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?

I think Taylor could have pushed for Lions honours if not unlucky with injuries.

The biggest problem I guess is that the 50-50s seemed to have gone the way of the Welsh players.

I still don't think that Scotland have clear cut absentees though.

Watson perhaps instead of Moriarty but then again Moriarty was likely to be just one of Gatland's mid weekers.

Is it really better for Scottish players to be stuck in mid weekers like Russell and Laidlaw?

I do think that Scotland still have plenty of room for improvement notably at 2,8 and 9. England have 2 players in each position superior to their Scottish counterparts - shows you how much work Scotland still needs to do.

I wouldn't have picked Laidlaw and yet Gatland did.


I wouldn't have picked Haskell, he seemed to be lucky to be there.


I do feel for Scottish players but still a lot of work needed to change perceptions.

Or perhaps get in a Scottish bias coach like Cotter for the next tour.

Leaving aside the composition of the tour party, which we've been bitching about for months already, what Scots players should have been in the Test 23s?

Hogg, Nels and Huw Jones are obvious choices, but they are not available. Apart from them, I would say none.

So we're just arguing about whether a dirt-tracker spot should have gone to Russell over Biggar (I would say Ford) or Barclay over Moriarty (who has hardly played)?

Hogg 100%

Nel, dunno. For me I would probably still have chosen Furlong.

Johnny Gray I reckon could have pushed all the way into a test slot.

Russell, by far the best 10 in the NH at the moment.

Huw Jones, again dunno, Davies for me has been man of the series.

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

Been answered about a million times. Yet u still claim anti Welsh

Read the posts before Please

You have to remember that 2 of those tours have been under Gatlands wing, the first was deemed a success as we beat an Australian side that most of the AP premiership finalist could beat. Lions victories in recent years have been rare, due to the nature of the team. Like last Saturday, the victory hides the flaws, we scraped through the Aus games, could easily have been two down after two. We won well in the last game, it was not a tour that showed how much better the NH was compared to the weakest nation in the top 3.

England beat Australia in 2013, Wales Lost, in the 6N, England lost in Cardiff, Wales lost to Ireland at home, England lost narrowly to the AB, yet Gatland picked 8 starters for the first test from the team that lost to Australia including both Philips and Cuthbert, now derided by posters of all nations.

Gatland favours what he knows rather what could be and will ever be known for putting the Lions tours at risk because of his inward looking selections. When added to the complete B4lls up in 2005 by Woodward, I would say the Lions are now at risk.

The English clubs are anti, the Scots are justifiably miffed and all because of Gatlands philosophy of "if in doubt, pick a Welshman"

samuraidragon wrote:Leaving aside the composition of the tour party, which we've been bitching about for months already, what Scots players should have been in the Test 23s?

Hogg, Nels and Huw Jones are obvious choices, but they are not available. Apart from them, I would say none.

So we're just arguing about whether a dirt-tracker spot should have gone to Russell over Biggar (I would say Ford)  or Barclay over Moriarty (who has hardly played)?

7 back row forwards came from Ireland and Wales. 0 from Scotland. Scotland tore both Wales and Ireland to pieces at the ruck in the 6N. They also did the same to AUS who are known as backrow masters. Their backrow is very very good.

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Of the Welsh players starting on Saturday, what Scottish players are better and are not injured ?

I am getting fed up of the welsh bashing on here. There are plenty of players from other nations who you could argue the toss of whether they should be on tour or not.

Jonny and Richie Gray

Instead of other players from other nations who are not captains of their national sides ?

Well last time out two national captains got left out for a one dimensional one legged big lump with a single skill set.

fa0019 wrote:

samuraidragon wrote:Leaving aside the composition of the tour party, which we've been bitching about for months already, what Scots players should have been in the Test 23s?

Hogg, Nels and Huw Jones are obvious choices, but they are not available. Apart from them, I would say none.

So we're just arguing about whether a dirt-tracker spot should have gone to Russell over Biggar (I would say Ford)  or Barclay over Moriarty (who has hardly played)?

