66 minutes

First topic message reminder :

66 minutes.

That is the amount of test match minutes Scotland has contributed to the Lions test matches in 4 tours

-2005-

3rd (dead rubber) test
Gordon Bulloch 10 minutes

from the bench

-2009-

3rd (dead rubber) test
Ross Ford 43 minutes from the

bench

-2013-
3rd test
Richie Gray 13 minutes from the
bench

-2017-
No test involvement

People honestly wonder why we struggle to get behind the team?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

The lions is about 4 nations coming together and achieving the improbable.

If the 4 nations aren't involved then what's the point?

The 4 nations are involved. They are all represented in the squad.

Can't see any in the match day squad. Let's face it if there were no English in I'd be thinking what on earth. I suspect it's the same for the Welsh and irish.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Can't see any in the match day squad. Let's face it if there were no English in I'd be thinking what on earth. I suspect it's the same for the Welsh and irish.

You don't think that Seymour (top scorer for the Lions) was worth a shot at the test team?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Can't see any in the match day squad. Let's face it if there were no English in I'd be thinking what on earth. I suspect it's the same for the Welsh and irish.

I would be celebrating. More time to rest and get a good preseason for the games that actually matter.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I suppose if you believe a win vindicates all. I'm not sure. I think we will win on saturday but don't believe only 1 set of conditions would bring that about so then you have to bring through other factors. The fact there is focus on the bbc and beyond about Scottish representation suggests that it isn't simply about a win but more about the joint effort?

If it was win at all costs surely we should have had EJ and the England squad, they are familiar with each other, 6N winners blah blah blah...

The lions is about 4 nations coming together and achieving the improbable.

If the 4 nations aren't involved then what's the point?

If the Lions win on Saturday and achieve the improbable great! At what cost? The cost is a completely apathetic member of the 4 nations who feel numb to the whole experience and see it as a triumph, but a triumph without soul.

The Lions in this pro era of results driven success IMO has forgotten what makes the tours great.

So you want quotas, and winning isn't as important as everyone feeling included. The moment that happens, is the time I give up on the Lions. It's about winning or at least putting 100% into winning, like every competition.

Not my point billy, I was responding to a point that there are scots in the squad. Not in the match day squad there isn't.

Ok rory, many feel the same about national teams etc. Matters to me as the lions are my team.

the-goon wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I suppose if you believe a win vindicates all. I'm not sure. I think we will win on saturday but don't believe only 1 set of conditions would bring that about so then you have to bring through other factors. The fact there is focus on the bbc and beyond about Scottish representation suggests that it isn't simply about a win but more about the joint effort?

If it was win at all costs surely we should have had EJ and the England squad, they are familiar with each other, 6N winners blah blah blah...

The lions is about 4 nations coming together and achieving the improbable.

If the 4 nations aren't involved then what's the point?

If the Lions win on Saturday and achieve the improbable great! At what cost? The cost is a completely apathetic member of the 4 nations who feel numb to the whole experience and see it as a triumph, but a triumph without soul.

The Lions in this pro era of results driven success IMO has forgotten what makes the tours great.

So you want quotas, and winning isn't as important as everyone feeling included. The moment that happens, is the time I give up on the Lions. It's about winning or at least putting 100% into winning, like every competition.

Quotas no, unbiased selection yes.

It's really straight forward.

I do not believe and still do not believe Gatland objectively weighed up the players at his disposal. If he did I firmly believe that players who were outplayed by their counter parts in key head to heads would not have been selected.

Gatland can hide behind "no Scottish voice on the coaching staff" till he is blue in the face, but just because they couldn't commit to the Lions schedule due to club or country commitments doesn't mean they could have been invited to sit on the selection panel or joined via a telephone call to "fight the case" for their players.

As I have already said most did their fighting on the pitch and outplayed their opposite numbers, if Gatland ignores that he is either biased or stupid.

