British & Irish Lions Squad 2017

First topic message reminder :

Scottrf wrote:Lawes was better than AWJ every week in the 6 Nations and isn't injured yet he's the strange call

AWJ is a leader and well respected by his peers as well as being a former winning Lions test captain.

Lions players aren't just based on how well they did in the six nations, they are picked on how well the coaches think they will gel into the squad.

You need leaders on and off the pitch.

rugby is just a game at the end of the day. Family is the most important thing.
Thoughts with all the Young's family.

Yes condolences to the Youngs family, puts everything into perspective.

I feel very sorry for Ben losing this opportunity of a lifetime but it pales into significance compared to Tom's situation. What a strong and selfless decision to take. I hope they both have a storming end to the season for their club.

aucklandlaurie wrote:New Zealand was one of the last places on earth to be discovered by white man, When The English had perfected a working legislature which we now call the  Westminster system and had already written volumes of case law as evidenced in the All England law report reprint.

 Meanwhile 10,000 miles away the Maori were busy engaging in Hakas, tribal war and cannibalism.

 In the year 2017 surely we can look back and take the good parts out of history, and not forget the bad parts.

Yes it's interesting how some countries got 'discovered' when there were already people, communities etc living there for hundreds, or thousands of years. Always did find that an odd one.

Winzer wrote:"Scared of haka

Hopefully your players aren't"

It's not a question of being scared, it's obvious psychology - one side gets to issue a collective threat couched in aggressive gestures, which will wind them up, while the others are supposed to be passive, which will do the opposite. If they react with their own aggression, we're told they're not 'respecting' the haka.  It's an obvious way of trying to achieve a psychological advantage for the ABs.  

Only if you let it. It's also performed at welcoming of signatories to NZ, funerals etc, are they supposed to feel threatened also? It is given as a mark of respect and should be received that way.

Or do the players actually think they're going to be physically harmed by the haka somehow, have their throats actually slit, or that by not performing it the ABs won't be just as physical on the field?

These guys have seen it hundreds of times, if there's one thing about it is it's entirely predictable, follows a strict routine and pattern, and ends.

If anything, and if you've ever done it it can leave you slightly drained at the very start of the match because they're taught to put everything into it, physically and mentally, so if anything, the best response is to go full at them while they're all recovering from performing it.

I really don't think sides have thought enough about how to get best advantage out of it and prefer just to moan, cower about its advantage, allow it to own them.

Who's fault is that?

Greg Laidlaw gets picked in Ben Youngs place.

Greg is a fine man and a good captain and player and deserves his place, but I can't imagine how he must be feeling getting picked in these circumstances either.

Taylorman, I love the Haka. And I love cultural stuff from around the world in general. The Haka is a great spectacle, but I know that it's not the point of it (being a spectacle). It's for the NZ players themselves, rather than for the crowds. I understand that and I understand the respect that is demanded for it. I get it. And I do respect it and admire it. Love seeing the schools stuff from NZ when they're performing Hakas at a young age so passionately. My only gripe (not sure that's the right word) is that away from home, on foreign soil (e.g. In Wales, France, Japan, Oz, wherever), it is seen as disrespectful to even ask or suggest that the Haka be performed at any other time other than after both anthems. I just don't get how the home team is called 'disrespectful' for doing something so minor (in relative terms, when thinking about all of the things in the world you could get upset about like war and world poverty) as asking to sing their anthem after the Haka (as a response), or whatever they might ask to do? Is it not equally disrespectful for NZ to tour to foreign lands and insist on calling the shots? At home the right is yours, obviously. But away from home? Not looking for a fight on this but was just curious of you take on it? The rugby world has to bow to the Haka. Anything else is disrespectful. Is it not disrespectful to expect hosts to comply fully with timing, response, etc.?

On another note, whenever I see either Lions or individual B&I nations touring NZ they always seem so at pains to not make any cultural faux pas. They're seeking out advice from Maori tribe leaders, they're seeking advice on how to accept the Haka challenge on the pitch (BOD and the picking up the blade of grass, on advice from local tribe elders - although later dismissed by many NZ'erz as incorrect and actually disrespectful), they're sh*t scared of making a cultural mistake and being called 'disrspectful'. Do NZ do the same when on tour themselves? Again, genuine question. Not looking for a fight. I just don't follow NZ tours abroad to know enough. But my initial perception is that it's a bit one way traffic.

I presume Griff you are only talking about at top international level? as in the All Blacks?

Yeah, just a question really Laurie. Not a biggie. Should NZ (by that I mean All Blacks) call the shots abroad, basically.

No, I dont think they should, it would be far worse if it was imposed upon hosts when they dont like/want it, and in the long run it will become something similar to people having to stand 40 years ago for "God save the Queen" before the start of the pictures. but they in turn should come out and say so. I have heard this a couple of times from Welsh posters on this forum, Rainbow has mentioned it many times.

 I would rather (me personally) the haka not done at all than before the national Anthems, because in Maori folklore there is no such thing as a national Anthem, and it therefore somewhat defeats the purpose of introducing a Foreign culture yet categorising it as being lesser to the one that has national Anthems.

 A fear I do have for the Haka is that there is a risk that it might go out of the control of "Rugby" in the Rugby environment, especially with games like these ones coming up in the Lions tour, and my stance is that the only people that should do the Haka are the players, unless you are selected for the team then you havent earned the right to be on the field. Rugby has been more than accomodating to the Maori culture and Maori culture must in turn respect Rugby for that.