7 back row forwards came from Ireland and Wales. 0 from Scotland. Scotland tore both Wales and Ireland to pieces at the ruck in the 6N. They also did the same to AUS who are known as backrow masters. Their backrow is very very good.

Not against England or a poor, poor France it wasn't. It's arguable they weren't against Ireland. They got ahead early and spent 50 mins of the game defending. They owed more to Ireland inaccuracy and good defending 1-15 IMO.

And that's the point. These lads need another year or two of performing at this level so that they have more than just a couple of examples of how good they are. I don't think that's outrageous.

Also I'm interested to know, of the 5 Irish and Welsh back rows that have been named across the test squads, who from Scotland would have usurped them?

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:You have to remember that 2 of those tours have been under Gatlands wing, the first was deemed a success as we beat an Australian side that most of the AP premiership finalist could beat. Lions victories in recent years have been rare, due to the nature of the team. Like last Saturday, the victory hides the flaws, we scraped through the Aus games, could easily have been two down after two. We won well in the last game, it was not a tour that showed how much better the NH was compared to the weakest nation in the top 3.

England beat Australia in 2013, Wales Lost, in the 6N, England lost in Cardiff, Wales lost to Ireland at home, England lost narrowly to the AB, yet Gatland picked 8 starters for the first test from the team that lost to Australia including both Philips and Cuthbert, now derided by posters of all nations.

Gatland favours what he knows rather what could be and will ever be known for putting the Lions tours at risk because of his inward looking selections. When added to the complete B4lls up in 2005 by Woodward, I would say the Lions are now at risk.

The English clubs are anti, the Scots are justifiably miffed and all because of Gatlands philosophy of "if in doubt, pick a Welshman"

Why wouldn't he though?

I don't like it, because I feel there are better options, but I'm not picking the team. When the series is on the line and he has a marginal call to make I would fully expect him to go with what the knows because to go with what he doesn't know represents a gamble. (Remember, I'm talking about marginal calls here). What would be his motivations for taking a gamble and picking the non welsh player, to appease the press? That doesn't sound like strong management to me. And actually he's already been pilloried for pandering to outside influence this tour.

Unless there's a situation where it's fairly obvious there is a better player (in better form) from another nation, I think any coach will always favour what he knows. Having a coach from outside the home unions coaches would remove this problem, but Gatland can hardly be held accountable for that.

On one of your first points there on face value the need for Scottish players to prove their form was.not a flash in the pan seems fair but then you have to consider that Sinckler and moriarty were chosen.

No 7&1/2 wrote:On one of your first points there on face value the need for Scottish players to prove their form was.not a flash in the pan seems fair but then you have to consider that Sinckler and moriarty were chosen.

I'm struggling to think of a player from any other nation in those positions where it wouldn't have been anything other than a marginal call.

Chris Robshaw and James Haskell are the only ones I can think of who have consistently been winning and performing well, but then Injuries and lack of form did for them.

Obviously it was close, as Haskell ended up going, but I seem to remember the feeling at the time was "that's unlucky" rather than one of outrage.

No 7&1/2 wrote:On one of your first points there on face value the need for Scottish players to prove their form was.not a flash in the pan seems fair but then you have to consider that Sinckler and moriarty were chosen.

We're just rehashing the months-old arguments about the touring party. If we're talking about the Test teams, the only really controversial choice is AWJ.

Gatland dropped Halfpenny and North. Tipuric and Biggar have performed decently, but have remained dirt-trackers. JD2 was a controversial choice when the squad was announced, but has been one of our better players.

Regarding the back-row, Gatland has used O'Brien, O'Mahoney, Stander, Warburton and Faletau.

Faletau is the only specialist 8 we have. O'Brien has been excellent. Stander hasn't had any game time, but was a big presence in the 6N. O'Mahoney put in a decent performance in the 1st Test and you could argue was unlucky to be dropped in favour of Warburton. But then Warburton put in a decent performance too.

So, I repeat, what Scots should be in tomorrow's 23?

Why would yu repeat a question I've already answered sam?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why would yu repeat a question I've already answered sam?

OMG

Here is the pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw it.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why would yu repeat a question I've already answered sam?

