks through being more disciplined, working harder, and being better goalkickers and defenders than them.

I mean no offence, but forgive me if I'm a little dubious about Kiwis bemoaning the fact that the Lions won't be coming down to you looking to "score as many points as possible". Yes, I'm sure it would be exhilirating to see NZ win the first Test 55-35. However, if you're going to tactically release the shackles from the game, and allow luck, but more importantly, individual and collective talent to dictate who wins the Test series, then NZ win. Every. Single. Time. You, as fans, are unfortunately hampered by the fact that NZ are perenially the best country in the World at Rugby, and so don't have to worry about playing another country and trying to be competitive/win whilst compensating for the fact that the opposition is- almost to a man- better than you. Add in the scheduling and nature of the Lions, and they're really on a hiding to nothing if they take the approach you're suggesting. And, as I said, forgive me if I think your suggestions aren't necessarily in the best interests of Gatland's resume and a Lions victory...

I thought you said Wales win the big games playing Gatland ball.... yet in this post you say too often Wales bottle it.

To beat the ABs - I disagree, you can't hold back, you have to hit NZ hard, you have to utilise pressure,pressure,pressure. That doesn't mean being loose, it means being clinical.

The ABs believe in themselves. They can turn a game on its head with a quickfire try or two, they know they have the firepower.

Become predictable and you are easier to beat.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:miaow Gatland ball has been shown to be mostly ineffective vs SH sides with a poor record.

You say that it works when it matters. No it doesn't unless you believe that beating England in the RWC in 2015 is the only game that matters.

NZ have dealt with Wales and Gatland every single time.

He has won about half his games in charge. Has a poor record against most sides.

He has a 68% winning record vs 6N teams. A 15% record vs SANZAAR (those 3 wins vs Arg help) & a 31% winning record vs all SH teams, making a 51% record overall

Opponent Matches Win %
 Argentina 3 100%
 Australia 9 11%
 Canada 1 100%
 England 12 50%
 Fiji 4 75%
 France 9 56%
 Ireland 12 50%
 Italy 9 100%
 Namibia 1 100%
 New Zealand 10 0%
 Samoa 2 100%
 Scotland 8 100%
 South Africa 11 9%
 Tonga 1 100%
 Uruguay 1 100%
TOTAL 93 51%

It looks like you've discounted the matches that Howley was in charge for? Excellent post Pete - it confirms what a stupid comment that was from Goose which is all I've come to expect from him.

No 7&1/2 wrote:More you made your mind up without watching him and now you're descriptions of him are well wide of the mark miaow.

You litereally offer nothing constructive. You're fake news, 7.5.

Also, *your.

Scottrf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

beshocked wrote:miaow Gatland ball has been shown to be mostly ineffective vs SH sides with a poor record.

You say that it works when it matters. No it doesn't unless you believe that beating England in the RWC in 2015 is the only game that matters.

NZ have dealt with Wales and Gatland every single time.

He has won about half his games in charge. Has a poor record against most sides.

Which sides?

I'm sure you can research that.

I asked my advisor Pete to do it. You were wrong.

I'm not talking about the future Secretfly, I'm talking about now. JJ is a better player in pretty much all aspects of the game currently, I honestly can't think of one aspect that Ringrose is better at.

Ringrose may go on to be the best 13 ever but as it stands we can only judge on what a player has done on the pitch and JJ is ahead.

I really like the look of Ringrose but I can't understand why he'd be selected ahead of JJ.

miaow wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
Warrenball's all well and good in the NH - it's served Wales pretty well in the 6N over the past few years. But it doesn't work that well vs SH teams who have the individual skill levels to work around it - the likes of Samoa can give Warrenballing Wales a scare, & the Sanzar teams brush it off more often than not.

It doesn't matter how good your defense is against a 2005-grade Carter or a 2016-17 grade Barrett, they're going to find a way through. Hence you're better off trying to find ways to score as many points as possible.

Yeah, I understand the point, and I agree to an extent. However, you have to separate Warrenball as a premise from the Welshness of Gatland's Wales. The Welsh psyche is something that's hard to really explain to people outside the country. In short, Wales bottle it against big teams, and when in winning positions, when they really, really shouldn't. This is nothing new, and I'm not going to elaborate on why this is the case, that's for another thread. But it's there. It's real, and it disproportionately affects Wales against the SANZAR nations, but is by no means exclusive to them.

