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?

mikey_dragon wrote:

BamBam wrote:

1 in 13 is worse than 1 in 20? Righttt

I see you aren't a mathematician either

Worse than I previously thought, yeah as up to this point it was guess work on my behalf. Glad you've stopped coat-tailing anyway, that was a bit wrong.

Well as you previously thought it was 1 in 20, and it was actually 1 in 13, I'd say that was better than you thought

No coat tailing necessary when Wales' shambolic record demonstrates their standing fairly conclusively

Then stop the pathetic coat-tailing and concentrate on what England can do to keep improving their recent record against SA. Maybe take tips from Wales is one of them as their recent record is better?

Munkian, ld is still pulling out the line that only wales had players which were complained about when they were picked, just not true.

mikey_dragon wrote:Then stop the pathetic coat-tailing and concentrate on what England can do to keep improving their recent record against SA. Maybe take tips from Wales is one of them as their recent record is better?

1 from 1 under the current management. Not sure matches with different coaches and players are relevant.

mikey_dragon wrote:Then stop the pathetic coat-tailing and concentrate on what England can do to keep improving their recent record against SA. Maybe take tips from Wales is one of them as their recent record is better?

Sure, which recent record are we talking about again

Would it be the 100% record under our current regime vs the 20% record of your current regime

Or our 40% record over the last 20 games vs your 10% record over the last 20 games

Can we exchange tips on how to beat Australia and NZ too?

The recent record over the last 3 matches, like I've been saying all along...

LordDowlais wrote:

R!skysports wrote:Well that is a complete lie and has been pointed out by everyone - and highlighted examples of players from all countries that should not have toured -

No it hasn't. I have seen loads of comments about how Finn Russell should have toured instead of Biggar, Johnny Gray instead of AWJ, Hamish Watson instead of Tuperic and Warburton, any Scottish winger instead of George North. So lets not pretend it has not happened.

R!skysports wrote:Matches over the last few years have mostly been close and Scotland have been in postions to win several times. I am hoping that we can move forward to win these more often - and that could be the biggest change for Scotland

Only the games at Murrayfield. The games in Cardiff have not been that close.

R!skysports wrote:I would say that on current form there is very little between Wales and Scotland and I expect very close encounters. I think we have the more exciting backs, but Wales the more robust forwards.

That is debatable. Liam Williams and Hogg, I would rate not much difference. Finn Russell is probably more exciting than Biggar but not better, but everywhere else I think Wales are better, Scott Williams, JD2, North, Webb, Gareth Davies even. I would not swap any back player for their Scottish equivalents. But I might be a bit biased.

BUT - you said that there were no other nations mentioned - which is untrue

On 6 nations and last 12 months form Bigger, AWJ, North should not have been selected - but Warburton played well in the 6 Nations. Not sure I have seen anyone say Tuperic should not have been selected

AWJ and Warburton then got injured and we said they should not tour is injured - and with the length of time it took them to get up to speed (final test), I would still agree with that

Russel was the form 10 in the 6 nations and either him or Ford would have provided a plan b

We also said Teo, Haskell, Nowell should not have been selected

On the backs - not many tries scored by them?

Liam Williams - Hogg man of the series 2 years running - no contest really - but he is a better wing than Hogg

but everywhere else I think Wales are better,

Scott Williams - club maybe good, but not so much international form - Dunbar, Taylor would be a good discussion point
JD2 - 6 nations form no - but came into form in the Lions
North - not for 4 years -so out of form - would have Seymour, Visser and Maitland ahead of him at the moment
Webb - better than Laidlaw - how dare you (Ok, yes much better than Laidlaw :-) ) - Price could be a good prospect for us - but not there yet
Gareth Davies- !

mikey_dragon wrote:The recent record over the last 3 matches, like I've been saying all along...

But we beat you over the last 3 matches, so perhaps try applying those tips to beating England instead, there's a good little chap

mikey_dragon wrote:The recent record over the last 3 matches, like I've been saying all along...

You mean the most convenient time for your argument? Including one game from 2014 but not the two others? Yet willing to go back to 2012 for England?

Persuasive.

How is November 2012 recent for England but June 2014 not recent for Wales?

