Gatland to lead the Lions in 2021.......again!

First topic message reminder :

Gatland to lead the Lions to SA in 2021

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/48224634?filter=none


I guess this rules him out of the England job post RWC, guess he is waiting for the All Blacks, still.

I would say that most coaches, be they the Lions, national or club/province coach select players based on familiarity. Form is not always a factor when it comes to selection. Certain players also have a lot of credit due to past form. I don't see too much wrong with that if results work out.

Gatland may be guilty of such an approach towards selection but he has proven, to me anyways, that he is the best Lions coach. You may argue at the style of play all you want but nobody can argue with the actual results in the tours led by him and its results that count is it not?

Again, I would have been happy to see someone else given a chance (Lancaster for me) but I am not upset at Gatland being given the role again.

eirebilly wrote:I would say that most coaches, be they the Lions, national or club/province coach select players based on familiarity. Form is not always a factor when it comes to selection. Certain players also have a lot of credit due to past form. I don't see too much wrong with that if results work out.

Gatland may be guilty of such an approach towards selection but he has proven, to me anyways, that he is the best Lions coach. You may argue at the style of play all you want but nobody can argue with the actual results in the tours led by him and its results that count is it not?

Again, I would have been happy to see someone else given a chance (Lancaster for me) but I am not upset at Gatland being given the role again.

Hard to argue with a lot of that although its hard to say he is the best Lions coach when some good coaches haven't held the position. Or do you mean he is the best of those who have been Lions coach?

I think he is the best coach the lions have had. Cant really gauge him against those that have not coached the Lions.

Geech would be my favourite Lions coach but Gatland is the best as far as I am concerned. Who knows, maybe a coach in the future will get better results than him and usurp him as the best. Time will tell.

Carwin James' win in NZ and McGeechan and Telfer's win in SA rival Gatland's results. Maybe Syd Millar's win in SA too.

Gatland's drawn series in NZ is a great result and really well executed and managed, the two to one series win in Australia was kind of the expected result IMO or even a slightly unconvincing win.

mikey_dragon wrote:

alive555 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

tigertattie wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

tigertattie wrote:For me the Lions team/sqaud as a test 23 would be

Forwards
England, Scotland, Ireland
Wales, England
Ireland, England, Scotland

Backs
Ireland
Scotland
Ireland
Ireland
Wales
Ireland
Scotland

Ireland, Ireland, England
England
Ireland
Wales
Ireland

5 English
10 Irish
4 Scottish
3 Welsh

Now that is based purely on who I feel is the better player in each position. I'm not counting things like team dynamics or combinations such as you may want to play an all ireland front row on the bench for familiarity

Also this is not a Wum, it's genuinely who I feel are the better players.

If you believe that those nations have better back-row players than Wales that's an obvious wum, and a very poor one. Ireland have the most overrated back-row player in world rugby (POM).

I'd hardly say POM is the most over-rated backrower in world rugby. I don't like the man but there is no disputing he's a good player!

My Backrow would be Stander at 6, Billy V at 8, Watson at 7 - I can't really think of any utter shambolic selections with that backrow at all - So no, my post is not a WUM.

Well the fact that you lot are still crying over representation on the 2017 tour to NZ because you finished higher than Wales, only to then select more Scottish than Welsh players after Wales just won the recent tournament through being undefeated, yeah that's a poor wum. One welsh player in the pack

POM was good early in his career, but now I've never seen someone blow so hot and cold. That's just a liability. I assumed it POM was your choce at 6 but no even worse it's Stander. Your back-row selection contains two blunt instruments, so it's quite shambolic. I would only agree with Billy V at 8. As recently proven Wales 2nd choice back-row was better than all the rest in the 6N so your entire thought process is utterly shambolic.

No need to concern yourself as the fact wales can come in second from last in the 6n, and get still get 10 in the initial squad tells you Gatland will pick on who he knows. Form is not a factor.