I would have liked to see a couple more of the 50-50 calls go to Scotland in terms of the original squad selection. Wouldn't have harmed the strength of the touring squad overall and whilst we may still not have contributed players to play in the tests, it would have felt like we had been given fair consideration and avoided what has now become an "issue" for most Scottish rugby fans.

RuggerRadge261 wrote:

Gatland can hide behind "no Scottish voice on the coaching staff" till he is blue in the face

The one thing Gatland is never going to be is blue faced

Gooseberry wrote:

RuggerRadge261 wrote:

Gatland can hide behind "no Scottish voice on the coaching staff" till he is blue in the face

The one thing Gatland is never going to be is blue faced

Think he'd struggle to hide behind a lot of things too

So you are advocating for tokinsim? Which is a step sideways from quotas.

Gatland was selected as head coach, his job is to win the test series, he picked players he thinks can best achieve this. He picks the team, he picks the tactics, it's his job. Why would he deliberately jepourdize this to spite the scots? Quick answer is he doesn't, he simply doesn't rate the Scottish players (that were fit). Many disagree, but they aren't the lions coach.

Currently selection is in the hands of the coaches, and they choose whomever they deem the best. Do you want this to change? If so, to what? You say unbiased selection, how do you acheive this? Stat based selection, commitee, quotas?

Currently the goal of the tour is to win the test series. Do you want this to change? If so, to what? Win the test series with a minimum of X players from each country? Derive some measurement of "involvement" and ensure it is adherded to, even at the cost of maximum performance?

But gatland himself has said that both himself and his coaches are biased.towards their own players so he knows.he hasn't picked the best set of players possible.

BamBam wrote:Given everyone (literally everyone) agrees Woodward's selections and tour as a whole were a disaster, benchmarking Gatland against him doesn't seem too clever

Well for me, it is close as he has done it in two tours (another way maybe half as bad, twice)

If the All Black had not got a player sent off and won that game (as they were far the better side), i think people would be saying very simialr things

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I suppose if you believe a win vindicates all. I'm not sure. I think we will win on saturday but don't believe only 1 set of conditions would bring that about so then you have to bring through other factors. The fact there is focus on the bbc and beyond about Scottish representation suggests that it isn't simply about a win but more about the joint effort?

If it was win at all costs surely we should have had EJ and the England squad, they are familiar with each other, 6N winners blah blah blah...

The lions is about 4 nations coming together and achieving the improbable.

If the 4 nations aren't involved then what's the point?

If the Lions win on Saturday and achieve the improbable great! At what cost? The cost is a completely apathetic member of the 4 nations who feel numb to the whole experience and see it as a triumph, but a triumph without soul.

The Lions in this pro era of results driven success IMO has forgotten what makes the tours great.

So you want quotas, and winning isn't as important as everyone feeling included. The moment that happens, is the time I give up on the Lions. It's about winning or at least putting 100% into winning, like every competition.

Quotas no, unbiased selection yes.

It's really straight forward.

I do not believe and still do not believe Gatland objectively weighed up the players at his disposal. If he did I firmly believe that players who were outplayed by their counter parts in key head to heads would not have been selected.

Gatland can hide behind "no Scottish voice on the coaching staff" till he is blue in the face, but just because they couldn't commit to the Lions schedule due to club or country commitments doesn't mean they could have been invited to sit on the selection panel or joined via a telephone call to "fight the case" for their players.

As I have already said most did their fighting on the pitch and outplayed their opposite numbers, if Gatland ignores that he is either biased or stupid.

I would have liked to see a couple more of the 50-50 calls go to Scotland in terms of the original squad selection. Wouldn't have harmed the strength of the touring squad overall and whilst we may still not have contributed players to play in the tests, it would have felt like we had been given fair consideration and avoided what has now become an "issue" for most Scottish rugby fans.

Unbiased selection?! Have you really thought about that? It's a contradiction! Selection is inherently biased, unless you want lions squad and team selection to happen on a Saturday night TV show where we all press a key pad to vote for our squad selections. If Gregor Townsend gets the next gig he can choose who the devil he likes, and that will be biased selection too. And that will be perfectly fine. But I bet you a million pounds IF Townsend does make some 50/50 calls and goes with some guys he knows best (e.g. a fading Watson over an inform up n coming 7 from Ireland) then you'll be saying "it's his right, his prerogative as coach". You can't have unbiased selection when you have a head coach and small team of assistant coaches. It's impossible. There is no such thing.