LordDowlais wrote:

R!skysports wrote:Well that is a complete lie and has been pointed out by everyone - and highlighted examples of players from all countries that should not have toured -

No it hasn't. I have seen loads of comments about how Finn Russell should have toured instead of Biggar, Johnny Gray instead of AWJ, Hamish Watson instead of Tuperic and Warburton, any Scottish winger instead of George North. So lets not pretend it has not happened.

R!skysports wrote:Matches over the last few years have mostly been close and Scotland have been in postions to win several times. I am hoping that we can move forward to win these more often - and that could be the biggest change for Scotland

Only the games at Murrayfield. The games in Cardiff have not been that close.

R!skysports wrote:I would say that on current form there is very little between Wales and Scotland and I expect very close encounters. I think we have the more exciting backs, but Wales the more robust forwards.

That is debatable. Liam Williams and Hogg, I would rate not much difference. Finn Russell is probably more exciting than Biggar but not better, but everywhere else I think Wales are better, Scott Williams, JD2, North, Webb, Gareth Davies even. I would not swap any back player for their Scottish equivalents. But I might be a bit biased.

Really? Without going into the late Shane Williams winner as I've spent too much on therapy to bring it up again, I don't think that is accurate. Bar the drubbing when Hogg was sent off the games have been pretty close, and indeed the last game there we really should have closed out the game having put in a great performance for the first 60 minutes, only to self destruct in the last 20 minutes and lose by 4 points. 4 points is pretty close in my book...

The only tip I could give us for beating England is some personnel changes, IE no Cuthbert and no North on recent form. Perhaps a different midfield, Owen Williams at 12 perhaps. Shingler at 6 if he continues in that form.

mikey_dragon wrote:The only tip I could give us for beating England is some personnel changes, IE no Cuthbert and no North on recent form. Perhaps a different midfield, Owen Williams at 12 perhaps. Shingler at 6 if he continues in that form.

I'm sure I speak for all England fans when I say Owen Williams and Shingler are a frightening prospect.

RDW_Scotland wrote:
Really? Without going into the late Shane Williams winner as I've spent too much on therapy to bring it up again, I don't think that is accurate. Bar the drubbing when Hogg was sent off the games have been pretty close, and indeed the last game there we really should have closed out the game having put in a great performance for the first 60 minutes, only to self destruct in the last 20 minutes and lose by 4 points. 4 points is pretty close in my book...

A fair few matches have been close-fought in my opinion. A bit of perspective though, as after some of our close-fought losses to SH opposition we constantly get told that we were never in it, we never looked like scoring, we never would have won, etc. People seem to change their argument a lot when Wales are involved .

R!skysports wrote:BUT - you said that there were no other nations mentioned - which is untrue

Come on, please. Nobody said Finn Russell should have gone instead of Sexton or Farell. Nobody said Johnny Gray should have gone instead of Courtney Laws, Henderson or Itoje, nobody said Hamish Watson should have gone instead of SOB or POM. They didn't. I even read on here people moaning that Maitland should have gone instead of North, not Watson, or Nowell.

Now I am not saying other were not mentioned, but when it came to the theory of putting Scottish players in the squad, it was always at the expense of a Welsh player.

R!skysports wrote:AWJ and Warburton then got injured and we said they should not tour is injured - and with the length of time it took them to get up to speed (final test), I would still agree with that

Sam Warburton was sub for the first test, and POM had a stinker. In all other games Warburton was everywhere. AWJ acquitted himself well in all tests.

mikey_dragon wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:
Really? Without going into the late Shane Williams winner as I've spent too much on therapy to bring it up again, I don't think that is accurate. Bar the drubbing when Hogg was sent off the games have been pretty close, and indeed the last game there we really should have closed out the game having put in a great performance for the first 60 minutes, only to self destruct in the last 20 minutes and lose by 4 points. 4 points is pretty close in my book...

A fair few matches have been close-fought in my opinion. A bit of perspective though, as after some of our close-fought losses to SH opposition we constantly get told that we were never in it, we never looked like scoring, we never would have won, etc. People seem to change their argument a lot when Wales are involved .

My post had nothing to do with SH matches involving wales - it was in response to the claim that Wales-Scotland games aren't close at the MS.

LordDowlais wrote:

R!skysports wrote:BUT - you said that there were no other nations mentioned - which is untrue

Come on, please. Nobody said Finn Russell should have gone instead of Sexton or Farell. Nobody said Johnny Gray should have gone instead of Courtney Laws, Henderson or Itoje, nobody said Hamish Watson should have gone instead of SOB or POM. They didn't. I even read on here people moaning that Maitland should have gone instead of North, not Watson, or Nowell.