OMG

Here is the pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw it.

He's got you there.

I don't think he has. I'm still waiting on his reasoning for why ld thinks Biggar played well.and how he brought these backs into play. In answer t sam s question I said none, I would keep the same match day squad but I would have dropped vunipola for Mcgrath.

I always answer questions directed to me if I see them. Happy to explain those answers as well...its a discussion forum!

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why would yu repeat a question I've already answered sam?

OMG

Here is the pot calling the kettle black if I ever saw it.

The epitome

So ld. Care to answer yet?

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.

Well just as well it's Gatland picking the squad and not you. Watson over SOB is laughable. SOB has been the man of the series so far. If you can keep him fit (which they have done), you start him everytime.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't think he has. I'm still waiting on his reasoning for why ld thinks Biggar played well.and how he brought these backs into play. In answer t sam s question I said none, I would keep the same match day squad but I would have dropped vunipola for Mcgrath.

Fair enough. In that case we arguing about dirt-tracker spots. Yes, you could argue the Scots were unlucky there and could have had some more representation. I think Gatland was influenced by that consideration when he called up Laidlaw, who was not the best candidate. That was a "quota pick" if ever there was one.

In any case it has no bearing on Lions Test squad, so why not support it? There would have been some Scots there if not for injuries.

Not arguing over dirt trackers but he balance of the squad at the start of the tour. I base my match day squad as the ones I would pick as of now. I suspect hat would.look.very different had a different squad gone.out on tour. And of course injury has meant players like.hogg aren't available etc.

In relation to supporting the squad, I'm not sure what you mean.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Hogg 100%

Nel, dunno. For me I would probably still have chosen Furlong.

Johnny Gray I reckon could have pushed all the way into a test slot.

Russell, by far the best 10 in the NH at the moment.

Huw Jones, again dunno, Davies for me has been man of the series.

1. Agreed

2. Agreed, but you never know had injury not sidelined him

3. True, but Launchbury a better player in better form also wasn't picked. Gray is behind him in the pecjing order IMO. Shows the depth in row.

4. Disagree. Ford is a better creative 10 if you want that. And Gatland clearly wanted 10s that were controllers not mavericks. Look at how we have been playing. Also, look at who we are playing, errors turn into 7 points vs the ABs, and Russell is error prone because he tries things. And he is not in Sexton or Farrell's league, this test series is now, not in 4 years.

5. 13 was up grabs, Huw could have made it.

Nel wouldn't have made the squad either way. How on earth is he still living off one good game against Australia?

Surprisingly I agree with mikey dragon. Nel is probably the most overrated Scotland player.

Huw Jones is pretty overrated too - I doubt he'd make the Scotland line up let alone the Lions now with centres being a strong area for Scotland.


The area which is underrated is the centres aside from Jones - with centre not being a strong area for the Lions there would have been a case for Taylor if he was fit.


The main difference I'd make is picking Watson instead of Haskell.


Haskell has been in patchy form since his return from injury. Far off the form he showed in 2016. Seems to be well off the pace.

beshocked wrote:Surprisingly I agree with mikey dragon. Nel is probably the most overrated Scotland player.

Huw Jones is pretty overrated too - I doubt he'd make the Scotland line up let alone the Lions now with centres being a strong area for Scotland.


The area which is underrated is the centres aside from Jones - with centre not being a strong area for the Lions there would have been a case for Taylor if he was fit.


The main difference I'd make is picking Watson instead of Haskell.


Haskell has been in patchy form since his return from injury. Far off the form he showed in 2016. Seems to be well off the pace.

Haskell presumably got the nod through versatility and type. Not to mention experience.

Plus the Lions sponsors would be happier with him there.

the-goon wrote:

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.

Well just as well it's Gatland picking the squad and not you. Watson over SOB is laughable. SOB has been the man of the series so far. If you can keep him fit (which they have done), you start him everytime.

Hmmmm I'm guessing you didn't see their head to head in the 6N.