Still bitter over it after all these years. That tour looked fine to me, like the previous one Gatland took care of. Your buddy just picked a bunch of Scottish players in his Lions team, and two from the Grand Slam winning team. Not sure what's with all the Irish players either. Weird that you're not crying over that but still crying over a selection from years ago that turned out good.

eh ?? you seem to be very confused, 2 would be a fair number given we are picking the best players and not on form.

Collapse2005 wrote:Carwin James' win in NZ and McGeechan and Telfer's win in SA rival Gatland's results. Maybe Syd Millar's win in SA too.

Gatland's drawn series in NZ is a great result and really well executed and managed, the two to one series win in Australia was kind of the expected result IMO or even a slightly unconvincing win.

It is pretty much impossible to fairly compare the amateur tours with the professional ones. There were so many games in the old days that a coach had the time to forge playing relationships. On the most recent tours Gatland has not had his full squad available when they fly out due to other matches ongoing.

In 2013 the Aussies were shockingly poor and, final test excluded, I do not feel Gats got the best out of his side. Come 2017 I do not feel he gets the credit he deserves. Lack of preparation saw a slow start to the tour, but getting a draw from that series was a fantastic achievement.

I do understand Scots frustrations and why they may feel that the Lions does not represent them. Geech was much better at creating an environment where nationality was forgotten. Look on boards like this during the next, and over the last couple, and most fans whether red, white, blue or green tend to view the lions players by their nationality. In part this is due to the increased scrutiny. Gats though has not been given a brief to make keyboard warriors like all of us happy. His remit is to create the most competitive side he can in a short time frame drawing on players and coaches from disparate countries. 

When Townsend turned down the offer to be attack coach, it hindered the cause of Scottish players. Come the selection meeting there was no-one to push their case when it came to marginal decisions. I also have to say that I have not seen any hugely persuasive arguments as to why players not selected should have gone instead. It is easy to complain about under representation but usually that is all it is.

The Scots were definitely shafted on the last tour. I do think there should be someone representing each country in the side. Gatland seems more interested in selecting all available Kiwis and token Welsh guys. That would be my biggest criticism, the results and management have been very good otherwise.

What are the odds James Lowe will somehow be shoehorned into the next squad?

Collapse2005 wrote:The Scots were definitely shafted on the last tour. I do think there should be someone representing each country in the side. 

Who should have gone from Scotland who didn't go? The second bit looks a little like tokenism to me (easy for me to say when 16 Englishmen went on the last tour)

maybe no one but you should select some of the guys that did go in the test side

He would've selected Hogg, until his injury (judging by his selections etc). Who else can he pick in the test squad? Laidlaw is not better than Murray or Webb. Seymour maybe, but none of the back three who were selected let us down.

Collapse2005 wrote:maybe no one but you should select some of the guys that did go inbthe test side

Hogg would have played, with Liam Williams moved to the wing, had he not got injured. Tommy Seymour was unfortunate. Few would have argued against his selection in a Test squad when the coaches opted to go with 3 English wingers for the win and draw. In the same light it is hard to say it was a wrong call either.

RiscaGame wrote:He would've selected Hogg, until his injury (judging by his selections etc). Who else can he pick in the test squad? Laidlaw is not better than Murray or Webb. Seymour maybe, but none of the back three who were selected let us down.

Definitely Seymour. It wouldn't have been too hard to pick an excellent side with players from all countries.

It is possible to argue that calling up Laidlaw to replace Youngs was made on tokenism grounds.

LondonTiger wrote:It is possible to argue that calling up Laidlaw to replace Youngs was made on tokenism grounds.

I think there are much more prominent examples of tokenism on the last tour.

LondonTiger wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:The Scots were definitely shafted on the last tour. I do think there should be someone representing each country in the side. 