 Many, not all NZ Rugby school teams travelling overseas do hakas for their hosts, without terms and conditions attached, lets hope we can keep it that way.

No one is talking about terms and conditions attached, Laurie. We're talkng about respect running in both directions.

On your point about Welsh posters, I think it was mentioned by Welsh in the past because we (Welsh Union) asked permission to respond to the challenge of the Haka (which we ignorantly assumed was a challenge?) to mark the 100 year anniversary of the meeting of our two nations in rugby by singing our anthem in response. Singing is something the Welsh identify with culturally and I think it would have been a nice way to mark the occasion. Just a one off. And this was not in NZ, this was when the game was played in Wales. But we were called disrespectful for suggesting it. Again, no one was stopping you from performing the Haka. No one adding conditions, unless you consider the timing of the Haka in the pre game stuff 'conditions'. If so, then you're also forcing 'conditions' on everyone else. i just find it odd that a home team has to ask politely to do something, tiptoe and walk on egg shells, and then get called disrespectful for doing so. Doesn't sit right with me.

Was the Welsh team going to sing the national anthem or was it an entertainer accompanied by the crowd?

When I mentioned it's about respect Griff I meant respect for the opposition. Whenever it is performed it is performed for the benefit of the receiver, for the status they hold either as the opponent, the bereaved, the welcomed etc. for whatever the occasion is.

Visiting signatories are welcomed at airports, on maraes all around NZ as a sign of respect. They're not kiwis, they receive it as it's meant.

It's only some oppositions in rugby that perceive it incorrectly, simply because it clashes with their own culture. In performing the haka it is the giving of respect, not the taking of it.

Yes it's blurred a bit when performed overseas but when it's performed in places like Samoa they accepted it as it was meant, simply because they have a similar culture.

The performing of it in places like Twickenham and Millenium is more down to it being requested than the ABs insisting they perform it, because the fact is it is popular and generates revenue, so there's an element of selfishness that the ABs have to adhere to.

So if they want it performed then they get it as it's traditionally performed...after the anthems.

You can't on one hand expect them to perform it for their own purposes then at the same time dictate how it is performed.

The 'request' to perform it before the anthem on the Welsh centenary was granted, out of respect to the occasion as a one off.

The then expect the same a year later was contrite and completely lacking in respect, so the ABs performed it indoors.

You may not like how and when it's performed, but it is what it is. You take it, or leave it. ABs would just as well not perform it if it's going to be watered down, bent sideways.

These are concepts you don't get and at some point it might not be performed, purely out of ignorance and and inability to appreciate and respect another culture. The ABs, or kiwis won't blink either way.

If you don't want it, so be it. But don't dictate the terms after insisting it be performed.

As posted on the club thread, Ben Youngs has dropped out of the tour for personal reasons.

http://www.leicestertigers.com/news/26676.php#.WQ4jbrpFwqI

Taylorman wrote:When I mentioned it's about respect Griff I meant respect for the opposition. Whenever it is performed it is performed for the benefit of the receiver, for the status they hold either as the opponent, the bereaved, the welcomed etc. for whatever the occasion is.

Visiting signatories are welcomed at airports, on maraes all around NZ as a sign of respect. They're not kiwis, they receive it as it's meant.

It's only some oppositions in rugby that perceive it incorrectly, simply because it clashes with their own culture. In performing the haka it is the giving of respect, not the taking of it.

Yes it's blurred a bit when performed overseas but when it's performed in places like Samoa they accepted it as it was meant, simply because they have a similar culture.

The performing of it in places like Twickenham and Millenium is more down to it being requested than the ABs insisting they perform it, because the fact is it is popular and generates revenue, so there's an element of selfishness that the ABs have to adhere to.

So if they want it performed then they get it as it's traditionally performed...after the anthems.

You can't on one hand expect them to perform it for their own purposes then at the same time dictate how it is performed.

The 'request' to perform it before the anthem on the Welsh centenary was granted, out of respect to the occasion as a one off.

The then expect the same a year later was contrite and completely lacking in respect, so the ABs performed it indoors.

You may not like how and when it's performed, but it is what it is. You take it, or leave it. ABs would just as well not perform it if it's going to be watered down, bent sideways.

These are concepts you don't get and at some point it might not be performed, purely out of ignorance and and inability to appreciate and respect another culture. The ABs, or kiwis won't blink either way.

If you don't want it, so be it. But don't dictate the terms after insisting it be performed.

I dont think I have ever read one post more full of hubris and contradictions on this site. Congrats you are the King of BS

Gwlad wrote:

Taylorman wrote:When I mentioned it's about respect Griff I meant respect for the opposition. Whenever it is performed it is performed for the benefit of the receiver, for the status they hold either as the opponent, the bereaved, the welcomed etc. for whatever the occasion is.

Visiting signatories are welcomed at airports, on maraes all around NZ as a sign of respect. They're not kiwis, they receive it as it's meant.

It's only some oppositions in rugby that perceive it incorrectly, simply because it clashes with their own culture. In performing the haka it is the giving of respect, not the taking of it.

Yes it's blurred a bit when performed overseas but when it's performed in places like Samoa they accepted it as it was meant, simply because they have a similar culture.

The performing of it in places like Twickenham and Millenium is more down to it being requested than the ABs insisting they perform it, because the fact is it is popular and generates revenue, so there's an element of selfishness that the ABs have to adhere to.

So if they want it performed then they get it as it's traditionally performed...after the anthems.

You can't on one hand expect them to perform it for their own purposes then at the same time dictate how it is performed.