Watson kept him very quiet. He made 32 meters with the ball in hand, and beat 2 defenders. Watson made 19 tackles and missed none. It really depends what you want from your 7. I like a turnover breakdown operator, like Watson or Warburton. SOB for me is a 6 or an 8, or at least that's how he plays

beshocked wrote:Surprisingly I agree with mikey dragon. Nel is probably the most overrated Scotland player.

Huw Jones is pretty overrated too - I doubt he'd make the Scotland line up let alone the Lions now with centres being a strong area for Scotland.


The area which is underrated is the centres aside from Jones - with centre not being a strong area for the Lions there would have been a case for Taylor if he was fit.


The main difference I'd make is picking Watson instead of Haskell.


Haskell has been in patchy form since his return from injury. Far off the form he showed in 2016. Seems to be well off the pace.

I see Taylor and Jones or Taylor and Bennet as Scotland's best centre combo if fully fit.

Nel is a tremendous player though. Fagerson will be better IMO, but Nel is terrific. Our scrum was mullered by Ireland and England in the 6n and it told...

It should be made capital punishment to still suggest that SOB isn't a "proper 7" or good on the deck. Granted, he hasn't been just as effective on this tour as his usual high standards, but he is absolutely in the top tier with regards to poaching. I would say only David Pocock is ahead of him in that regard. His turnover stats are usually very high in each game he plays, partly why the SH teams fear him.

Another important thing that is always neglected in such discussions is that expecting a sole openside flanker to handle the breakdown is ludicrous. Pocock wouldn't be as good without Hooper, Fardy and other members of the pack to assist, and the entire NZ pack is able to carry, pass, poach, tackle when needed. It is a pack effort.

fa0019 wrote:

samuraidragon wrote:Leaving aside the composition of the tour party, which we've been bitching about for months already, what Scots players should have been in the Test 23s?

Hogg, Nels and Huw Jones are obvious choices, but they are not available. Apart from them, I would say none.

So we're just arguing about whether a dirt-tracker spot should have gone to Russell over Biggar (I would say Ford)  or Barclay over Moriarty (who has hardly played)?

7 back row forwards came from Ireland and Wales. 0 from Scotland. Scotland tore both Wales and Ireland to pieces at the ruck in the 6N. They also did the same to AUS who are known as backrow masters. Their backrow is very very good.

The Scottish back row were very good v Ireland in the first half of the game in Murrayfield but the Irish backrow dominated the second half.

If Hogg hadnt got himself injured then this conversation wouldnt be a thing would it.

Your lot were pushing Brown Beattie and Grant in 2013 as evidence of the gross unfairness of the world. Brown Beatties and Grant.
And Radge even tried to claim that Matt Scott should have gone (who? exactly). People were even pushing blooming Visser!

Matt scott who was one of the form centres in the prem?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

samuraidragon wrote:Leaving aside the composition of the tour party, which we've been bitching about for months already, what Scots players should have been in the Test 23s?

Hogg, Nels and Huw Jones are obvious choices, but they are not available. Apart from them, I would say none.

So we're just arguing about whether a dirt-tracker spot should have gone to Russell over Biggar (I would say Ford)  or Barclay over Moriarty (who has hardly played)?

7 back row forwards came from Ireland and Wales. 0 from Scotland. Scotland tore both Wales and Ireland to pieces at the ruck in the 6N. They also did the same to AUS who are known as backrow masters. Their backrow is very very good.

The Scottish back row were very good v Ireland in the first half of the game in Murrayfield but the Irish backrow dominated the second half.

And Wales' back row dominated the first half against Scotland, seeing as we're talking about halves .

Gooseberry wrote:If Hogg hadnt got himself injured then this conversation wouldnt be a thing would it.

Your lot were pushing Brown Beattie and Grant in 2013 as evidence of the gross unfairness of the world. Brown Beatties and Grant.
And Radge even tried to claim that Matt Scott should have gone (who? exactly). People were even pushing blooming Visser!

Matt Scott is still a good player one of the top try scorers in the Prem if I remember correctly? He was also one of the form 13s that year too, I still say he was unlucky to miss out in 2013. He was certainly better than Twelvetrees!

Problem for Matt Scott is that Scotland has access to superior centres like Dunbar,Bennett,Taylor and Jones.