Who should have gone from Scotland who didn't go? The second bit looks a little like tokenism to me (easy for me to say when 16 Englishmen went on the last tour)

what a farcical argument, either you pick on form or you don't and you ignore it. You seem to want to ignore it and say, hey it was all a fluke.

2017 6 nations

England 19pts
Irel 14pts
Sco 14pts
Wales 10pts

Wales got 10 players in the initial squad and Sco got 1. Sco also thrashed wales but even that made he haw of a difference. Do not talk about results or form.

To make this point, last year Eng were 5th in 6n. Had they only got 1 or 2 players picked for a lions team based on that result there would have been a feckin riot!!

I still ask who should have gone, and instead of whom?

LondonTiger wrote:I still ask who should have gone, and instead of whom?

I already answered you. It isnt a case of who should have gone it is a case of selecting the guys who did make the squad for the test side.

I think it would have been easy enough to select a quality test side with all countries covered.

It’s funny how in retrospect we consider how unfair that some players didn’t tour when we thought they should have. I am still amazed Dai Morris didn’t make the 71 lions tour as he is still one of the greatest flankers I have ever seen.

Rumoured that he couldn’t afford to tour, as he was a PE teacher and had declined. But he was the only player of 1971 Slam winning team not to your.

Had the Shadow of been there, well we would have been unbeaten in two consecutive tours

Collapse2005 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I still ask who should have gone, and instead of whom?

I already answered you. It isnt a case of who should have gone it is a case of selecting the guys who did make the squad for the test side.

I think it would have been easy enough to select a quality test side with all countries covered.

I was asking Alive555 being the direct post above but too long to quote, rather than you.

Now surely we can all agree that Gats selection methods have been far more successful than SCW?

LondonTiger wrote:...Now surely we can all agree that Gats selection methods have been far more successful than SCW?...

Perhaps, but it's hard to separate selection from everything else that goes with managing a Lions tour. Arguably, SCW had the players to do better than we did in 2005 (not enough to win, mind you). McGeechan often got selection wrong too, though he rescued it in 1989 but was too late in 2009.

LondonTiger wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I still ask who should have gone, and instead of whom?

I already answered you. It isnt a case of who should have gone it is a case of selecting the guys who did make the squad for the test side.

I think it would have been easy enough to select a quality test side with all countries covered.

I was asking Alive555 being the direct post above but too long to quote, rather than you.

Now surely we can all agree that Gats selection methods have been far more successful than SCW?

Oh sorry, yes 100%. I think it was more than just selection Woodward got wrong. Though in his defense there was a bigger gap in player quality between NZ and the Lions then than there is now.

Maybe no one criticises McGeechan too much because the overall atmosphere around the tour was a lot better, even though we lost in 2009? It goes back to why I think there should not be a current international coach in charge.

The '09 tour was epic though and while we did lose the squad did for the most part perform well.

Collapse2005 wrote:The '09 tour was epic though and while we did lose the squad did for the most part perform well.

There was still quite a lot of blaming other countries players from net fans though. Most notably Phil Vickery and Ronan O'Gara.

Just looked at the lineups for that series and some really weird selections most notably Lee Mears selected for T1.

There probably always will be. The Lions should never let SA back into the game in test 2 so they can all take the blame for that however, it is really common for the Boks to finish games strongly in Loftus Versfield and visiting teams to fade.

LondonTiger wrote:I still ask who should have gone, and instead of whom?

For me it was the two faced approach by Gatland. Has Mantra was "I'm picking on form" he then overlooked an in form and fit Jonny Gray for an injured AWJ.

This was after Gray had AWJ in his back pocket during the match where Scotland beat Wales.

tigertattie wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I still ask who should have gone, and instead of whom?

For me it was the two faced approach by Gatland. Has Mantra was "I'm picking on form" he then overlooked an in form and fit Jonny Gray for an injured AWJ.

This was after Gray had AWJ in his back pocket during the match where Scotland beat Wales.

exactly. Its pretty rich to talk about who should have gone when its damn obvious form wasn't a major factor in the selection policy.