"Warrenball" (as a crude simplification) is about keeping the score down, yes. It's also about mitigating against the talents of the opposition. It's about winning Rugby, often against the odds. I make no pretence of the fact that Gatland's tactics can be horribly frustrating, and that Wales lose games where they shouldn't. But I also recognise the utility of it, and its benefits. Wales lost against Australia in 2012 because of their own inability to close out a game, particularly in the 2nd Test. Likewise 3 years later in the RWC. The groundwork for those victories was built by Warrenball, and frankly, the collapse had very little to do with the tactics, and everything to do with mental fragility and individual idiocy/indiscipline.

The Lions will not be going out there to stave off wave after wave of NZ attack. As I've said, it's much more about controlling the game than it is about tackling/playing 'negatively', although this is of course a big part of Rugby, and you do that with and without the ball. The Lions will be going down there to score tries, no doubt, but primarily they can beat the All Blacks through being more disciplined, working harder, and being better goalkickers and defenders than them.

I mean no offence, but forgive me if I'm a little dubious about Kiwis bemoaning the fact that the Lions won't be coming down to you looking to "score as many points as possible". Yes, I'm sure it would be exhilirating to see NZ win the first Test 55-35. However, if you're going to tactically release the shackles from the game, and allow luck, but more importantly, individual and collective talent to dictate who wins the Test series, then NZ win. Every. Single. Time. You, as fans, are unfortunately hampered by the fact that NZ are perenially the best country in the World at Rugby, and so don't have to worry about playing another country and trying to be competitive/win whilst compensating for the fact that the opposition is- almost to a man- better than you. Add in the scheduling and nature of the Lions, and they're really on a hiding to nothing if they take the approach you're suggesting. And, as I said, forgive me if I think your suggestions aren't necessarily in the best interests of Gatland's resume and a Lions victory...

All true Miaow - the main problem that Gatland has is that he has to choose from 4 test teams that have astonishingly different playing styles.

However, the point above is well made. If Gatland is electing to continue with the same style as Wales, then it is undeniable that (in terms of wins and losses) this has been some of the least effective against SANZAR opposition in recent years. You will be better trying to ape Ireland's style, which makes the absence of Joe Schmidt from the coaching team all the more damaging. It may be the case that Wales' style is easiest to teach to a bunch of new players unfamiliar with it, but I will still be disappointed if we are adopting defence first and foremost.

beshocked wrote:
I thought you said Wales win the big games playing Gatland ball.... yet in this post you say too often Wales bottle it.

To beat the ABs - I disagree, you can't hold back, you have to hit NZ hard, you have to utilise pressure,pressure,pressure. That doesn't mean being loose, it means being clinical.

The ABs believe in themselves. They can turn a game on its head with a quickfire try or two, they know they have the firepower.

Become predictable and you are easier to beat.

I believe I said he gets it right more often than not, without the boundaries of resonable expectation. That's what I've said in the past, and that's what I believe- that Gatland has been in charge of Wales in games they've lost which they should have won, and won games where they should have lost. Overall, I believe he's done a pretty good job, but that some of those losses are undoubtedly a result of Welsh mental fragility.

I agree regarding pressure. I agree regarding clinicality. I don't see where we disagree there, to be honest, perhaps merely in the manifestation of those abstract ideas?

I've posted how and where the Lions will have points of difference relative to previous Tours/tournaments Gatland has coached in. I think you misunderstand the role of modern analysis in international Rugby, and how well versed every single Tier 1 team will be with the moves/styles/structures of the opposition. I think you're overplaying the role of 'predictability', to be honest. Of course the Lions won't contain the All Blacks for all 3 Tests. They're a superb team, with superb players, who play Rugby in just about the purest way it can be played. But how do you beat that? You have to minimise how superb they are, and that's what I believe Gatland will be preparing for. He's coaching to win.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Ben Te'o definitely doesn't deserve selection. Gatland does love to select kiwis though.

I agree. Frustrating, but I see the logic of it.

Can you see how it doesn't square with the 'Gatland is pro-Welsh' logic though? Gatland is definitely not a coach for Rugby purists, but he has opened up a new way of understanding and approaching the game to me, and one that- to my mind- is being replicated in many Sports as professionalism and commercialism increases. Frustrating to our old ideas of Rugby? Very much so. But I do see the logic of it.

miaow wrote:

beshocked wrote:
I thought you said Wales win the big games playing Gatland ball.... yet in this post you say too often Wales bottle it.