And is the reason we shouldn't have a head coach who is currently employed by one of the national teams involved. Always back to the same point.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Oh will you Scots stop whinging, its worse than Culloden.

Culloden was a protestant and catholic battle you ignorant fool.

and there weren't any Scots in it then

the-goon wrote:So you are advocating for tokinsim? Which is a step sideways from quotas.

Gatland was selected as head coach, his job is to win the test series, he picked players he thinks can best achieve this. He picks the team, he picks the tactics, it's his job. Why would he deliberately jepourdize this to spite the scots? Quick answer is he doesn't, he simply doesn't rate the Scottish players (that were fit). Many disagree, but they aren't the lions coach.

Currently selection is in the hands of the coaches, and they choose whomever they deem the best. Do you want this to change? If so, to what? You say unbiased selection, how do you acheive this? Stat based selection, commitee, quotas?

Currently the goal of the tour is to win the test series. Do you want this to change? If so, to what? Win the test series with a minimum of X players from each country? Derive some measurement of "involvement" and ensure it is adherded to, even at the cost of maximum performance?

To say he did not select certain players due to his attachment to Wales is quite naive. He did not set out to spite Scotland he just did it by accident by picking more players who had been playing poorly (but he was close to personally) as opposed to those who were playing better.

To say Gatland had no bias or favoritism going into the selection meeting is just crazy, especially when some of his favorites were demolished by Scotland in the 6N. Every Welsh Lion lost to his opposite number against Scotland.

The same can be said for Ireland, SOB got outplayed by Watson and Stander was kept very quiet by the Scarlets Captain Barclay.

Our achievements were forgotten whilst our failure at Twickenham was where we were judged. We did get screwed in my opinion.

Welsh players were measured by their performances against Ireland and England (home I might add)
Ireland players were measure by their perfomance against England (home I might add)
England players were measured by their performance against Scotland (home I might add)
Scotland players were measured by their performances against England and France (away I might add)

(for the record this isn't Wales bashing, it's Gatland bashing)

Thing is Geech as a biased Scotlander still only gave one appearance off the becnh for a fellow blue face in 2009.

But I guess that doesnt matter.

Blame Gregor he snubbed the greatest rugby team in the world

Blame a set of unprofessional coaches.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

(for the record this isn't Wales bashing, it's Gatland bashing)

Feel free to make it Wales bashing, we havent had enough of that recently. Its got drowned out by all this talk about throwing straight.

Gooseberry wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

(for the record this isn't Wales bashing, it's Gatland bashing)

Feel free to make it Wales bashing, we havent had enough of that recently. Its got drowned out by all this talk about throwing straight.

Exactly. It has been no fun at all.

Gatland wants to win the series. He picks the players he thinks will do this, he will have inherent bias like all coaches to players he knows and trusts to play his brand of rugby. He may think the scots are a better team than they are as a group of individuals. He may think they have some really good players who don't ideally suit his style of play. He may be wrong on all counts, but you can't really just look at a national teams results and base what's a fair selection on that unless you want a quota system.

Re Scots not supporting the lions because of this. I understand it's hard to buy into a team if you're not represented. In part it comes down to how english/scottish/welsh/irish you feel v how B&I. We have a fairly unique situation,  in some sports we compete as individual countries and in others as the UK/Eire, so it's bizarre enough that our biggest rivals in some sports are team mates in another.... and unique with The Lions to make a combined team from the individual rugby nations. Ultimately, whether to support the Lions is a choice for individual scots to make.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I agree with the comments about nel not being available. He was out with a long term injury. We also agree that Kruis jones Warburton et al should have been left behind as well I presume?

As mentioned, Wales is probably over-represented, but not at the expense of Scotland. Launchbury was the most unlucky second rower not to be selected.