I still think England's demolition of Scotland rightly or wrongly gave Gatland an excuse not to pick more Scottish representatives.

Scotland were unable to match the more physically powerful French and English teams.

It highlighted that whilst Scotland are a team on a rise there is still work to do outside Murrayfield.

Beating Australia was great but losing to Fiji, not so much.

They really struggle with depth. Really looking forward to murrayfield next year.

beshocked wrote:Problem for Matt Scott is that Scotland has access to superior centres like Dunbar,Bennett,Taylor and Jones.


I still think England's demolition of Scotland rightly or wrongly gave Gatland an excuse not to pick more Scottish representatives.

Scotland were unable to match the more physically powerful French and English teams.

It highlighted that whilst Scotland are a team on a rise there is still work to do outside Murrayfield.

Beating Australia was great but losing to Fiji, not so much.

Losing to Fiji was a direct result of the Toonie Tombola. We learned a lot in the game. A backline of Jackson, Horne and Grigg for example is far to small to deal with a hugely physical Fijian outfit for example.

I'm happy that a Scotland lacking Seymour and Hogg could beat Australia and still score good trys. I. Personally wouldn't read too much into the Fiji game, tough conditions and a very experimental side. None is doubting there is a lot of work to be done, but losing to Fiji I think will have been a bump to reality and answered a lot of questions regarding depth.

No 6 Nations side should lose to Fiji, even slightly under-strength.

Cyril wrote:No 6 Nations side should lose to Fiji, even slightly under-strength.

Well if any of the other sides ever bothered to go put there and play them, they might get a surprise. Fiji are no bad side and no-one can afford to take them lightly, especially at home.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:You have to remember that 2 of those tours have been under Gatlands wing, the first was deemed a success as we beat an Australian side that most of the AP premiership finalist could beat. Lions victories in recent years have been rare, due to the nature of the team. Like last Saturday, the victory hides the flaws, we scraped through the Aus games, could easily have been two down after two. We won well in the last game, it was not a tour that showed how much better the NH was compared to the weakest nation in the top 3.

England beat Australia in 2013, Wales Lost, in the 6N, England lost in Cardiff, Wales lost to Ireland at home, England lost narrowly to the AB, yet Gatland picked 8 starters for the first test from the team that lost to Australia including both Philips and Cuthbert, now derided by posters of all nations.

Gatland favours what he knows rather what could be and will ever be known for putting the Lions tours at risk because of his inward looking selections. When added to the complete B4lls up in 2005 by Woodward, I would say the Lions are now at risk.

The English clubs are anti, the Scots are justifiably miffed and all because of Gatlands philosophy of "if in doubt, pick a Welshman"

Can't really argue with that.
Good post.

Cyril wrote:No 6 Nations side should lose to Fiji, even slightly under-strength.

Slightly understrength is slightly understating it. Almost everyone from 9 back wouldn't be in the Scotland 23 under normal circumstances, Taylor being the exception.

Maybe other 6 nations teams should go there and see how they do instead of taking the easy option of a trip to Argentina or playing Tonga in Oz.

Easy option of a trip to Argentina rather than playing Fiji?

Lay off the crack, England have never lost to a Pacific Island side. Last game against Fiji was 58-15. That's not a result that's going to swing because we have to travel.

Scottrf wrote:Easy option of a trip to Argentina rather than playing Fiji?

Lay off the crack, England have never lost to a Pacific Island side. Last game against Fiji was 58-15. That's not a result that's going to swing because we have to travel.

Ok, the predictable option then.

When did England last play in Fiji or Samoa?

David-Douglas wrote:

Cyril wrote:No 6 Nations side should lose to Fiji, even slightly under-strength.

Slightly understrength is slightly understating it. Almost everyone from 9 back wouldn't be in the Scotland 23 under normal circumstances, Taylor being the exception.

Maybe other 6 nations teams should go there and see how they do instead of taking the easy option of a trip to Argentina or playing Tonga in Oz.

Tonga in NZ, if you're referring to Wales. And then we went to Samoa to play Samoa. But won with a number of 2nd choice players but also a load of 3rds.