To beat the ABs - I disagree, you can't hold back, you have to hit NZ hard, you have to utilise pressure,pressure,pressure. That doesn't mean being loose, it means being clinical.

The ABs believe in themselves. They can turn a game on its head with a quickfire try or two, they know they have the firepower.

Become predictable and you are easier to beat.

I believe I said he gets it right more often than not, without the boundaries of resonable expectation. That's what I've said in the past, and that's what I believe- that Gatland has been in charge of Wales in games they've lost which they should have won, and won games where they should have lost. Overall, I believe he's done a pretty good job, but that some of those losses are undoubtedly a result of Welsh mental fragility.

I agree regarding pressure. I agree regarding clinicality. I don't see where we disagree there, to be honest, perhaps merely in the manifestation of those abstract ideas?

I've posted how and where the Lions will have points of difference relative to previous Tours/tournaments Gatland has coached in. I think you misunderstand the role of modern analysis in international Rugby, and how well versed every single Tier 1 team will be with the moves/styles/structures of the opposition. I think you're overplaying the role of 'predictability', to be honest. Of course the Lions won't contain the All Blacks for all 3 Tests. They're a superb team, with superb players, who play Rugby in just about the purest way it can be played. But how do you beat that? You have to minimise how superb they are, and that's what I believe Gatland will be preparing for. He's coaching to win.

Is that not a reason to not select the 50/50 Welsh players then?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:No, I'm suggesting that Seymour is one of the best wingers the Lions have at their disposal, he probably won't tour. Watson is one of the best opensides the Lions have at their disposal, he probably won't tour.

Laidlaw is currently injured and IMO Murry and Webb are far better and to be honest apart from a boot and good leadership, Laidlaw is a very average scrum half. He fits well into what Cotter did with Scotland and has a lot of fans at Glaws, but Scotland have players (Seymour and Watson) who I think are better than what the other Lions nations have to offer, but will not be considered for one reason or another.

Seymour tours for me, Watson doesn't.

Laidlaw is one of the best generals at 9, perhaps the best in the NH. I think you're doing him a disservice. He'll fit very well with Gatland's Lions, where most of the play is dictated from 9 rather than 10.

miaow wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
Warrenball's all well and good in the NH - it's served Wales pretty well in the 6N over the past few years. But it doesn't work that well vs SH teams who have the individual skill levels to work around it - the likes of Samoa can give Warrenballing Wales a scare, & the Sanzar teams brush it off more often than not.

It doesn't matter how good your defense is against a 2005-grade Carter or a 2016-17 grade Barrett, they're going to find a way through. Hence you're better off trying to find ways to score as many points as possible.

Yeah, I understand the point, and I agree to an extent. However, you have to separate Warrenball as a premise from the Welshness of Gatland's Wales. The Welsh psyche is something that's hard to really explain to people outside the country. In short, Wales bottle it against big teams, and when in winning positions, when they really, really shouldn't. This is nothing new, and I'm not going to elaborate on why this is the case, that's for another thread. But it's there. It's real, and it disproportionately affects Wales against the SANZAR nations, but is by no means exclusive to them.

"Warrenball" (as a crude simplification) is about keeping the score down, yes. It's also about mitigating against the talents of the opposition. It's about winning Rugby, often against the odds. I make no pretence of the fact that Gatland's tactics can be horribly frustrating, and that Wales lose games where they shouldn't. But I also recognise the utility of it, and its benefits. Wales lost against Australia in 2012 because of their own inability to close out a game, particularly in the 2nd Test. Likewise 3 years later in the RWC. The groundwork for those victories was built by Warrenball, and frankly, the collapse had very little to do with the tactics, and everything to do with mental fragility and individual idiocy/indiscipline.

The Lions will not be going out there to stave off wave after wave of NZ attack. As I've said, it's much more about controlling the game than it is about tackling/playing 'negatively', although this is of course a big part of Rugby, and you do that with and without the ball. The Lions will be going down there to score tries, no doubt, but primarily they can beat the All Blacks through being more disciplined, working harder, and being better goalkickers and defenders than them.