Now I am not saying other were not mentioned, but when it came to the theory of putting Scottish players in the squad, it was always at the expense of a Welsh player.

R!skysports wrote:AWJ and Warburton then got injured and we said they should not tour is injured - and with the length of time it took them to get up to speed (final test), I would still agree with that

Sam Warburton was sub for the first test, and POM had a stinker. In all other games Warburton was everywhere. AWJ acquitted himself well in all tests.

Sorry to be picking at your posts, but even Ulster fans were surprised that Henderson had been called up in the first place so plenty people were questioning his inclusion. I'm not saying Gray should have been in his place, Laucnhbury would have been the clearer swap, but he would have been in the mix. Henderson certainly justified his place in the squad after a poor start though.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:
Really? Without going into the late Shane Williams winner as I've spent too much on therapy to bring it up again, I don't think that is accurate. Bar the drubbing when Hogg was sent off the games have been pretty close, and indeed the last game there we really should have closed out the game having put in a great performance for the first 60 minutes, only to self destruct in the last 20 minutes and lose by 4 points. 4 points is pretty close in my book...

A fair few matches have been close-fought in my opinion. A bit of perspective though, as after some of our close-fought losses to SH opposition we constantly get told that we were never in it, we never looked like scoring, we never would have won, etc. People seem to change their argument a lot when Wales are involved .

My post had nothing to do with SH matches involving wales - it was in response to the claim that Wales-Scotland games aren't close at the MS.

And my response is agreeing with what you said, and what you are still saying in the latter half of your most recent comment . I guess the reason LD thinks matches between Wales and Scotland aren't close is because he was told the same regarding close-fought matches where Wales had different opposition, but I could be wrong.

LordDowlais wrote:

R!skysports wrote:BUT - you said that there were no other nations mentioned - which is untrue

Come on, please. Nobody said Finn Russell should have gone instead of Sexton or Farell. Nobody said Johnny Gray should have gone instead of Courtney Laws, Henderson or Itoje, nobody said Hamish Watson should have gone instead of SOB or POM. They didn't. I even read on here people moaning that Maitland should have gone instead of North, not Watson, or Nowell.

Now I am not saying other were not mentioned, but when it came to the theory of putting Scottish players in the squad, it was always at the expense of a Welsh player.

R!skysports wrote:AWJ and Warburton then got injured and we said they should not tour is injured - and with the length of time it took them to get up to speed (final test), I would still agree with that

Sam Warburton was sub for the first test, and POM had a stinker. In all other games Warburton was everywhere. AWJ acquitted himself well in all tests.

BECAUSE - and this is important - those players were IN FORM - it is simple

S"am Warburton was sub for the first test, and POM had a stinker. In all other games Warburton was everywhere. AWJ acquitted himself well in all tests."

They may have been playing, but most everyone (Except the Welsh) would disagree that they were at the races in the first 2 tests - but they grew into their roles - and even AWJ was ok in the third (Warburton was good in that one), but no way was AWJ close to lawes or Henderson's performances - by a country mile behind

R!skysports wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

R!skysports wrote:BUT - you said that there were no other nations mentioned - which is untrue

Come on, please. Nobody said Finn Russell should have gone instead of Sexton or Farell. Nobody said Johnny Gray should have gone instead of Courtney Laws, Henderson or Itoje, nobody said Hamish Watson should have gone instead of SOB or POM. They didn't. I even read on here people moaning that Maitland should have gone instead of North, not Watson, or Nowell.

Now I am not saying other were not mentioned, but when it came to the theory of putting Scottish players in the squad, it was always at the expense of a Welsh player.

R!skysports wrote:AWJ and Warburton then got injured and we said they should not tour is injured - and with the length of time it took them to get up to speed (final test), I would still agree with that

Sam Warburton was sub for the first test, and POM had a stinker. In all other games Warburton was everywhere. AWJ acquitted himself well in all tests.

BECAUSE - and this is important - those players were IN FORM - it is simple

S"am Warburton was sub for the first test, and POM had a stinker. In all other games Warburton was everywhere. AWJ acquitted himself well in all tests."