The 'request' to perform it before the anthem on the Welsh centenary was granted, out of respect to the occasion as a one off.

The then expect the same a year later was contrite and completely lacking in respect, so the ABs performed it indoors.

You may not like how and when it's performed, but it is what it is. You take it, or leave it. ABs would just as well not perform it if it's going to be watered down, bent sideways.

These are concepts you don't get and at some point it might not be performed, purely out of ignorance and and inability to appreciate and respect another culture. The ABs, or kiwis won't blink either way.

If you don't want it, so be it. But don't dictate the terms after insisting it be performed.

I dont think I have ever read one post more full of hubris and contradictions on this site. Congrats you are the King of BS

They say ignorance is bliss and youre full of it sonny. Ignorance that is.

Taylorman wrote:When I mentioned it's about respect Griff I meant respect for the opposition. Whenever it is performed it is performed for the benefit of the receiver, for the status they hold either as the opponent, the bereaved, the welcomed etc. for whatever the occasion is.

Visiting signatories are welcomed at airports, on maraes all around NZ as a sign of respect. They're not kiwis, they receive it as it's meant.

It's only some oppositions in rugby that perceive it incorrectly, simply because it clashes with their own culture. In performing the haka it is the giving of respect, not the taking of it.

Yes it's blurred a bit when performed overseas but when it's performed in places like Samoa they accepted it as it was meant, simply because they have a similar culture.

The performing of it in places like Twickenham and Millenium is more down to it being requested than the ABs insisting they perform it, because the fact is it is popular and generates revenue, so there's an element of selfishness that the ABs have to adhere to.

So if they want it performed then they get it as it's traditionally performed...after the anthems.

You can't on one hand expect them to perform it for their own purposes then at the same time dictate how it is performed.

The 'request' to perform it before the anthem on the Welsh centenary was granted, out of respect to the occasion as a one off.

The then expect the same a year later was contrite and completely lacking in respect, so the ABs performed it indoors.

You may not like how and when it's performed, but it is what it is. You take it, or leave it. ABs would just as well not perform it if it's going to be watered down, bent sideways.

These are concepts you don't get and at some point it might not be performed, purely out of ignorance and and inability to appreciate and respect another culture. The ABs, or kiwis won't blink either way.

If you don't want it, so be it. But don't dictate the terms after insisting it be performed.

Taylorman, I'd genuinely love to discuss this with you in more detail but I fear that it's just going to turn into a mess as you seem to have interpreted my message incorrectly. Your response above seems very defensive, seems to accuse me of ignorance and not understanding or accepting of cultures. If you knew me you'd know that is completely wide of the mark. A bit offensive actually. I'm not against the Haka in any way, shape or form. I find Maori culture (well, all PI culture actually) particularly fascinating. I'm all for expanding on cultural awareness, rather than opposing it reducing it. But I'm not sure you'll be able to see the difference between my posts and those of others (like Gwlad!) when in defensive mode so I'll politely leave it for now and wish you all the best. Cheers.

Griff wrote:

Taylorman wrote:When I mentioned it's about respect Griff I meant respect for the opposition. Whenever it is performed it is performed for the benefit of the receiver, for the status they hold either as the opponent, the bereaved, the welcomed etc. for whatever the occasion is.

Visiting signatories are welcomed at airports, on maraes all around NZ as a sign of respect. They're not kiwis, they receive it as it's meant.

It's only some oppositions in rugby that perceive it incorrectly, simply because it clashes with their own culture. In performing the haka it is the giving of respect, not the taking of it.

Yes it's blurred a bit when performed overseas but when it's performed in places like Samoa they accepted it as it was meant, simply because they have a similar culture.

The performing of it in places like Twickenham and Millenium is more down to it being requested than the ABs insisting they perform it, because the fact is it is popular and generates revenue, so there's an element of selfishness that the ABs have to adhere to.

So if they want it performed then they get it as it's traditionally performed...after the anthems.

You can't on one hand expect them to perform it for their own purposes then at the same time dictate how it is performed.

The 'request' to perform it before the anthem on the Welsh centenary was granted, out of respect to the occasion as a one off.

The then expect the same a year later was contrite and completely lacking in respect, so the ABs performed it indoors.

You may not like how and when it's performed, but it is what it is. You take it, or leave it. ABs would just as well not perform it if it's going to be watered down, bent sideways.

These are concepts you don't get and at some point it might not be performed, purely out of ignorance and and inability to appreciate and respect another culture. The ABs, or kiwis won't blink either way.

If you don't want it, so be it. But don't dictate the terms after insisting it be performed.

Taylorman, I'd genuinely love to discuss this with you in more detail but I fear that it's just going to turn into a mess as you seem to have interpreted my message incorrectly. Your response above seems very defensive, seems to accuse me of ignorance and not understanding or accepting of cultures. If you knew me you'd know that is completely wide of the mark. A bit offensive actually. I'm not against the Haka in any way, shape or form. I find Maori culture (well, all PI culture actually) particularly fascinating. I'm all for expanding on cultural awareness, rather than opposing it reducing it. But I'm not sure you'll be able to see the difference between my posts and those of others (like Gwlad!) when in defensive mode so I'll politely leave it for now and wish you all the best. Cheers.

Fair enough. It's not an easy topic and there's a bit of unclearness about it all in some areas, and in all honesty it should really be left at home. I think it's value in rugby is really best kept to either home sides that reciprocate with their own responses or the Pacific Island countries.