I predict Itoje to be Captain

alive555 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

alive555 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

tigertattie wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

tigertattie wrote:For me the Lions team/sqaud as a test 23 would be

Forwards
England, Scotland, Ireland
Wales, England
Ireland, England, Scotland

Backs
Ireland
Scotland
Ireland
Ireland
Wales
Ireland
Scotland

Ireland, Ireland, England
England
Ireland
Wales
Ireland

5 English
10 Irish
4 Scottish
3 Welsh

Now that is based purely on who I feel is the better player in each position. I'm not counting things like team dynamics or combinations such as you may want to play an all ireland front row on the bench for familiarity

Also this is not a Wum, it's genuinely who I feel are the better players.

If you believe that those nations have better back-row players than Wales that's an obvious wum, and a very poor one. Ireland have the most overrated back-row player in world rugby (POM).

I'd hardly say POM is the most over-rated backrower in world rugby. I don't like the man but there is no disputing he's a good player!

My Backrow would be Stander at 6, Billy V at 8, Watson at 7 - I can't really think of any utter shambolic selections with that backrow at all - So no, my post is not a WUM.

Well the fact that you lot are still crying over representation on the 2017 tour to NZ because you finished higher than Wales, only to then select more Scottish than Welsh players after Wales just won the recent tournament through being undefeated, yeah that's a poor wum. One welsh player in the pack

POM was good early in his career, but now I've never seen someone blow so hot and cold. That's just a liability. I assumed it POM was your choce at 6 but no even worse it's Stander. Your back-row selection contains two blunt instruments, so it's quite shambolic. I would only agree with Billy V at 8. As recently proven Wales 2nd choice back-row was better than all the rest in the 6N so your entire thought process is utterly shambolic.

No need to concern yourself as the fact wales can come in second from last in the 6n, and get still get 10 in the initial squad tells you Gatland will pick on who he knows. Form is not a factor.

Still bitter over it after all these years. That tour looked fine to me, like the previous one Gatland took care of. Your buddy just picked a bunch of Scottish players in his Lions team, and two from the Grand Slam winning team. Not sure what's with all the Irish players either. Weird that you're not crying over that but still crying over a selection from years ago that turned out good.

eh ??  you seem to be very confused, 2 would be a fair number given we are picking the best players and not on form.

What are you confused about exactly? I just used your Scottish argument to prove what a crass argument you're coming out with for the upcoming selection, it seems you're trying to sweep under the rug because you look stupid? I mean it is a stupid argument you're coming out with, I also back that up with the fact you're changing the argument to best players rather than form players... Well, the Welsh players have been better than the Scottish ones for a century so that's more proof that Gatland was right. AWJ has always been better than Gray who is perhaps the weakest lock in the 6N.

Farrell and Sexton were selected over Russell. I guess Gatland was going with form after all!

Collapse2005 wrote:The Scots were definitely shafted on the last tour. I do think there should be someone representing each country in the side. Gatland seems more interested in selecting all available Kiwis and token Welsh guys. That would be my biggest criticism, the results and management have been very good otherwise.

What are the odds James Lowe will somehow be shoehorned into the next squad?

Who do you see not going so that Lowe can step in? Williams, North, May, Daly, Stockdale, Seymour, Nowell, Cokanisga... Just off the top of my head. Maybe Duhan Van der Merwe will be 'Scottish' by then, I'd probably go for him over Lowe if you're looking for an import.

alive555 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:The Scots were definitely shafted on the last tour. I do think there should be someone representing each country in the side. 

Who should have gone from Scotland who didn't go? The second bit looks a little like tokenism to me (easy for me to say when 16 Englishmen went on the last tour)

what a farcical argument, either you pick on form or you don't and you ignore it.  You seem to want to ignore it and say, hey it was all a fluke.