They may have been playing, but most everyone (Except the Welsh) would disagree that they were at the races in the first 2 tests - but they grew into their roles - and even AWJ was ok in the third (Warburton was good in that one), but no way was AWJ close to lawes or Henderson's performances - by a country mile behind

And as a matter of note - I do not think Scotland are better than Wales yet - in slightly better form - but we need to keep that going for a few years to be considered better

LordDowlais wrote:

R!skysports wrote:BUT - you said that there were no other nations mentioned - which is untrue

Come on, please. Nobody said Finn Russell should have gone instead of Sexton or Farell. Nobody said Johnny Gray should have gone instead of Courtney Laws, Henderson or Itoje, nobody said Hamish Watson should have gone instead of SOB or POM. They didn't. I even read on here people moaning that Maitland should have gone instead of North, not Watson, or Nowell.

Now I am not saying other were not mentioned, but when it came to the theory of putting Scottish players in the squad, it was always at the expense of a Welsh player

That's becausee ......

Sexton and Farrell > Russell > Biggar
Itoje, Lawes, Henderson > Gray > AWJ

Hmm. I for one said Kruis shouldn't go after just coming back from injury.

mikey_dragon wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:
Really? Without going into the late Shane Williams winner as I've spent too much on therapy to bring it up again, I don't think that is accurate. Bar the drubbing when Hogg was sent off the games have been pretty close, and indeed the last game there we really should have closed out the game having put in a great performance for the first 60 minutes, only to self destruct in the last 20 minutes and lose by 4 points. 4 points is pretty close in my book...

A fair few matches have been close-fought in my opinion. A bit of perspective though, as after some of our close-fought losses to SH opposition we constantly get told that we were never in it, we never looked like scoring, we never would have won, etc. People seem to change their argument a lot when Wales are involved .

My post had nothing to do with SH matches involving wales - it was in response to the claim that Wales-Scotland games aren't close at the MS.

And my response is agreeing with what you said, and what you are still saying in the latter half of your most recent comment . I guess the reason LD thinks matches between Wales and Scotland aren't close is because he was told the same regarding close-fought matches where Wales had different opposition, but I could be wrong.

No mikey, you are not wrong.

I specifically remember the WC game against Australia, I was told that Wales were never looking like scoring a try and were never in it, even though we only lost by about 3pts.

Scottrf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:The only tip I could give us for beating England is some personnel changes, IE no Cuthbert and no North on recent form. Perhaps a different midfield, Owen Williams at 12 perhaps. Shingler at 6 if he continues in that form.

I'm sure I speak for all England fans when I say Owen Williams and Shingler are a frightening prospect.

Just with a slightly sarcastic tone

LordDowlais wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:
Really? Without going into the late Shane Williams winner as I've spent too much on therapy to bring it up again, I don't think that is accurate. Bar the drubbing when Hogg was sent off the games have been pretty close, and indeed the last game there we really should have closed out the game having put in a great performance for the first 60 minutes, only to self destruct in the last 20 minutes and lose by 4 points. 4 points is pretty close in my book...

A fair few matches have been close-fought in my opinion. A bit of perspective though, as after some of our close-fought losses to SH opposition we constantly get told that we were never in it, we never looked like scoring, we never would have won, etc. People seem to change their argument a lot when Wales are involved .

My post had nothing to do with SH matches involving wales - it was in response to the claim that Wales-Scotland games aren't close at the MS.

And my response is agreeing with what you said, and what you are still saying in the latter half of your most recent comment . I guess the reason LD thinks matches between Wales and Scotland aren't close is because he was told the same regarding close-fought matches where Wales had different opposition, but I could be wrong.

No mikey, you are not wrong.

I specifically remember the WC game against Australia, I was told that Wales were never looking like scoring a try and were never in it, even though we only lost by about 3pts.

Yeah but your lot still crow on about the 2013 England game like it wasnt close

R!skysports wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

R!skysports wrote:BUT - you said that there were no other nations mentioned - which is untrue

Come on, please. Nobody said Finn Russell should have gone instead of Sexton or Farell. Nobody said Johnny Gray should have gone instead of Courtney Laws, Henderson or Itoje, nobody said Hamish Watson should have gone instead of SOB or POM. They didn't. I even read on here people moaning that Maitland should have gone instead of North, not Watson, or Nowell.

Now I am not saying other were not mentioned, but when it came to the theory of putting Scottish players in the squad, it was always at the expense of a Welsh player.