I honestly don't think there is a single Scots player available who should be in the 23. Seymour is close, but Nowell is more versatile.

Nels, Huw Jones and Hogg would probably have been there if available. But they're not.

Yeah Launchbury should be there. Bang in form. Unfortunate that form wasn't a strong factor or he and a few more scots would have gone.

Yu agree as well that Jones Warburton the rest of the injured and coming back players shouldn't have gone though. I don't get when you have the amount of quality available gatland et al went and chose on past rep.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah Launchbury should be there. Bang in form. Unfortunate that form wasn't a strong factor or he and a few more scots would have gone.

Yu agree as well that Jones Warburton the rest of the injured and coming back players shouldn't have gone though. I don't get when you have the amount of quality available gatland et al went and chose on past rep.

Which Scottish players would you put in the 23 for Saturday?

Now. None. I wouldn't have changed the squad. At this point I feel consistency would be more important. I would have dropped vunipola for Mcgrath for the 1st team.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

the-goon wrote:So you are advocating for tokinsim? Which is a step sideways from quotas.

Gatland was selected as head coach, his job is to win the test series, he picked players he thinks can best achieve this. He picks the team, he picks the tactics, it's his job. Why would he deliberately jepourdize this to spite the scots? Quick answer is he doesn't, he simply doesn't rate the Scottish players (that were fit). Many disagree, but they aren't the lions coach.

Currently selection is in the hands of the coaches, and they choose whomever they deem the best. Do you want this to change? If so, to what? You say unbiased selection, how do you acheive this? Stat based selection, commitee, quotas?

Currently the goal of the tour is to win the test series. Do you want this to change? If so, to what? Win the test series with a minimum of X players from each country? Derive some measurement of "involvement" and ensure it is adherded to, even at the cost of maximum performance?

To say he did not select certain players due to his attachment to Wales is quite naive. He did not set out to spite Scotland he just did it by accident by picking more players who had been playing poorly (but he was close to personally) as opposed to those who were playing better.

To say Gatland had no bias or favoritism going into the selection meeting is just crazy, especially when some of his favorites were demolished by Scotland in the 6N. Every Welsh Lion lost to his opposite number against Scotland.

The same can be said for Ireland, SOB got outplayed by Watson and Stander was kept very quiet by the Scarlets Captain Barclay.

Our achievements were forgotten whilst our failure at Twickenham was where we were judged. We did get screwed in my opinion.

Welsh players were measured by their performances against Ireland and England (home I might add)
Ireland players were measure by their perfomance against England (home I might add)
England players were measured by their performance against Scotland (home I might add)
Scotland players were measured by their performances against England and France (away I might add)

(for the record this isn't Wales bashing, it's Gatland bashing)

1. They may have been playing poorly (in your opinion, and indeed most), but Gatland has been charged with winning a test series against NZ in June/July not March. He picked the players he deemed best to do this. Head to heads may have come into it, but there was likely a whole host of other selection criteria used. And that is the perogative of the coach. You may not agree, but you are not the coach, please suggest viable alternative methods.
2. What evidence do you have that selection was mainly/solely based on those particular head to heads?

You have avoided my questions. Criticism without suggesting ways to improve the situation is just pointless moaning.

Unbiased selection.
Let's start with an unaffiliated coach. The Welsh coach taking the reigns stunk in 2013 and it stinks now. If it must be a national coach, how about the selection includes the head coaches from all the nations? So I guess a committee based selection.

Quotas
As I said no one wants that. I'll accept Hogg based on what Gatland seems to be trying to do with his back 3 probably would have started, but that is little consolation at the moment.

The Goal is to win the tests, obviously I don't want that to change, but winning at all costs isn't what the Lions is about. If it was winning at all costs it would in this incarnation be the England team with some guest appearances based in current form. Much like the 2013 tour, especially the 3rd test, which was Wales with some guest appearances. That didn't float my boat then and this tour has failed to do so either.