2017 6 nations

England 19pts
Irel 14pts
Sco 14pts
Wales 10pts

Wales got 10 players in the initial squad and Sco got 1. Sco also thrashed wales but even that made he haw of a difference.  Do not talk about results or form.

To make this point,  last year Eng were 5th in 6n. Had they only got 1 or 2 players picked for a lions team based on that result there would have been a feckin riot!!

"Thrashed" oh dear , the bitterness has turned into desperation. Fact is Scotland are 1-1 with a Howley-coached team, that's really poor. This is the team that should have had a great representation:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/40390911 

England have good players. You could still pick 5-10 from that team and they'd do really well. Form dips I guess, but for some the form stays consistently low.

alive555 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I still ask who should have gone, and instead of whom?

For me it was the two faced approach by Gatland. Has Mantra was "I'm picking on form" he then overlooked an in form and fit Jonny Gray for an injured AWJ.

This was after Gray had AWJ in his back pocket during the match where Scotland beat Wales.

exactly. Its pretty rich to talk about who should have gone when its damn obvious form wasn't a major factor in the selection policy.

Who decides or judges form though? From what I can see ‘form’ is just another subjective measure that fans (or coaches for that matter) use to talk up their favourite players. Yes, I get that players who are injured can’t have much form. I don’t deny that picking injured players is stretching it a bit. But we always see around Lions tours this talk of player x being ‘in more form’ than player y. More form?! It’s a team sport ffs. Just because player x (who is a winger) has scored 5 tries compared to player y (another winger) who has scored only 3, this does not necessarily mean that player x is the dogs balls and player y is gash. However, that’s usually how these discussions go.

I remember on one of the other tours (Australia) it was "metres made" instead of tries.

alive555 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:The Scots were definitely shafted on the last tour. I do think there should be someone representing each country in the side. 

Who should have gone from Scotland who didn't go? The second bit looks a little like tokenism to me (easy for me to say when 16 Englishmen went on the last tour)

what a farcical argument, either you pick on form or you don't and you ignore it.  You seem to want to ignore it and say, hey it was all a fluke.

2017 6 nations

England 19pts
Irel 14pts
Sco 14pts
Wales 10pts

Wales got 10 players in the initial squad and Sco got 1. Sco also thrashed wales but even that made he haw of a difference.  Do not talk about results or form.

To make this point,  last year Eng were 5th in 6n. Had they only got 1 or 2 players picked for a lions team based on that result there would have been a feckin riot!!

Scotland finished 4th and Wales finished 5th. The difference being that Scotland seemed to be celebrating like you’d won the thing by finishing 4th, while for Wales 5th place was a blip and treated like the end of the world rather than like the ‘norm’. Difference in mindset

Out of interest, the last tour Gatland selected 2 Scots (Seymour and Hogg) and was heavily criticised by the Scottish fans as being parochial, biased, anti-Lions, racist (?!), etc. So I thought it would be interesting to look at the last time Gatland wasn’t head coach. Which was 2009 to South Africa......

.....and lo and behold the head coach was Mr Scotland Rugby himself Sir Ian McGeechan, poster boy of the Lions and loved by all Scots. How many Scots did he select in his initial squad? 2! Nathan Hines and Euan Murray. Where was the backlash against ‘Geech’ then??? I don’t seem to recall it. And I was on these boards (old 606) back then. Everyone seems to call it ‘the most inclusive and warm and fuzzy and awesome tour in the Lions history ever’. Was he wumming his fellow countrymen back then? Wales finished 4th and Scotland finished 5th in the 6N that year, btw.

To be fair, most fair Scots acknowledge 2009. It’s only the one who keeps popping up. There’s no such thing as facts, when you’re dealing with blinkered views.

Thankfully Lions tours aren’t selected due to one off blips. Basing a selection on a one off freak result, whilst they also beat Ireland that year too, didn’t they? Funny how the agenda doesn’t extend to wanting Scots over Irish.