R!skysports wrote:AWJ and Warburton then got injured and we said they should not tour is injured - and with the length of time it took them to get up to speed (final test), I would still agree with that

Sam Warburton was sub for the first test, and POM had a stinker. In all other games Warburton was everywhere. AWJ acquitted himself well in all tests.

BECAUSE - and this is important - those players were IN FORM - it is simple

S"am Warburton was sub for the first test, and POM had a stinker. In all other games Warburton was everywhere. AWJ acquitted himself well in all tests."

They may have been playing, but most everyone (Except the Welsh) would disagree that they were at the races in the first 2 tests - but they grew into their roles - and even AWJ was ok in the third (Warburton was good in that one), but no way was AWJ close to lawes or Henderson's performances - by a country mile behind

I said from day one that if Finn Russell was to tour, then it should have been instead of Farrell, I was laughed off the forum. I was told by all, and mostly the Scots, that he should be there instead of Biggar.

Anyway, to put this debate to bed. What Scottish players would you have picked if you were in Gatland's shoes, and who would they have toured instead of ?

Gooseberry wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:
Really? Without going into the late Shane Williams winner as I've spent too much on therapy to bring it up again, I don't think that is accurate. Bar the drubbing when Hogg was sent off the games have been pretty close, and indeed the last game there we really should have closed out the game having put in a great performance for the first 60 minutes, only to self destruct in the last 20 minutes and lose by 4 points. 4 points is pretty close in my book...

A fair few matches have been close-fought in my opinion. A bit of perspective though, as after some of our close-fought losses to SH opposition we constantly get told that we were never in it, we never looked like scoring, we never would have won, etc. People seem to change their argument a lot when Wales are involved .

My post had nothing to do with SH matches involving wales - it was in response to the claim that Wales-Scotland games aren't close at the MS.

And my response is agreeing with what you said, and what you are still saying in the latter half of your most recent comment . I guess the reason LD thinks matches between Wales and Scotland aren't close is because he was told the same regarding close-fought matches where Wales had different opposition, but I could be wrong.

No mikey, you are not wrong.

I specifically remember the WC game against Australia, I was told that Wales were never looking like scoring a try and were never in it, even though we only lost by about 3pts.

Yeah but your lot still crow on about the 2013 England game like it wasnt close

But it was close, very nail biting squeaky bum time close. I remember that 5mtr line out you had now, and wonder what could have happened.

edit, sorry I thought you were talking about the WC game.

I maintain that Russell wasn't the right player. It's not just about quality but we needed consistency and control from FH, not imagination/flair.

Gooseberry wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:The only tip I could give us for beating England is some personnel changes, IE no Cuthbert and no North on recent form. Perhaps a different midfield, Owen Williams at 12 perhaps. Shingler at 6 if he continues in that form.

I'm sure I speak for all England fans when I say Owen Williams and Shingler are a frightening prospect.

Just with a slightly sarcastic tone

I don't expect English people to rate Welsh players. I guess you haven't seen much of Shingler either way.

Scottrf wrote:I maintain that Russell wasn't the right player. It's not just about quality but we needed consistency and control from FH, not imagination/flair.

Farrell is good at what he does, but he is a liability when he is out of the comfort zone of a dominant pack. He has had the luxury of always playing behind a dominant Saracens pack, and a dominant England pack. From that platform he can control the game superbly, which he is good at, hence my first sentence.

As soon as the luxury of a dominant pack is gone, he tends to stick out like a sore thumb.

LordDowlais wrote:

R!skysports wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

R!skysports wrote:BUT - you said that there were no other nations mentioned - which is untrue

Come on, please. Nobody said Finn Russell should have gone instead of Sexton or Farell. Nobody said Johnny Gray should have gone instead of Courtney Laws, Henderson or Itoje, nobody said Hamish Watson should have gone instead of SOB or POM. They didn't. I even read on here people moaning that Maitland should have gone instead of North, not Watson, or Nowell.

Now I am not saying other were not mentioned, but when it came to the theory of putting Scottish players in the squad, it was always at the expense of a Welsh player.

R!skysports wrote:AWJ and Warburton then got injured and we said they should not tour is injured - and with the length of time it took them to get up to speed (final test), I would still agree with that

Sam Warburton was sub for the first test, and POM had a stinker. In all other games Warburton was everywhere. AWJ acquitted himself well in all tests.