I mean no offence, but forgive me if I'm a little dubious about Kiwis bemoaning the fact that the Lions won't be coming down to you looking to "score as many points as possible". Yes, I'm sure it would be exhilirating to see NZ win the first Test 55-35. However, if you're going to tactically release the shackles from the game, and allow luck, but more importantly, individual and collective talent to dictate who wins the Test series, then NZ win. Every. Single. Time. You, as fans, are unfortunately hampered by the fact that NZ are perenially the best country in the World at Rugby, and so don't have to worry about playing another country and trying to be competitive/win whilst compensating for the fact that the opposition is- almost to a man- better than you. Add in the scheduling and nature of the Lions, and they're really on a hiding to nothing if they take the approach you're suggesting. And, as I said, forgive me if I think your suggestions aren't necessarily in the best interests of Gatland's resume and a Lions victory...

Fair answer mate. Honestly, I don't think the Lions are going to win this series whoever they select and however they play. So frankly I'd rather be entertained. That said, if you look at NZ's defeats in recent years (and granted there haven't been many) very few have come about from a team defending for dear life and hanging on. You don't have to play NZ style rugby to beat NZ. You generally have to score at least 25 points in the match though. And I can't see Warrenball managing that. Having a crack just might.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Sonny Bill Williams will remember Ben Te'o from their league days where only Sam Burgess could get the better of him physically. He'll make mince meat out of Davies and won't be concerned in the slightest what's coming towards him.

That's assuming Davies is going on tour and then gets selected for the test matches? There's a chance he won't feature...

Sgt_Pooly wrote:"Laidlaw is being taken because the squad will be light on Scots (presumably)"

I really doubt that Rugger.

I also think Seymour & Watson are well down the pecking order, well my pecking order anyway.

Herein lies the problem, we have great players who won't go because they are down a perceived pecking order. Based on what? Watson has been Scotland's best player this year IMO. Better than Hogg, better than Laidlaw and better than the Gray brothers, even in a dreadful Edinburgh team he is playing well. However he hasn't had anything like the exposure of other players. Also Seymour, solid in defence, great under the high ball and a proven try scorer, but again down your pecking order.

I appreciate it's all opinions, but I would be interested to know who you think would be above them in a pecking order? An injured Sam Warburton? Sean O'brien who was utterly nulified by Watson in their head to head? Haskell who is a terrific athlete but not much of a rugby player?

Seymour is a guy who has real competition from the likes of Nowell or Ant Watson (I left Daly out who must surely be considered a 13 since JJ might be getting left out which is another error IMO), but certainly Cuthbert, Earls or Zebo haven't done more than him this year to warrant selection.

I dunno, I'll gauge my interest in this tour after tomorrow's announcement. If the team is flooded with woefully out of form Welsh players I'll probably have very little interest in what goes on.

As for Laidlaw, he does a great job for Scotland, but you are not going to beat a NZ Super Rugby franchise with his speed of service. I can imagine Farrell or Sexton chinning him live on TV is he does what he does for Scotland!!!!

R!skysports wrote:Is that not a reason to not select the 50/50 Welsh players then?

Partly. However- another interesting aspect of national identity/make up/psychology- you mix those Welsh boys in with the other 4 nations, and suddenly you don't have a conglomerate of like-psyches. There's something to be said for English confidence that makes them excellent leaders. To my mind, Owen Farrell is probably the most important player from the point of the Lions' self belief on the Tour. Of course, it's a bit simplistic, you can have great Welsh leaders, and a player's mental ability isn't entirely dictated by their nationality, but I do believe that the Welsh players are not good at being favourites and leaders to the same extent as Ireland and England are. You could argue those two aren't great, either, and I'd tend to agree, for England post 2003 until recently in particular. But add all the elements together, and you get an interesting pyschological melting pot, and one that- if you get the combinations right- you can create the perfect mix of mentality.

Of course, whilst psychology is very interesting, it is only one facet of the game, and the Lions have the 'benefit' of underdog status going into this one (which they're used to, but arguably, is it a benefit against NZ?)

R!skysports wrote:

miaow wrote:

beshocked wrote:
I thought you said Wales win the big games playing Gatland ball.... yet in this post you say too often Wales bottle it.

To beat the ABs - I disagree, you can't hold back, you have to hit NZ hard, you have to utilise pressure,pressure,pressure. That doesn't mean being loose, it means being clinical.