The Oracle wrote:

alive555 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I still ask who should have gone, and instead of whom?

For me it was the two faced approach by Gatland. Has Mantra was "I'm picking on form" he then overlooked an in form and fit Jonny Gray for an injured AWJ.

This was after Gray had AWJ in his back pocket during the match where Scotland beat Wales.

exactly. Its pretty rich to talk about who should have gone when its damn obvious form wasn't a major factor in the selection policy.

Who decides or judges form though? From what I can see ‘form’ is just another subjective measure that fans (or coaches for that matter) use to talk up their favourite players. Yes, I get that players who are injured can’t have much form. I don’t deny that picking injured players is stretching it a bit. But we always see around Lions tours this talk of player x being ‘in more form’ than player y. More form?! It’s a team sport ffs. Just because player x (who is a winger) has scored 5 tries compared to player y (another winger) who has scored only 3, this does not necessarily mean that player x is the dogs balls and player y is gash. However, that’s usually how these discussions go.

Who determines form?

Results and performamce what else?

What a question to ask.

If wales got 10pts and sco 14 in the 6n immediately preceding the
squad announcement ,what justification is there for 10 times more welsh players to be selected than scots. Answer = none

Lions is more than form though hence why Sir Clive nearly destroyed the whole tour by picking his 03 donkeys in 05 when Wales had just cantered to the first of many Slams

The Oracle wrote:Out of interest, the last tour Gatland selected 2 Scots (Seymour and Hogg) and was heavily criticised by the Scottish fans as being parochial, biased, anti-Lions, racist (?!), etc. So I thought it would be interesting to look at the last time Gatland wasn’t head coach. Which was 2009 to South Africa......

.....and lo and behold the head coach was Mr Scotland Rugby himself Sir Ian McGeechan, poster boy of the Lions and loved by all Scots. How many Scots did he select in his initial squad? 2! Nathan Hines and Euan Murray. Where was the backlash against ‘Geech’ then??? I don’t seem to recall it. And I was on these boards (old 606) back then. Everyone seems to call it ‘the most inclusive and warm and fuzzy and awesome tour in the Lions history ever’. Was he wumming his fellow countrymen back then? Wales finished 4th and Scotland finished 5th in the 6N that year, btw.

Total drivel. 4 scots were selected. Not 2 . Try harder

Bit of smoke and mirrors to talk about the finishing places of teams imo. Yes it gives an indication but it's more like a cup comp than a league. Plenty can be made of the misleading form will be the decider when looking at individuals though.

alive555 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:Out of interest, the last tour Gatland selected 2 Scots (Seymour and Hogg) and was heavily criticised by the Scottish fans as being parochial, biased, anti-Lions, racist (?!), etc. So I thought it would be interesting to look at the last time Gatland wasn’t head coach. Which was 2009 to South Africa......

.....and lo and behold the head coach was Mr Scotland Rugby himself Sir Ian McGeechan, poster boy of the Lions and loved by all Scots. How many Scots did he select in his initial squad? 2! Nathan Hines and Euan Murray. Where was the backlash against ‘Geech’ then??? I don’t seem to recall it. And I was on these boards (old 606) back then. Everyone seems to call it ‘the most inclusive and warm and fuzzy and awesome tour in the Lions history ever’. Was he wumming his fellow countrymen back then? Wales finished 4th and Scotland finished 5th in the 6N that year, btw.

Total drivel. 4 scots were selected.  Not 2 . Try harder

Go on then. Name all 4 named in the original selection in 2009.

alive555 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

alive555 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I still ask who should have gone, and instead of whom?

For me it was the two faced approach by Gatland. Has Mantra was "I'm picking on form" he then overlooked an in form and fit Jonny Gray for an injured AWJ.

This was after Gray had AWJ in his back pocket during the match where Scotland beat Wales.

exactly. Its pretty rich to talk about who should have gone when its damn obvious form wasn't a major factor in the selection policy.