Test players with X from each country? Of course not, but I'd probably take a larger peripheral squad to take both 50-50 players to give all both a chance. I'd then whittle it down to a test squad and send some players home after the final midweek game.

How is that for answering your questions Goon?

I'm usually not a fan of quotas, but I would actually have every tour party including a minimum of 4 players from each nation

This year, Scotland would then have had Hogg, Seymour, Russell and J Gray for me - none of those are unworthy tourists

If we look back to the worst Scottish sides (apologies for using Scotland to make my point again) even in 2009, the likes of Blair, Murray, Hines and Ford were good enough to make the tour on merit

At least it would prevent the selections of the likes of Lydiate in 2013, AWJ/Moriarty/Halfpenny in 2017 who are just obvious bias

BamBam wrote:AWJ/Moriarty/Halfpenny in 2017 who are just obvious bias

Who do you reckon should have gone instead of them ?

At least moriarty was fit even if over rated.

AWJ - Launchbury, J Gray, R Gray, my nan

Moriarty - Watson, Robshaw, Barclay

Halfpenny - Bit more complicated but we don't need this much FB cover (Hogg/Williams/1/2p/Watson/Payne) - Take Ringrose as another option at centre would have been my choice

I forgot Biggar off my original list, but Russell would have been in for him, or for Halfpenny

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:AWJ/Moriarty/Halfpenny in 2017 who are just obvious bias

Who do you reckon should have gone instead of them ?

Jonny or Ritchie Gray for AWJ
Barclay over Moriarty
Maitland over Halfpenny

and thats just off the top of my head

I'd even have said Hamish Watson, the form 7 of the 6Ns, should have gone over Sam Warburton who was injured when the selection occurred!

Why are people saying Watson over Moriarty, when Moriarty is a 6 who can play 8 on occasion while Watson seems to be a 7 (according to you lot).

Sob can play 6 rather than 7. There's more options han to say moriarty plays 6 so it would need a 6.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sob can play 6 rather than 7. There's more options han to say moriarty plays 6 so it would need a 6.

What's that in English?

Griff wrote:Why are people saying Watson over Moriarty, when Moriarty is a 6 who can play 8 on occasion while Watson seems to be a 7 (according to you lot).

For me, I'm trying to take the best back rowers on tour

That would have been something like

6. POM/Stander/Robshaw
7. Warbs/Tipuric/SOB
8. Billy/Faletau

Obviously Billy dropping out forced a rejig, but this is for the original selection

I would rather have had Robshaw than Watson (I'm biased, shoot me) but if Watson was in, Warbs would have been competing for 6 and Watson would have been competing at 7 - either option preferable to Moriarty (this year's Dan Lydiate)

BamBam wrote:

Griff wrote:Why are people saying Watson over Moriarty, when Moriarty is a 6 who can play 8 on occasion while Watson seems to be a 7 (according to you lot).

For me, I'm trying to take the best back rowers on tour

That would have been something like

6. POM/Stander/Robshaw
7. Warbs/Tipuric/SOB
8. Billy/Faletau

Obviously Billy dropping out forced a rejig, but this is for the original selection

I would rather have had Robshaw than Watson (I'm biased, shoot me) but if Watson was in, Warbs would have been competing for 6 and Watson would have been competing at 7 - either option preferable to Moriarty (this year's Dan Lydiate)

Moriarty covers 8 too though, which was needed when Billy dropped out.

If we're arguing for Watson then it should be over Tipuric if anyone, IMO.

P.s. Can't believe you found no space for any scots in there. Radge will hunt you down.

Griff wrote:Why are people saying Watson over Moriarty, when Moriarty is a 6 who can play 8 on occasion while Watson seems to be a 7 (according to you lot).

I said Barclay over Moriarty - Barclay is a 6 or an 8 these days (where he plays for club and country)

I also said Watson over Warburton who are both 7s


The simple fact of the matter is that despite form and fitness, Wales is over represented. The Lions coach is the incumbent Welsh Coach. The Lions pay each union a fee for each player form their country the goes on tour with the Lions.