The ABs believe in themselves. They can turn a game on its head with a quickfire try or two, they know they have the firepower.

Become predictable and you are easier to beat.

I believe I said he gets it right more often than not, without the boundaries of resonable expectation. That's what I've said in the past, and that's what I believe- that Gatland has been in charge of Wales in games they've lost which they should have won, and won games where they should have lost. Overall, I believe he's done a pretty good job, but that some of those losses are undoubtedly a result of Welsh mental fragility.

I agree regarding pressure. I agree regarding clinicality. I don't see where we disagree there, to be honest, perhaps merely in the manifestation of those abstract ideas?

I've posted how and where the Lions will have points of difference relative to previous Tours/tournaments Gatland has coached in. I think you misunderstand the role of modern analysis in international Rugby, and how well versed every single Tier 1 team will be with the moves/styles/structures of the opposition. I think you're overplaying the role of 'predictability', to be honest. Of course the Lions won't contain the All Blacks for all 3 Tests. They're a superb team, with superb players, who play Rugby in just about the purest way it can be played. But how do you beat that? You have to minimise how superb they are, and that's what I believe Gatland will be preparing for. He's coaching to win.

Is that not a reason to not select the 50/50 Welsh players then?

Well perhaps the belief is that the Irish,Scottish and English players can help the fragile Welsh psyche vs tri nations sides.

Certainly worked in 2013. Wales on their own struggled vs Australia but with reinforcements from the other home nations were able to be victorious.

I like to use the term "comfort blanket" in these kind of scenarios.

beshocked wrote:

R!skysports wrote:

miaow wrote:

beshocked wrote:
I thought you said Wales win the big games playing Gatland ball.... yet in this post you say too often Wales bottle it.

To beat the ABs - I disagree, you can't hold back, you have to hit NZ hard, you have to utilise pressure,pressure,pressure. That doesn't mean being loose, it means being clinical.

The ABs believe in themselves. They can turn a game on its head with a quickfire try or two, they know they have the firepower.

Become predictable and you are easier to beat.

I believe I said he gets it right more often than not, without the boundaries of resonable expectation. That's what I've said in the past, and that's what I believe- that Gatland has been in charge of Wales in games they've lost which they should have won, and won games where they should have lost. Overall, I believe he's done a pretty good job, but that some of those losses are undoubtedly a result of Welsh mental fragility.

I agree regarding pressure. I agree regarding clinicality. I don't see where we disagree there, to be honest, perhaps merely in the manifestation of those abstract ideas?

I've posted how and where the Lions will have points of difference relative to previous Tours/tournaments Gatland has coached in. I think you misunderstand the role of modern analysis in international Rugby, and how well versed every single Tier 1 team will be with the moves/styles/structures of the opposition. I think you're overplaying the role of 'predictability', to be honest. Of course the Lions won't contain the All Blacks for all 3 Tests. They're a superb team, with superb players, who play Rugby in just about the purest way it can be played. But how do you beat that? You have to minimise how superb they are, and that's what I believe Gatland will be preparing for. He's coaching to win.

Is that not a reason to not select the 50/50 Welsh players then?

Well perhaps the belief is that the Irish,Scottish and English players can help the fragile Welsh psyche vs tri nations sides.

Certainly worked in 2013. Wales on their own struggled vs Australia but with reinforcements from the other home nations were able to be victorious.

I like to use the term "comfort blanket" in these kind of scenarios.

I can tell you are a 'man' who requires a designated safe space every now and then .

mikey_dragon wrote:
I asked my advisor Pete to do it. You were wrong.

Maybe I should have said, considering he's supposed to be one of the best coaches, he doesn't have a good record vs any top teams. Just some average and some poor records.

Look at who NZ have played recently.

Argentina, who wonderful as they are to watch are as erratic as you like. The proverbial 50 minute team.

Australia, who were pretty dire in the Championship and then got whitewashed in their own back yard, came up North, nearly lost to Scotland and got beaten by Ireland and England.

South Africa, who are in absolute turmoil. Let's leave it at that.

Wales, who arguably had the best crack at them as they were having a first run out since the WC with some new personnel and combinations. Wales went to throw the ball around and NZ overcame it whilst looking pretty rusty.