Wales have just taken an under strength side to the Pacific Islands and have come back victorious, we beat a full strength Samoa in Apia, even after Gatland called the extra Welsh players up to the Lions squad.

edit

Dammit. Griff beat me to it. Another mad Welshman up too early on a Saturday morning who is too excited to sleep because of a certain test match in a few hours.

who is too excited to sleep because of a certain test match in a few hours.

Yeh hopefully England can bowl out South Africa early on...

mikey_dragon wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

samuraidragon wrote:Leaving aside the composition of the tour party, which we've been bitching about for months already, what Scots players should have been in the Test 23s?

Hogg, Nels and Huw Jones are obvious choices, but they are not available. Apart from them, I would say none.

So we're just arguing about whether a dirt-tracker spot should have gone to Russell over Biggar (I would say Ford)  or Barclay over Moriarty (who has hardly played)?

7 back row forwards came from Ireland and Wales. 0 from Scotland. Scotland tore both Wales and Ireland to pieces at the ruck in the 6N. They also did the same to AUS who are known as backrow masters. Their backrow is very very good.

The Scottish back row were very good v Ireland in the first half of the game in Murrayfield but the Irish backrow dominated the second half.

And Wales' back row dominated the first half against Scotland, seeing as we're talking about halves .

So even if all the above was true...

That would suggest that Ireland, Scotland and Wales had equal measured backrows.... and yet

4 welsh
3 Irish
0 Scots

Equality sort of disappears after that doesn't it.

For me it's a fairly simple debate, Wales had the second highest number of players on tour. Are they better than Scotland? No. Are they better than Ireland? No. Why were many of them selected? Because Gatland was the head coach.


But for me the Lions is special, and represents rugby from Britain and Ireland. I loved every minute of the series, and whilst I disagree with most of Gatland's close calls it's hard to argue with them now.

The lions were one point away from a series win. Would we have provided that point? Maybe Nel and Dickinson if they were fit could have held the scrum up better but they weren't so it's academically, the Grays I believe would have done the Lions proud but Itoje played well and Alun Wyn Jones is one of Gatland's favourites. The back row is a point of contention and I do believe Watson could have made a real splash on tour. Russell would have been an all or nothing card at the end. Dunbar has been a bit off since he did his acl, Bennett and Jones were injured as was Maitland and Hogg. As for Seymour, Daly and Watson were better on the tour. So by my reckoning if it weren't for injuries we could have been at around 8-12 Lions but it didn't happen. Our players went and turned over Australia in Australia, the Lions achieved a remarkable result.

The best way to look at it is to embrace the Lions, embrace the fact that we didn't have many players involved but the ones we did played their part in the midweek games and in the background as well I would imagine. But also the shirt makes a difference, players reach a higher level in the shirt. And Scottish players put so much into the shirt, would Jonathan Davies be inspired to reach a level far higher than he does for Wales if it weren't for the achievements in the past of Hastings, Calder, Townsend, Tait etc. We could pull out of the Lions, demand they wear different colour socks and watch them play the same team they would have done anyway or this outstanding generation Scotland have put together can realise their potential and pummel Wales time and time again, because let's face it they aren't very good, and turn England over at Murrayfield to prove THAT game was an anomaly, turn over Ireland in Dublin to prove that the opening game wasn't and give New Zealand a run for their money in November to prove that we are good enough. But in the mean time let's enjoy the Lions because Scotland have put an awful lot into the shirt over the years and it isn't about one tour, it's about the history. And if it wasn't for us the modern Lions would be very different, Telfer and McGeechan ushered the Lions into the pro era. And if you can't get intoxicated by the romance of it then at the end of the day the Lions just achieved something remarkable and it's always nice for an excuse for one more beer.

I had my doubts over Gatland, but he's justified his selections with a brilliant series result.

Fair play to him.

Cyril wrote:I had my doubts over Gatland, but he's justified his selections with a brilliant series result.

Fair play to him.

Very true. He's a twit, but you can't knock what he has done the last two tours really.

I think it's brilliant that he walked into the presser wearing a clown nose too (apparently).