It seems the combination of the financial success of the ABs and the demand for the haka go hand in hand and to have a side have to face it that cannot respond is just creepy. In the past the best responses have been the more confronting ones such as the Irish one but understandably the IRB outlawed such responses fearing violence at some point. So we end up with this awkward standoff where one side is reduced to spectators.

It's not ideal and in some cases the ABs themselves must cringe at the thought of it all when the opposition has to just stand there. It won't be what they want to see and the demand is such that their resigned to it.

Other kiwis might disagree with that but if the general feeling is that it's perceived to give a genuine advantage then it may be something they look to removing in away matches.

At home is a different story and it's more appropriate to include it. The opposition just need to be more educated re it's intention.

Nice discussing it Griff, it's an ongoing issue that doesn't need the hardliners hammering it all the time, but it will surface from time to time and who knows where it will end up, but one things for sure, if the consensus is it isn't appreciated, and I don't think we are even close to that, it will just stop, just like that.

Whether that's a good thing is anyone's guess. Apologies for the terse response but yes our friend does tend to influence a tiring line.

As an edit I genuinely believe that the ABs are trying to, as one of the leading competitors in this wonderful game trying to promote it as a sport of choice of our young, play it in a way that they want everyone to play it and at the same time promote kiwi values. On the field incidents might happen that might seem to contradict those intentions, such as the BOD incident, but the raw nature of our game demands there will be casualties and that shouldn't detract from the fact that the game is worth fighting for as a choice of sport to both watch and play and promote.

The Lions in that respect is a wonderful concept and although I seem to dismiss them completely in terms of the result the memories of previous Lions tours are some of my favourites ever, getting out and enjoying the company of hardened Lions fans who in their thousands will and have appeared in our towns, cities and venues confirms how great a sport we have and I for one am looking forward to seeing both the fans, and the matches.

With Greg Laidlaw now called up to replace Ben Youngs, It's now possible that we'll see a halfback pairing of Biggar & Laidlaw at some point in a Test.

That would come about if we got injuries to players currently seen as ahead of them in the pecking order. Bad luck could hit anyone, but, given their recent histories, it's quite possible that Murray and Sexton could both find it heading their way.

Rugby Fan wrote:With Greg Laidlaw now called up to replace Ben Youngs, It's now possible that we'll see a halfback pairing of Biggar & Laidlaw at some point in a Test.

That would come about if we got injuries to players currently seen as ahead of them in the pecking order. Bad luck could hit anyone, but, given their recent histories, it's quite possible that Murray and Sexton could both find it heading their way.

In exactly the same way that any combination of players from the squad selected is possible to play in the tests, but I do not believe that combination is likely. Simply because should Murray, Webb, Sexton and Farrell be injured then at least four players will be called up to replace them. Now regardless of whether you believe Laidlaw's selection was a political or a tactical decision, it is hard to argue that there is a better all round partnership available from players not selected currently than Biggar and Laidlaw, Care and Russell for me would be a far superior partnership to play the All Blacks for me, even Price and Ford perhaps. Although I suppose the theme there is that I believe quicker, more attacking half backs are better. But certainly Biggar and Laidlaw would be an incredibly slow combination that would stifle any creativity, I would be very surprised if they took the field together against any but the weakest mid-week sides.

As a Scotland fan, first and foremost it is important to recognise the fact that it's an awful time for the Youngs family that really puts rugby into perspective, it is just a game and moaning and whining about how many players who happened to be born/ have parents and grandparents/ three year contracts in the country we're from get to go on tour is effectively merely an excuse to avoid work, fill time or just idle chit chat. All these players have real lives and this is a nightmare scenario for the Youngs. It also must be incredibly difficult for Greig Laidlaw, it is supposed to be the pinnacle of his career but it has come about not through injury but through family tragedy. The difference is of course that injury is part of rugby, Laidlaw himself could argue that if it weren't for injury in the second round he would have toured himself, these circumstances are entirely different.

I also think that there is little doubt this decision is a political one rather than one based on playing ability, I would bet my last pound that should a scrum-half get injured and Danny Care be called up, he will be picked ahead of Laidlaw come the tests. This is not simply a slight on Laidlaw's playing ability, although I think that if one took his leadership and kicking out of the equation he would not start for Scotland, but also that he does not fit the mould of a Gatland scrum-half. The one thing Phillips and Webb have in common is that they are attacking threats in their own right, so is Murray, so is Youngs, Laidlaw is not. What he is is an incredibly efficient tactical operator, an effective leader and a brilliant kicker, he also makes very, very few mistakes and in what is a young Scotland team plays an important role as a calm link between several young players. I have little doubt that, even though I believe Price to be a better player, had Greig Laidlaw been playing at Twickenham the score would have been a lot tighter, ironically I still don't think he would have been selected originally but more Scottish players certainly would have been.

123456789 wrote:...In exactly the same way that any combination of players from the squad selected is possible to play in the tests, but I do not believe that combination is likely. Simply because should Murray, Webb, Sexton and Farrell be injured then at least four players will be called up to replace them...

It wouldn't take four injuries to have Biggar & Laidlaw together at some point in the Tests. It would only take two to make them both at least first choice replacements. If they are both are on the bench, it's easy to imagine how they might end up on the pitch at the same time.

I agree that other British & Irish halfback pairings would be more threatening than Biggar & Laidlaw, but we have to remember the dynamic of Lions tours. Once we are past the 2nd or 3rd match, coaches almost always prefer to select players who have been with the tour over those who have just joined.