They are all teams in varying states of disarray/evolution For varying reasons, none of those teams have been able to put any sort of concerted pressure on NZ. As a result, NZ have never really looked in trouble.

Ireland on the other hand, did. And they were two very close games. In fact, Ireland even managed to cut away a bit towards the end.

NZ, like any other team, are a different beast when they are under pressure. Now you might not like Gatlands tactics, but given the unique challenge of the Lions, scratch squad, 8 weeks together, you can't deny that there might be some merit in his methods.

People accusing him of tokenism, watch the Lions DVDs, watch how nervous he gets when watching the games. There walks a man who desperately wants to win. He's picking a squad that he thinks will deliver that.

I'm no great lover of Gatland and his tactics, and christ knows, if the rumours are true then there will be players missing I'd have selected and players present I wouldn't, but he's got the job, he's gonna do it to the best of his ability, lets get behind the team!

Scottrf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:
I asked my advisor Pete to do it. You were wrong.

Maybe I should have said, considering he's supposed to be one of the best coaches, he doesn't have a good record vs any top teams. Just some average and some poor records.

Considering he does a lot of hard work and doesn't make a career off of teams having a purple patch, and has plenty of silverware to show for it I'd say yes he is a decent coach. I mean if people think Cotter getting Scotland to fourth this one time in the 6N is amazing where does that leave Gatland? Yes if you had said that about the record you would have been closer to the truth and looking less silly.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I'm not talking about the future Secretfly, I'm talking about now. JJ is a better player in pretty much all aspects of the game currently, I honestly can't think of one aspect that Ringrose is better at.

Ringrose may go on to be the best 13 ever but as it stands we can only judge on what a player has done on the pitch and JJ is ahead.

I really like the look of Ringrose but I can't understand why he'd be selected ahead of JJ.

I have to agree with Pooly here, JJ for me is better than Ringrose right now and would deserve a place ahead of him. Think Ringrose has great potential but right now I would feel more confident with JJ.

12 : Henshaw/Farrell
13 : JJ or Possibly Jason Bourne of Scotland...

That's how it looks to me.

eirebilly wrote:

I have to agree with Pooly here, JJ for me is better than Ringrose right now and would deserve a place ahead of him. Think Ringrose has great potential but right now I would feel more confident with JJ.

12 : Henshaw/Farrell
13 : JJ or Possibly Jason Bourne of Scotland...

That's how it looks to me.

Grand by me. Ringrose gets to tour with Schmidt and Ireland. I'll be more focused on the serious business of preparing Ireland for the future and the next WC.

George Carlin wrote:All true Miaow - the main problem that Gatland has is that he has to choose from 4 test teams that have astonishingly different playing styles.

However, the point above is well made. If Gatland is electing to continue with the same style as Wales, then it is undeniable that (in terms of wins and losses) this has been some of the least effective against SANZAR opposition in recent years. You will be better trying to ape Ireland's style, which makes the absence of Joe Schmidt from the coaching team all the more damaging. It may be the case that Wales' style is easiest to teach to a bunch of new players unfamiliar with it, but I will still be disappointed if we are adopting defence first and foremost.

Not sure, I think Ireland play very similarly to Wales. England and Scotland are the obvious standouts, but the utility and novelty of each style respectively was questioned this Six Nations. England's rampaging ruck play was far less effective this 6Ns than it was in 2016, and they limped over the line a bit in the tournament, showing how- without that go forward produced from sheer physicality at the breakdown- they struggled to move the ball into the midfield where their attack could carve up the opposition.

Scotland were obviously 'found out' by England, but play probably the 'closest' in terms of style to the ABs out of any of the 4. With all due respect, and I really have enjoyed how Scotland have played under Cotter, NZ have generations and a systemic culture that prioritises and hones that style of play. Going out there with Vern Cotter's mentality, whilst admirable, would be tricky, not least because it's not even a "Scottish" style, for want of a definition, apart from the Glasgow players (at least, not yet a Scottish style, and not in the same ingrained way).

That said, that's no excuse to limit the number of Scots. Laidlaw, Seymour, Dunbar, the Grays, Watson; all of these can easily adapt to 'Warrenball'. Hogg, Russell etc. will struggle, and I can't see the latter making the Tour, even with injury. But it's flawed to worry about defence being a bad basis on which to build a team, to be honest.