BECAUSE - and this is important - those players were IN FORM - it is simple

S"am Warburton was sub for the first test, and POM had a stinker. In all other games Warburton was everywhere. AWJ acquitted himself well in all tests."

They may have been playing, but most everyone (Except the Welsh) would disagree that they were at the races in the first 2 tests - but they grew into their roles - and even AWJ was ok in the third (Warburton was good in that one), but no way was AWJ close to lawes or Henderson's performances - by a country mile behind

I said from day one that if Finn Russell was to tour, then it should have been instead of Farrell, I was laughed off the forum. I was told by all, and mostly the Scots, that he should be there instead of Biggar.

Anyway, to put this debate to bed. What Scottish players would you have picked if you were in Gatland's shoes, and who would they have toured instead of ?

And you wonder why you were laughed at - both better than Biggar

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I maintain that Russell wasn't the right player. It's not just about quality but we needed consistency and control from FH, not imagination/flair.

Farrell is good at what he does, but he is a liability when he is out of the comfort zone of a dominant pack. He has had the luxury of always playing behind a dominant Saracens pack, and a dominant England pack. From that platform he can control the game superbly, which he is good at, hence my first sentence.

As soon as the luxury of a dominant pack is gone, he tends to stick out like a sore thumb.

Same as every fly half then.

The clamour for Barrett as better than carter has subsided slightly.

Scottrf wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I maintain that Russell wasn't the right player. It's not just about quality but we needed consistency and control from FH, not imagination/flair.

Farrell is good at what he does, but he is a liability when he is out of the comfort zone of a dominant pack. He has had the luxury of always playing behind a dominant Saracens pack, and a dominant England pack. From that platform he can control the game superbly, which he is good at, hence my first sentence.

As soon as the luxury of a dominant pack is gone, he tends to stick out like a sore thumb.

Same as every fly half then.

yes.

But some have more experience of playing behind a beaten pack than others, thus they are better in defence, and can tackle better, like Dan Biggar.

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I maintain that Russell wasn't the right player. It's not just about quality but we needed consistency and control from FH, not imagination/flair.

Farrell is good at what he does, but he is a liability when he is out of the comfort zone of a dominant pack. He has had the luxury of always playing behind a dominant Saracens pack, and a dominant England pack. From that platform he can control the game superbly, which he is good at, hence my first sentence.

As soon as the luxury of a dominant pack is gone, he tends to stick out like a sore thumb.

Same as every fly half then.

yes.

But some have more experience of playing behind a beaten pack than others, thus they are better in defence, and can tackle better, like Dan Biggar.

How does Dan Biggar defend at 12

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I maintain that Russell wasn't the right player. It's not just about quality but we needed consistency and control from FH, not imagination/flair.

Farrell is good at what he does, but he is a liability when he is out of the comfort zone of a dominant pack. He has had the luxury of always playing behind a dominant Saracens pack, and a dominant England pack. From that platform he can control the game superbly, which he is good at, hence my first sentence.

As soon as the luxury of a dominant pack is gone, he tends to stick out like a sore thumb.

Same as every fly half then.

yes.

But some have more experience of playing behind a beaten pack than others, thus they are better in defence, and can tackle better, like Dan Biggar.

How does Dan Biggar defend at 12

He is not a 12, what a stupid question to ask.

Farrell is a damn awful 12, he is a better 10.

Ford is a lightweight weak defender, Farrell is a revolving door at 12, and Joseph is also a poor defender. Brown is past it, Nowell can't defend and Daly isn't a winger.

England conceded the second least points in the 6 Nations.

Damn awful 12 who played there for most of the time in a record equalling run of results for a tier 1 side. Bar a few min here and there.

Yup it's amazing how bad england and our players are.

Scottrf wrote:I maintain that Russell wasn't the right player. It's not just about quality but we needed consistency and control from FH, not imagination/flair.

South Africa '97?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I maintain that Russell wasn't the right player. It's not just about quality but we needed consistency and control from FH, not imagination/flair.

South Africa '97?

South Africa and New Zealand don't have the same style.

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I maintain that Russell wasn't the right player. It's not just about quality but we needed consistency and control from FH, not imagination/flair.