I absolutely do not for one minute believe that Laidlaw is a political pick. If there's one thing I've learned about Gatland over the years is that he doesn't care what people think about equal representation, doesn't bow to pressure to pick players to make up the numbers, etc. He just picks who he wants and is prepared to stand by it and take any flak he receives from those feeling hard done by. So I can't agree that he's picked Laidlaw just to have another Scot and to deflect the criticism of the lack of Scots on tour. Gatland doesn't care about the criticism. If he's picked Laidlaw then he's picked him because, for Gatland, he was simply next in line. In other words, if he'd wanted Danny Care then he would have chosen Danny care regardless of any pressure to do otherwise.

Laidlaw is a very good and experienced player. With Biggar potentially out too, a Laidlaw/Russel combination for the midweek is now looking quite likely.

Whatever else you can say about Laidlaw, he is a great captain and would never ever let anyone down. Nothing flashy, but he rarely makes mistakes, and is a great scrum half especially if your Forwards are under pressure.

As I said on another thread, it's a desperately sad situation for the Youngs family. Puts the rugby into perspective when someone so young has terminal cancer. Truly horrible news.

Whats odd about this is that I am pretty sure most Scots fans who have been advocating Scottish players to be selected and complaining when they were not have not been pushing Laidlaw as a contender which leads me to believe, unusually, that this may be a political move to offset some of the ire Gatland has been subjected to b the Scottish.

Laidlaw was named as the scrum half backup before any criticism was directed in Gatlands direction so I believe your are wrong Gwlad

Gwlad wrote:Whats odd about this is that I am pretty sure most Scots fans who have been advocating Scottish players to be selected and complaining when they were not have not been pushing Laidlaw as a contender which leads me to believe, unusually, that this may be a political move to offset some of the ire Gatland has been subjected to b the Scottish.

Probably because Laidlaw has been injured. It's hard to fight a case for injured players.

Not so. The case for Warburton and AWJ has been strong all along even during injury. I haven't heard or seen any mention of Laidlaw, perhaps because there are 2 standouts for the Tests, with many believing Care was the back up replacement. I believe this is a pacifier selection and hope it has some effect. Laidlaw is the perfect solution while perhaps not offering as much as Youngs, his leadership and kicking could be useful.

Well I have read that Gatland told Laidlaw he was the unluckiest player not to be selected and that he was the backup 9.

Laidlaw was always in the discussions until the point that he got injured. He has been pivotal in all of the good Scottish wins over the past few years, including against Ireland in the 6N this year when he rallied the troops and helped to close out the game. He may not even be the best SH in Scotland any more, but as a leader and an experienced player brings so much more to the party. I always had him down as a tourist, probably captaining the dirt trackers, he would have taken on that role without any sulking for the greater good of the tour.

I think we all thought his chance had gone with the injury though as he ended up missing 4/5 of the championship and that's why people were not agitating about him not going.

Laidlaw will be a very good tourist and won't let the jersey down in any way. I just hope that he does not dwell on the way his turn has come around. He would not have wanted it to be like this.

In which case I hope it does something to assuage Scottish feelings; its a sign of things to come as I imagine Scotland may well provide numerous replacements. However as pointed out above if an injury occurs and Care does come I still feel he offers more but is higher risk, than Laidlaw in the tests

Sausage?

Gwlad wrote:In which case I hope it does something to assuage Scottish feelings; its a sign of things to come as I imagine Scotland may well provide numerous replacements. However as pointed out above if an injury occurs and Care does come I still feel he offers more but is higher risk, than Laidlaw in the tests

I think this is a very valid argument and also provides an insight into Gatland's rugby philosophy, whilst there is little point arguing that I'm not glad Laidlaw was picked over Care I do think that objectively I would probably select Care over Laidlaw. In the same way if it were up to me I'd have selected Russell over Biggar. I think if Biggar is injured it will provide an interesting decision; if Gatland is picking to a game plan rigidly, and the selection of Laidlaw is an indication, we may see Ford and Russell overlooked in favour of a more conservative option. Who that would constitute I don't know.

I think the sooner that Gavin Henson gets selected the better we can all feel.

I think Gatland values tactical kicking which is a strong point of Laidlaw's game whilst being a weak point of Care's.

I personally would have taken Wigglesworth instead as I don't think there is anyone better at it than him (People may say Murray, and that's fair enough but I've just seen more of Wigglesworth).

Gatland has said that laidlaw would have been picked in the original squad had he not been injured. He's coming across to me as a pillock.

Gwlad wrote:Whats odd about this is that I am pretty sure most Scots fans who have been advocating Scottish players to be selected and complaining when they were not have not been pushing Laidlaw as a contender which leads me to believe, unusually, that this may be a political move to offset some of the ire Gatland has been subjected to b the Scottish.

Well to be fair he was hardly going to call up Watson to replace a scrum half, its not Italy.


Although joking aside Danny Care must but slighly dissapointed, but Laidlaw does offer leadership and a tactical kicking option. He wa sthe only other realistic contender.

The Lions are playing the best side in the world.

Do I think Laidlaw is a better 9 than Care? No definitely not. Not because it's an English player vs a Scottish one.

Still think Watson/Robshaw were unlucky to miss out and I'd pick Russell ahead of Biggar.

If the likes of Moriarty and Laidlaw start in the 1st test vs ABs, it will be how many points will ABs put past them.

I do think this is a political move to mollify the Scottish, it's also not reducing the amount of Welsh tourists either so it's all good.....