Worth giving this video a watch. I think people making assumptions about Wales under Gatland haven't perhaps really appreciated how varied they can and do play against certain opposition:

https://youtu.be/0OtUvG3C9jg?t=4m9s

SecretFly wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

I have to agree with Pooly here, JJ for me is better than Ringrose right now and would deserve a place ahead of him. Think Ringrose has great potential but right now I would feel more confident with JJ.

12 : Henshaw/Farrell
13 : JJ or Possibly Jason Bourne of Scotland...

That's how it looks to me.

Grand by me.     Ringrose gets to tour with Schmidt and Ireland.  I'll be more focused on the serious business of preparing Ireland for the future and the next WC.

I think everyone aside from the Welsh will doing the same.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:Fair answer mate. Honestly, I don't think the Lions are going to win this series whoever they select and however they play. So frankly I'd rather be entertained. That said, if you look at NZ's defeats in recent years (and granted there haven't been many) very few have come about from a team defending for dear life and hanging on. You don't have to play NZ style rugby to beat NZ. You generally have to score at least 25 points in the match though. And I can't see Warrenball managing that. Having a crack just might.

Yeah, to be honest I agree. I don't think there's a tougher challenge in Rugby than what the Lions are going to be facing later this year. That's what makes it so exciting, though. The possibility of winning against such long odds.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

I have to agree with Pooly here, JJ for me is better than Ringrose right now and would deserve a place ahead of him. Think Ringrose has great potential but right now I would feel more confident with JJ.

12 : Henshaw/Farrell
13 : JJ or Possibly Jason Bourne of Scotland...

That's how it looks to me.

Grand by me.     Ringrose gets to tour with Schmidt and Ireland.  I'll be more focused on the serious business of preparing Ireland for the future and the next WC.

I think everyone aside from the Welsh will doing the same.

You're on fire with the BS today aren't you. What was that song by Johnny Cash again?

mikey_dragon wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:
I asked my advisor Pete to do it. You were wrong.

Maybe I should have said, considering he's supposed to be one of the best coaches, he doesn't have a good record vs any top teams. Just some average and some poor records.

Considering he does a lot of hard work and doesn't make a career off of teams having a purple patch, and has plenty of silverware to show for it I'd say yes he is a decent coach. I mean if people think Cotter getting Scotland to fourth this one time in the 6N is amazing where does that leave Gatland? Yes if you had said that about the record you would have been closer to the truth and looking less silly.

1. Firstly consider the crap Scotland have been serving up for the last decade to get an example of how well Cotter has done.
2. We beat 3 teams ahead of us in the world rankings this season (Argentina, Ireland and Wales)
3. 4th in the 6N true, but we also beat 3 teams, only the second time we have done that, also beating 2 teams that expected to beat us.

Cotter is a great coach and I think Scotland are being immensely foolish to let him go, but please if you can't see the difference before and after Vern Cotter coached Scotland you really don't know much about Rugby.

Gatland had a very strong contingent of players when he took over Wales, Phillips, Jenkins, Shane Williams, Roberts, Ryan Jones, James Hook, AWJ, Adam Jones, Lee Byrne, and emerging Halfpenny. Players that would go on to form the core of one of the best Welsh sides for years.

Townsend's Glasgow laid a very strong foundation for Cotter's Scotland to flourish but it's Cotter that instilled the belief that the team can compete and win. Since the RWC 2015 Scotland have been improving and have (despite finishing 4th on points difference) had their best 6N since it's inception. The wins Scotland had weren't burglaries on teams who had off days as has been the case in the past. They were sustained performances built on strong breakdown work and finished off by one of the best attacking backlines in the championship.

Hopefully Gatland will see these key contributions and pick his team accordingly. If he picks 4 Scots, I think that's fair:

J Gray, Watson, Seymour, Hogg (would be my picks to tour) although as I have said apparently Laidlaw is in contention. He would be honoured to tour no doubt, and would make a great midweek captain/kicker. However to beat these NZ super teams he isn't the right mould of Scrumhalf to do it.

miaow wrote:

George Carlin wrote:All true Miaow - the main problem that Gatland has is that he has to choose from 4 test teams that have astonishingly different playing styles.