Farrell is good at what he does, but he is a liability when he is out of the comfort zone of a dominant pack. He has had the luxury of always playing behind a dominant Saracens pack, and a dominant England pack. From that platform he can control the game superbly, which he is good at, hence my first sentence.

As soon as the luxury of a dominant pack is gone, he tends to stick out like a sore thumb.

Same as every fly half then.

yes.

But some have more experience of playing behind a beaten pack than others, thus they are better in defence, and can tackle better, like Dan Biggar.

How does Dan Biggar defend at 12

He is not a 12, what a stupid question to ask.

Farrell is a damn awful 12, he is a better 10.

So Farrell who has played 12 for England during a record equalling 18 game undefeated streak is an awful 12

Remind me where he was playing for the Lions when he apparently played awfully - apparently its a position that Biggar is incapable of playing, so why the fook are we talking about him

I am amazed that someone so incoherent and full of bluster is so convinced they are right so often

BamBam wrote:So Farrell who has played 12 for England during a record equalling 18 game undefeated streak is an awful 12 Rolling Eyes

Because he is damn lucky to have probably the best set of forwards in world rugby making things easier for him that's why.

BamBam wrote:Remind me where he was playing for the Lions when he apparently played awfully - apparently its a position that Biggar is incapable of playing, so why the fook are we talking about him

He had a mare in the 1st test at 10 and should have been dropped completely.

BamBam wrote:I am amazed that someone so incoherent and full of bluster is so convinced they are right so often

Trolling again I see.

True, I suppose it is difficult for Owen to perform as well given he had to play behind a pack carrying an ageing donkey from Wales at lock

Nevertheless, one of the English coaches managed to get the correct game plan in place with the dual ball player combination at 10 and 12 and the Lions improved (despite said donkey keeping his place)

England have the best set of forwards now? Good to let us know that we're going to be getting accused of 10.men rugby again soon!

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:So Farrell who has played 12 for England during a record equalling 18 game undefeated streak is an awful 12 Rolling Eyes

Because he is damn lucky to have probably the best set of forwards in world rugby making things easier for him that's why.

So you admit it was wrong for Warburton and AWJ ahead of their English counterparts?

Persumably Farrell had a mare at 10 because of the lack of Robshaw to protect him?

Yeah Blockhead really Frak up by not including all available English forwards, glad you acknowledge it LD

Hartley > Owens
Launchbury > AWJ
Robshaw > Moriarty
Haskell > Warburton

We'll keep Toby as Billy got injured, but the other 4 changes should have been made

Gooseberry wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:So Farrell who has played 12 for England during a record equalling 18 game undefeated streak is an awful 12 Rolling Eyes

Because he is damn lucky to have probably the best set of forwards in world rugby making things easier for him that's why.

So you admit it was wrong for Warburton and AWJ ahead of their English counterparts?

Persumably Farrell had a mare at 10 because of the lack of Robshaw to protect him?

AWJ , Warburton and Faletau and Tuperic are probably the only forwards that are at the level of the English forwards at the moment. What people do not realise is, that the Welsh pack is still a very young pack especially the front row, Samson Lee, Thomas Francis, Sam Parry, Nicky Smith, Rob Evans are all still in their early 20's. Ken Owens is the old man of the front row at 30. We then have players like Bradley Davies and Jake Ball whilst very physical, are not as athletic as your Itoje's and Lawes of this world. Our pack at best will try and gain parity with the better packs of the world, against others they will do well.

In time I think Wales has the potential to have one of the best packs in international rugby, but most of them need a few more miles on the clock before that happens.

BamBam wrote:Yeah Blockhead really Frak up by not including all available English forwards, glad you acknowledge it LD

Hartley > OwensGeorge
Launchbury >AWJHenderson
Robshaw > MoriartyHaskel
Haskell > WarburtonPOM

We'll keep Toby as Billy got injured, but the other 4 changes should have been made

there fixed that for you

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:Yeah Blockhead really Frak up by not including all available English forwards, glad you acknowledge it LD

Hartley > OwensGeorge
Launchbury >AWJHenderson
Robshaw > MoriartyHaskel
Haskell > WarburtonPOM

We'll keep Toby as Billy got injured, but the other 4 changes should have been made

there fixed that for you

Oh ok, I can go with making those changes, shortly followed by

George > Owens
Henderson > AWJ
Haskell/POM (injury replacement anyway) > Moriarty

I'll keep Warbs