Scotland managed to beat Wales and Italy without Laidlaw.

I know Laidlaw has been built up as some sort of a saviour in his absence but I don't buy the hype.

beshocked wrote:The Lions are playing the best side in the world.

Do I think Laidlaw is a better 9 than Care? No definitely not. Not because it's an English player vs a Scottish one.

Still think Watson/Robshaw were unlucky to miss out and I'd pick Russell ahead of Biggar.

If the likes of Moriarty and Laidlaw start in the 1st test vs ABs, it will be how many points will ABs put past them.

I do think this is a political move to mollify the Scottish, it's also not reducing the amount of Welsh tourists either so it's all good.....

Scotland managed to beat Wales and Italy without Laidlaw.

I know Laidlaw has been built up as some sort of a saviour in his absence but I don't buy the hype.

It depends in what you want from your scrum half. Clermont have bought him so clearly he must be doing something right.

He makes very few mistakes, kicks very well, never lets anyone down and is IMO a very solid player. He'll almost certainly never do anything flash.

He is very unGatlandy for a scrum half, very small, not very strong and not quick. His selection IMO is based on what else he'll bring. He'll be a great tourist and as I said won't let anyone down and plays to his strengths.

beshocked wrote:The Lions are playing the best side in the world.

Do I think Laidlaw is a better 9 than Care? No definitely not. Not because it's an English player vs a Scottish one.

Still think Watson/Robshaw were unlucky to miss out and I'd pick Russell ahead of Biggar.

If the likes of Moriarty and Laidlaw start in the 1st test vs ABs, it will be how many points will ABs put past them.

I do think this is a political move to mollify the Scottish, it's also not reducing the amount of Welsh tourists either so it's all good.....

Scotland managed to beat Wales and Italy without Laidlaw.

I know Laidlaw has been built up as some sort of a saviour in his absence but I don't buy the hype.

Not quite sure anyone has said that.

Even before he got injured, the best we thought would be the dirt track captain - not the test materail

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:The Lions are playing the best side in the world.

Do I think Laidlaw is a better 9 than Care? No definitely not. Not because it's an English player vs a Scottish one.

Still think Watson/Robshaw were unlucky to miss out and I'd pick Russell ahead of Biggar.

If the likes of Moriarty and Laidlaw start in the 1st test vs ABs, it will be how many points will ABs put past them.

I do think this is a political move to mollify the Scottish, it's also not reducing the amount of Welsh tourists either so it's all good.....

Scotland managed to beat Wales and Italy without Laidlaw.

I know Laidlaw has been built up as some sort of a saviour in his absence but I don't buy the hype.

It depends in what you want from your scrum half. Clermont have bought him so clearly he must be doing something right.

He makes very few mistakes, kicks very well, never lets anyone down and is IMO a very solid player. He'll almost certainly never do anything flash.

He is very unGatlandy for a scrum half, very small, not very strong and not quick. His selection IMO is based on what else he'll bring. He'll be a great tourist and as I said won't let anyone down and plays to his strengths.

Depends what you want to achieve on tour.

Do you want the Lions to beat NZ or not?

I think as a squad man, Laidlaw is fine, someone suitable for mid weekers but I wouldn't want him in the 23 to face NZ.

If you have Sexton and Farrell in the 23 you don't need another place kicker.

I'd target him because he's a small guy.

If Laidlaw doesn't have to play in the 23 to face NZ then that's okay but I'd be worried that the NZ would focus on him as a potential weakness.

I personally would have picked Care because I think he's a superior player to Laidlaw.

I think you need your best players to beat NZ.

riskysport the genuine feeling has been from Scottish fans that having Laidlaw would have made the England vs Scotland game much closer - I am not convinced by that.

Laidlaw is not a world class 9. He's got some strengths but also some weaknesses that can be exploited - mainly his lack of power,speed and strength.

R!skysports wrote:

beshocked wrote:I know Laidlaw has been built up as some sort of a saviour in his absence but I don't buy the hype.

Not quite sure anyone has said that.

Only the voices in his head

You do like that word "savior" BS.

beshocked wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:The Lions are playing the best side in the world.

Do I think Laidlaw is a better 9 than Care? No definitely not. Not because it's an English player vs a Scottish one.

Still think Watson/Robshaw were unlucky to miss out and I'd pick Russell ahead of Biggar.

If the likes of Moriarty and Laidlaw start in the 1st test vs ABs, it will be how many points will ABs put past them.

I do think this is a political move to mollify the Scottish, it's also not reducing the amount of Welsh tourists either so it's all good.....

Scotland managed to beat Wales and Italy without Laidlaw.

I know Laidlaw has been built up as some sort of a saviour in his absence but I don't buy the hype.

It depends in what you want from your scrum half. Clermont have bought him so clearly he must be doing something right.

He makes very few mistakes, kicks very well, never lets anyone down and is IMO a very solid player. He'll almost certainly never do anything flash.

He is very unGatlandy for a scrum half, very small, not very strong and not quick. His selection IMO is based on what else he'll bring. He'll be a great tourist and as I said won't let anyone down and plays to his strengths.

Depends what you want to achieve on tour.

Do you want the Lions to beat NZ or not?

I think as a squad man, Laidlaw is fine, someone suitable for mid weekers but I wouldn't want him in the 23 to face NZ.

If you have Sexton and Farrell in the 23 you don't need another place kicker.

I'd target him because he's a small guy.

If Laidlaw doesn't have to play in the 23 to face NZ then that's okay but I'd be worried that the NZ would focus on him as a potential weakness.