While the coach is associated with a union (or just finished in the year leading up to the lions a.k.a Woodward) he should not be allowed to be the coach of the Lions as there are financial rewards on offer which frankly is ludicrous.

Gatland has proven that cronyism or self/national interests can mire the concept of the Lions and it needs to be addressed before the next tour!

What English and Irish players do you all think should not have been selected ?

Griff wrote:

BamBam wrote:

Griff wrote:Why are people saying Watson over Moriarty, when Moriarty is a 6 who can play 8 on occasion while Watson seems to be a 7 (according to you lot).

For me, I'm trying to take the best back rowers on tour

That would have been something like

6. POM/Stander/Robshaw
7. Warbs/Tipuric/SOB
8. Billy/Faletau

Obviously Billy dropping out forced a rejig, but this is for the original selection

I would rather have had Robshaw than Watson (I'm biased, shoot me) but if Watson was in, Warbs would have been competing for 6 and Watson would have been competing at 7 - either option preferable to Moriarty (this year's Dan Lydiate)

Moriarty covers 8 too though, which was needed when Billy dropped out.

If we're arguing for Watson then it should be over Tipuric if anyone, IMO.

As far as I can remember, Moriarty spent about as much time at 8 as Billy V did - ie 0

Stander and Faletau played every game, SOB could have been the emergency cover

As for Watson and Tipuric - I disagree as I think Tips is the best 7 available to the Lions

The simple fact of the matter is that despite form and fitness, Wales is over represented. wrote:

So only Wales are over represented ?

And people say there is not an agenda here ?

LordDowlais wrote:What English and Irish players do you all think should not have been selected ?

None, just the Welsh

That's what you wanted to hear isn't it

tigertattie wrote:

Griff wrote:Why are people saying Watson over Moriarty, when Moriarty is a 6 who can play 8 on occasion while Watson seems to be a 7 (according to you lot).

I said Barclay over Moriarty - Barclay is a 6 or an 8 these days (where he plays for club and country)

I also said Watson over Warburton who are both 7s


The simple fact of the matter is that despite form and fitness, Wales is over represented. The Lions coach is the incumbent Welsh Coach. The Lions pay each union a fee for each player form their country the goes on tour with the Lions.

While the coach is associated with a union (or just finished in the year leading up to the lions a.k.a Woodward) he should not be allowed to be the coach of the Lions as there are financial rewards on offer which frankly is ludicrous.

Gatland has proven that cronyism or self/national interests can mire the concept of the Lions and it needs to be addressed before the next tour!

Yep, the whole world is out to get Scotland.

I blame that tranny Sturgeon. She put everyone's noses out of joint.

Griff wrote:P.s. Can't believe you found no space for any scots in there. Radge will hunt you down.

Watson the closest in the back row, Barclay a little way off

I would have had J Gray and Russell in too

Bar a missing t from a than, yes its English Griff.

Personally my backrow preferences in order :

6. Robshaw - POM - Barclay
7. Warburton - Watson - Tipuric
8. Billy V - Faletau - Stander

At least that's who I would have picked. Losing Billy V would have meant bringing in SOB.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Personally my backrow preferences in order :

6. Robshaw - POM - Barclay
7. Warburton - Watson - Tipuric
8. Billy V - Faletau - Stander

At least that's who I would have picked. Losing Billy V would have meant bringing in SOB.

I would have gone for that, but without Barclay. But not because I hate Scotland.

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Scottrf wrote:That the Welsh have world class individuals, but the collective ability/coaching of a Pacific Island team.

Why even mention Wales ?

Because we're talking about a potential conspiracy against Scottish players from the coach of the Welsh team, who have over-representation based on performance, while Scotland have under-representation.

Which is fine.

But what has that got to do with how Wales are coached ?

Also, I do not think Scotland have under-representation because of Wales. So again, that is another dig you've had at Wales/Welsh. There are other players from other countries there who we could argue the toss over as well.

I don't think we need to know which players you've tossed over, Dowlais.