Who decides or judges form though? From what I can see ‘form’ is just another subjective measure that fans (or coaches for that matter) use to talk up their favourite players. Yes, I get that players who are injured can’t have much form. I don’t deny that picking injured players is stretching it a bit. But we always see around Lions tours this talk of player x being ‘in more form’ than player y. More form?! It’s a team sport ffs. Just because player x (who is a winger) has scored 5 tries compared to player y (another winger) who has scored only 3, this does not necessarily mean that player x is the dogs balls and player y is gash. However, that’s usually how these discussions go.

Who determines form?

Results and performamce what else?

What a question to ask.

If wales got 10pts and sco 14 in the 6n immediately preceding the  
squad announcement ,what justification is there for 10 times more welsh players to be selected than scots. Answer = none  

This is exactly my point. You're using a whole team's form as being indicative of an individual player's form. "Scotland did better than Wales so player x is better". Nonsense. It's all about individual performances rather than where the team finished. A bit like how Sergio Parrisse gets into lots of people's World XVs over the years regardless of Italy's form. It's about individuals (selectors) appraising him as an individual and what he brings and then deciding that he'd fit into their team. Same goes for Lions selection. So therefore it's subjective and down to what the coach perceives as being 'in form' and what that player brings to the team. Just because you think Johnny Gray walks on water doesn't mean Geech, Rowntree and Gats do too. And it's only their opinion that counts, in reality.

I am not getting into the slanging match over how many players are worthy of a Lions tour from each nation, but I do find it interesting that a number of posters state that Wales are a side better than the total sum of their players, or that England are a side not as good as the sum of their players (well half the time anyway, like my wife they are 100% or nothing). The result of that would be less Welsh players and more English if based on ability.

The facts are that Gatland knows what style of rugby he wants to play ( I am not sure if he is capable of changing his ideology ) and picks a side capable of playing that style. Gatland, plays in my opinion a horrible style of rugby that no one else plays, hence the number of Welsh players picked. Never understood it really, as Wales are capable of playing some of the best rugby on the planet. A bit like England, when they cut loose and it gels; awesome.

I would much prefer a manager that had an open mind about playing style that could develop one to be set around the players that were available rather than the players that could play his style of rugby. Having a style set before a squad is picked will exclude a lot of better players than those touring, due to playing style rather than ability.

Not the Lions ethos to my way of thinking, the Lions used to be about putting the best of the British and Irish players against the SH teams, now it is about putting the players that can play Gatball against them.

Or players that can play Geech-ball, or Henry-ball, or Woodward-ball, etc., etc. The head coach picks the players he wants. There's really little more to it than that. In 6 years time when Schmidt, for example, gets the job then he'll be picking the players to play Schmidt-ball - regardless of who we perceive to be in form, etc. We can moan about it and the players selected as much as we want, but selection is out of our hands.

I am not sure I see what is so wrong with Gatland's style. I was in absolute admiration of Wales during the game against Ireland in this years 6N. It was a horrible result for Ireland but it was a brilliant match to watch. The way Wales just simply froze Ireland out of the game whilst keeping the scoreboard ticking over was brilliant. Ireland actually deserved to be nilled.


Gatland's style may not be to everyone's liking but it is very effective and in competitions, I would rather be effective and win than flash around and lose.

This whole thread just proves that the whole Lion's 'ethos' is dugshite.

Needs to go.

The Lions ethos is still very much alive. Its the keyboard warriors that make it seem as though it is not. Having been lucky enough to go on a couple of Lions tours, I can tell you that fans from all nations bond together well and a great craic is had by all.

Agree Billy

BamBam wrote:Maybe no one criticises McGeechan too much because the overall atmosphere around the tour was a lot better, even though we lost in 2009? It goes back to why I think there should not be a current international coach in charge.

There won’t be a current International coach in charge

We all know where his loyalties lie though and it isn't with Ireland