I personally would have picked Care because I think he's a superior player to Laidlaw.

I think you need your best players to beat NZ.

You are talking as if he's never played NZ before though, the last time he played them he made 7 tackles and missed none!

We were beaten 24-16 and to be fair, NZ have put bigger scores on other teams recently!

beshocked wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:The Lions are playing the best side in the world.

Do I think Laidlaw is a better 9 than Care? No definitely not. Not because it's an English player vs a Scottish one.

Still think Watson/Robshaw were unlucky to miss out and I'd pick Russell ahead of Biggar.

If the likes of Moriarty and Laidlaw start in the 1st test vs ABs, it will be how many points will ABs put past them.

I do think this is a political move to mollify the Scottish, it's also not reducing the amount of Welsh tourists either so it's all good.....

Scotland managed to beat Wales and Italy without Laidlaw.

I know Laidlaw has been built up as some sort of a saviour in his absence but I don't buy the hype.

It depends in what you want from your scrum half. Clermont have bought him so clearly he must be doing something right.

He makes very few mistakes, kicks very well, never lets anyone down and is IMO a very solid player. He'll almost certainly never do anything flash.

He is very unGatlandy for a scrum half, very small, not very strong and not quick. His selection IMO is based on what else he'll bring. He'll be a great tourist and as I said won't let anyone down and plays to his strengths.

Depends what you want to achieve on tour.

Do you want the Lions to beat NZ or not?

I think as a squad man, Laidlaw is fine, someone suitable for mid weekers but I wouldn't want him in the 23 to face NZ.

If you have Sexton and Farrell in the 23 you don't need another place kicker.

I'd target him because he's a small guy.

If Laidlaw doesn't have to play in the 23 to face NZ then that's okay but I'd be worried that the NZ would focus on him as a potential weakness.

I personally would have picked Care because I think he's a superior player to Laidlaw.

I think you need your best players to beat NZ.

riskysport the genuine feeling has been from Scottish fans that having Laidlaw would have made the England vs Scotland game much closer - I am not convinced by that.

Laidlaw is not a world class 9. He's got some strengths but also some weaknesses that can be exploited - mainly his lack of power,speed and strength.

I think the reason we think that is not actually for his power, speed or strength but his calm head. We really needed someone to take control of our team's emotions and work at tightening us up - which laidlaw can do. That game got away from us in a way that 'might' not have is someone like Laidlaw had been on the pitch - it might not of, of course

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:The Lions are playing the best side in the world.

Do I think Laidlaw is a better 9 than Care? No definitely not. Not because it's an English player vs a Scottish one.

Still think Watson/Robshaw were unlucky to miss out and I'd pick Russell ahead of Biggar.

If the likes of Moriarty and Laidlaw start in the 1st test vs ABs, it will be how many points will ABs put past them.

I do think this is a political move to mollify the Scottish, it's also not reducing the amount of Welsh tourists either so it's all good.....

Scotland managed to beat Wales and Italy without Laidlaw.

I know Laidlaw has been built up as some sort of a saviour in his absence but I don't buy the hype.

It depends in what you want from your scrum half. Clermont have bought him so clearly he must be doing something right.

He makes very few mistakes, kicks very well, never lets anyone down and is IMO a very solid player. He'll almost certainly never do anything flash.

He is very unGatlandy for a scrum half, very small, not very strong and not quick. His selection IMO is based on what else he'll bring. He'll be a great tourist and as I said won't let anyone down and plays to his strengths.

Depends what you want to achieve on tour.

Do you want the Lions to beat NZ or not?

I think as a squad man, Laidlaw is fine, someone suitable for mid weekers but I wouldn't want him in the 23 to face NZ.

If you have Sexton and Farrell in the 23 you don't need another place kicker.

I'd target him because he's a small guy.

If Laidlaw doesn't have to play in the 23 to face NZ then that's okay but I'd be worried that the NZ would focus on him as a potential weakness.

I personally would have picked Care because I think he's a superior player to Laidlaw.

I think you need your best players to beat NZ.

You are talking as if he's never played NZ before though, the last time he played them he made 7 tackles and missed none!

We were beaten 24-16 and to be fair, NZ have put bigger scores on other teams recently!

Scotland did play an under strength NZ side and still beat Scotland by a greater margin than a stronger NZ did to England the week before.

I just think Laidlaw's importance has been overestimated. Even if he was fit I doubt Scotland would have beaten France or England.

riskysports England and France overpowered Scotland, Laidlaw does not have the skillset to change that.

beshocked wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:The Lions are playing the best side in the world.

Do I think Laidlaw is a better 9 than Care? No definitely not. Not because it's an English player vs a Scottish one.

Still think Watson/Robshaw were unlucky to miss out and I'd pick Russell ahead of Biggar.

If the likes of Moriarty and Laidlaw start in the 1st test vs ABs, it will be how many points will ABs put past them.

I do think this is a political move to mollify the Scottish, it's also not reducing the amount of Welsh tourists either so it's all good.....

Scotland managed to beat Wales and Italy without Laidlaw.

I know Laidlaw has been built up as some sort of a saviour in his absence but I don't buy the hype.

It depends in what you want from your scrum half. Clermont have bought him so clearly he must be doing something right.

He makes very few mistakes, kicks very well, never lets anyone down and is IMO a very solid player. He'll almost certainly never do anything flash.