However, the point above is well made. If Gatland is electing to continue with the same style as Wales, then it is undeniable that (in terms of wins and losses) this has been some of the least effective against SANZAR opposition in recent years. You will be better trying to ape Ireland's style, which makes the absence of Joe Schmidt from the coaching team all the more damaging. It may be the case that Wales' style is easiest to teach to a bunch of new players unfamiliar with it, but I will still be disappointed if we are adopting defence first and foremost.

Not sure, I think Ireland play very similarly to Wales. England and Scotland are the obvious standouts, but the utility and novelty of each style respectively was questioned this Six Nations. England's rampaging ruck play was far less effective this 6Ns than it was in 2016, and they limped over the line a bit in the tournament, showing how- without that go forward produced from sheer physicality at the breakdown- they struggled to move the ball into the midfield where their attack could carve up the opposition.

Scotland were obviously 'found out' by England, but play probably the 'closest' in terms of style to the ABs out of any of the 4. With all due respect, and I really have enjoyed how Scotland have played under Cotter, NZ have generations and a systemic culture that prioritises and hones that style of play. Going out there with Vern Cotter's mentality, whilst admirable, would be tricky, not least because it's not even a "Scottish" style, for want of a definition, apart from the Glasgow players (at least, not yet a Scottish style, and not in the same ingrained way).

That said, that's no excuse to limit the number of Scots. Laidlaw, Seymour, Dunbar, the Grays, Watson; all of these can easily adapt to 'Warrenball'. Hogg, Russell etc. will struggle, and I can't see the latter making the Tour, even with injury. But it's flawed to worry about defence being a bad basis on which to build a team, to be honest.

Worth giving this video a watch. I think people making assumptions about Wales under Gatland haven't perhaps really appreciated how varied they can and do play against certain opposition:

https://youtu.be/0OtUvG3C9jg?t=4m9s

Good video - serves as a reminder of how crucial Liam Williams is.

My worry is less that and more, well, this sort of thing:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:
I asked my advisor Pete to do it. You were wrong.

Maybe I should have said, considering he's supposed to be one of the best coaches, he doesn't have a good record vs any top teams. Just some average and some poor records.

Considering he does a lot of hard work and doesn't make a career off of teams having a purple patch, and has plenty of silverware to show for it I'd say yes he is a decent coach. I mean if people think Cotter getting Scotland to fourth this one time in the 6N is amazing where does that leave Gatland? Yes if you had said that about the record you would have been closer to the truth and looking less silly.

1. Firstly consider the crap Scotland have been serving up for the last decade to get an example of how well Cotter has done.
2. We beat 3 teams ahead of us in the world rankings this season (Argentina, Ireland and Wales)
3. 4th in the 6N true, but we also beat 3 teams, only the second time we have done that, also beating 2 teams that expected to beat us.

Cotter is a great coach and I think Scotland are being immensely foolish to let him go, but please if you can't see the difference before and after Vern Cotter coached Scotland you really don't know much about Rugby.

Gatland had a very strong contingent of players when he took over Wales, Phillips, Jenkins, Shane Williams, Roberts, Ryan Jones, James Hook, AWJ, Adam Jones, Lee Byrne, and emerging Halfpenny. Players that would go on to form the core of one of the best Welsh sides for years.

Townsend's Glasgow laid a very strong foundation for Cotter's Scotland to flourish but it's Cotter that instilled the belief that the team can compete and win. Since the RWC 2015 Scotland have been improving and have (despite finishing 4th on points difference) had their best 6N since it's inception. The wins Scotland had weren't burglaries on teams who had off days as has been the case in the past. They were sustained performances built on strong breakdown work and finished off by one of the best attacking backlines in the championship.

Hopefully Gatland will see these key contributions and pick his team accordingly. If he picks 4 Scots, I think that's fair:

J Gray, Watson, Seymour, Hogg (would be my picks to tour) although as I have said apparently Laidlaw is in contention. He would be honoured to tour no doubt, and would make a great midweek captain/kicker. However to beat these NZ super teams he isn't the right mould of Scrumhalf to do it.

Cotter is obviously a good coach, I just don't think he's as good as some of ye make out. I actually think Townsend will be very good for Scotland, and likewise Rennie for Glasgow. Gatland doesn't have much resources to work with. There aren't that many good players available and they're based at 4 average teams across south Wales, which is just a bit bigger than Glasgow. Development and structure wise he's done a lot and Wales have occasionally batted above their weight.