He is very unGatlandy for a scrum half, very small, not very strong and not quick. His selection IMO is based on what else he'll bring. He'll be a great tourist and as I said won't let anyone down and plays to his strengths.

Depends what you want to achieve on tour.

Do you want the Lions to beat NZ or not?

I think as a squad man, Laidlaw is fine, someone suitable for mid weekers but I wouldn't want him in the 23 to face NZ.

If you have Sexton and Farrell in the 23 you don't need another place kicker.

I'd target him because he's a small guy.

If Laidlaw doesn't have to play in the 23 to face NZ then that's okay but I'd be worried that the NZ would focus on him as a potential weakness.

I personally would have picked Care because I think he's a superior player to Laidlaw.

I think you need your best players to beat NZ.

You are talking as if he's never played NZ before though, the last time he played them he made 7 tackles and missed none!

We were beaten 24-16 and to be fair, NZ have put bigger scores on other teams recently!

Scotland did play an under strength NZ side and still beat Scotland by a greater margin than a stronger NZ did to England the week before.

I just think Laidlaw's importance has been overestimated. Even if he was fit I doubt Scotland would have beaten France or England.

I agree and disagree. I think we might have beaten France, but we suffered so many injuries in both fixtures it's impossible to tell.

He would have had a calming influence on the England game for sure and probably would have adjusted our defence on the fly to negate England expertly exploiting our defensive system. He is a very intelligent player with tremendous vision and I think winning at Twickers with all those injuries was an impossible task, however, I do feel the game would have been more competative.

I'll be honest here, I wouldn't personally have selected Laidlaw over Danny Care, but I do see the logic for doing so. Laidlaw's leadership, game management and goal kicking are all top drawer and could be a major asset for the midweek side. I also think he'll be a great tourist.

Care on the other hand is the more exciting player for me, and can be a real match winner. I think I would have probably picked him if I'm being honest, in part because I want to see real tempo from the Lions on this tour. I don't think we'll be good enough if we are overly structured in our approach.

Either way, I wouldn't see either of Care or Laidlaw challenging Webb/Murray for the Test 22.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

beshocked wrote:The Lions are playing the best side in the world.

Do I think Laidlaw is a better 9 than Care? No definitely not. Not because it's an English player vs a Scottish one.

Still think Watson/Robshaw were unlucky to miss out and I'd pick Russell ahead of Biggar.

If the likes of Moriarty and Laidlaw start in the 1st test vs ABs, it will be how many points will ABs put past them.

I do think this is a political move to mollify the Scottish, it's also not reducing the amount of Welsh tourists either so it's all good.....

Scotland managed to beat Wales and Italy without Laidlaw.

I know Laidlaw has been built up as some sort of a saviour in his absence but I don't buy the hype.

It depends in what you want from your scrum half. Clermont have bought him so clearly he must be doing something right.

He makes very few mistakes, kicks very well, never lets anyone down and is IMO a very solid player. He'll almost certainly never do anything flash.

He is very unGatlandy for a scrum half, very small, not very strong and not quick. His selection IMO is based on what else he'll bring. He'll be a great tourist and as I said won't let anyone down and plays to his strengths.

Depends what you want to achieve on tour.

Do you want the Lions to beat NZ or not?

I think as a squad man, Laidlaw is fine, someone suitable for mid weekers but I wouldn't want him in the 23 to face NZ.

If you have Sexton and Farrell in the 23 you don't need another place kicker.

I'd target him because he's a small guy.

If Laidlaw doesn't have to play in the 23 to face NZ then that's okay but I'd be worried that the NZ would focus on him as a potential weakness.

I personally would have picked Care because I think he's a superior player to Laidlaw.

I think you need your best players to beat NZ.

You are talking as if he's never played NZ before though, the last time he played them he made 7 tackles and missed none!

We were beaten 24-16 and to be fair, NZ have put bigger scores on other teams recently!

Scotland did play an under strength NZ side and still beat Scotland by a greater margin than a stronger NZ did to England the week before.

I just think Laidlaw's importance has been overestimated. Even if he was fit I doubt Scotland would have beaten France or England.

I agree and disagree. I think we might have beaten France, but we suffered so many injuries in both fixtures it's impossible to tell.

He would have had a calming influence on the England game for sure and probably would have adjusted our defence on the fly to negate England expertly exploiting our defensive system. He is a very intelligent player with tremendous vision and I think winning at Twickers with all those injuries was an impossible task, however, I do feel the game would have been more competative.

You were physically overpowered. You had no answer to the physicality of England and France in the game as a whole.

You suffered injuries because of the power of the opposition.

I think you are overestimating Laidlaw when Laidlaw can't make a jot of difference when one of the primary differences was physicality.

Laidlaw is not a defensive powerhouse, with your pack and backline on the backfoot, it was not going to be easy.

Agree Funny. Youngs would have possibly challenged for the test side - but what we have as a replacement is someone that would make an excellent mid-week side player and possibly captain.

Although injuries may and probably will happen - Care must now be the stand-by no.9.

Murray for me is the clear test starter.

Most SHs look to be very different players when playing behind a dominant pack, which is something Laidlaw very rarely has the luxury of when he plays for Scotland. I think you may see a very different player than you expect out in NZ.

Laidlaw in the world of giant rugby player, plays with his brains and not his physique. He is often a player that makes others look good because he does the simple things very well and he sees things that others do not.

I am not expecting him to play in the test team either, but if he was called upon, he would do a lot better than he is being given credit for.

If another SH was to be called up, I would likely go for Ali Price over Care in any case, a younger, faster version with more potential.