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.

The Oracle wrote:

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.

So in 2009 sco are 5th and get a total of 4 players selected or called up, and in 2017 wales are also 5th and get 16 selected or called up.

Discussion over

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

]

Thanks for the offer.

Sco got only 2 , with 2 more called up. (5th in 6n)

Wales got the exact same 6n performance in 2017 (5th) and got 10 .

Discussion on picking on form and gatland over.

alive555 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

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.

So in 2009 sco are 5th and get a total of 4 players selected or called up, and in 2017 wales are also 5th and get 16 selected or called up.

Discussion over

Yes, because the coach will pick who he wants regardless of who you or I deem to be 'in form'. Just as if Cotter gets a future tour and he decides to pick 30 Scots when Scotland are still yet to win any silverware, then the opinions of both you and I about the 'form' of players will still be completely irrelevant. We have to let the coach pick who he wants. That's the only point I'm making. This simple concept has not changed in all of the years the Lions has been going. I think people look back misty eyed to the 'great Lions tours of the 70s' and think that there was some sort of quota system in place that made everything even and inclusive. Wrong. Many good players were left at home and the head coach and selectors took who they perceived were best for the job. Perceived being the important word. It was just as subjective, biased and skewed then as it is now. Gatland is doing no different to what SCW, Geech, Carwyn James, Syd Millar, et al have done in the past. This is not a new phenomenon.

alive555 wrote:Go on then.  Name all 4 named in the original selection in 2009.[/quote

]

Thanks for the offer.

Sco got only 2 , with 2 more called up. (5th in 6n)

Wales got the exact same 6n performance in 2017 (5th) and got 10 .

Discussion on picking on  form and gatland over.

Correct, as I said 2 selected by Geech originally. The point you're addressing from the question I asked is that Mr Scotland himself only deemed two Scotland players good enough?  Seriously?!  Why is he not vilified in the same way as Gatland?

I think Chris Paterson was a bit unlucky not to be included in '09.

Because Gatalnd said he'd pick on form then picked injured players. If he'd said he was just going to do it his way hed have got more stick than through his lie.

Anyone in any doubt about Gatland anti Scottish bias can read the actual stats. Below pts in 6 nations, and initial squad selected.

2013 6 Nations

Wales / 8 pts/ 15 players
England / 8 pts / 10 players
Scotland / 4 pts / 3 players
Italy
Ireland / 3 pts / 9 players
France


2017 6 Nations

England /19pts / 16 players selected
Ireland / 14 pts / 11 players selected
France
Scotland / 14 pts / 2 players selected
Wales / 10 pts/ 12 players selected
Italy

The Oracle wrote:

alive555 wrote:Go on then.  Name all 4 named in the original selection in 2009.[/quote

]

Thanks for the offer.

Sco got only 2 , with 2 more called up. (5th in 6n)

Wales got the exact same 6n performance in 2017 (5th) and got 10 .

Discussion on picking on  form and gatland over.

Correct, as I said 2 selected by Geech originally.  The point you're addressing from the question I asked is that Mr Scotland himself only deemed two Scotland players good enough?  Seriously?!  Why is he not vilified in the same way as Gatland?

Becasue in 2009 Scotland had utter dross in our national team and very few players deserved to be thought of as lions contenders. For the NZ tour though, Scotland had players who could be looked at as Lions but Gatland overlooked them.

I've got no issue with the lack of scots picked in 2009 and 2013

2009 we were awful, truely awful - Paterson was maybe unlucky to miss out but aside from him we got what we deserved

2013 - Hogg & Gray got picked to tour, can't for the life of me remember the other scottish player picked but again we probably got what we deserved - one gritty win against Ireland doesn't make us better than them. Maybe Kelly Brown was unlucky to miss out at the time? but no complaints!

2017 - our players were on form, wales' really weren't, we really should have had more players picked. Jonny Gray was playing better than wyn jones and wyn jones was injured in the run up to the tour. Russell was his usual self which would have been wonderful to watch on tour but pragmatism beat entertainment. My only complaint was Russell was a point of difference to all the other 10s on that tour and maybe should have toured for that reason. Laidlaw was fairly crap on tour, WP would have toured if he wasnt injured, Fraser Brown was on form but didnt get picked, Dunbar was on form but Davies (who was awful in the six nations, just back from injury and had no form prior to the tour) was picked ahead of him.

Gatlands complaints about Scotland not winning away from home is justified but at the same time barely any of wales' players had form so quite a few scottish supporters felt hard done by. That same summer our reserves beat australia away from home and then in the autumn our first team smashed them at home - something the welsh players have always struggled to do. When you look at it like that is it not easy to see why Scotland supporters felt a bit underwhelmed?

On a side note, Gatland did admit at the time of Hoggs injury on the new zealand tour that Hogg was bound to start the first test which was good of him to say. Even just having our best player in the starting XV would have changed my opinion of Gatland quite a bit so its a shame Hogg never got to play.

Tramptastic wrote:I've got no issue with the lack of scots picked in 2009 and 2013

2009 we were awful, truely awful - Paterson was maybe unlucky to miss out but aside from him we got what we deserved

2013 - Hogg & Gray got picked to tour, can't for the life of me remember the other scottish player picked but again we probably got what we deserved - one gritty win against Ireland doesn't make us better than them. Maybe Kelly Brown was unlucky to miss out at the time? but no complaints!

2017 - our players were on form, wales' really weren't, we really should have had more players picked. Jonny Gray was playing better than wyn jones and wyn jones was injured in the run up to the tour. Russell was his usual self which would have been wonderful to watch on tour but pragmatism beat entertainment. My only complaint was Russell was a point of difference to all the other 10s on that tour and maybe should have toured for that reason. Laidlaw was fairly crap on tour, WP would have toured if he wasnt injured, Fraser Brown was on form but didnt get picked, Dunbar was on form but Davies (who was awful in the six nations, just back from injury and had no form prior to the tour) was picked ahead of him.

Gatlands complaints about Scotland not winning away from home is justified but at the same time barely any of wales' players had form so quite a few scottish supporters felt hard done by. That same summer our reserves beat australia away from home and then in the autumn our first team smashed them at home - something the welsh players have always struggled to do. When you look at it like that is it not easy to see why Scotland supporters felt a bit underwhelmed?

On a side note, Gatland did admit at the time of Hoggs injury on the new zealand tour that Hogg was bound to start the first test which was good of him to say. Even just having our best player in the starting XV would have changed my opinion of Gatland quite a bit so its a shame Hogg never got to play.

I agree wholeheartedly with Russell, I would have taken a number of flyhalfs ahead of Dan Biggar, Finn Russell was the top of that list. Like you say he offered something positively different to Farrell and Sexton.

Aye Russell was unfortunate to miss out, the rest is all debatable

I just wish even like 4 more Scots had gone on the last tour - would have been a fairer reflection but hey ho such is life!

All im hoping for is Scotland being consistent over the next couple of years and that will hopefully result in better representation come the next tour

I think that sums up pretty well how most Scottish supporters feel about the Lions.

In truth we did not have a lot to complain about in some of the previous tours, maybe one or two players were unlucky but last time several players would have been worthy Lions and would not have devalued the jersey in any way. Every 50/50 selection went against us however and that was not fair.

Anyway, to some extent it is water under the bridge now and the dynamics have changed with Gatland no longer being Welsh coach. It was hard to see how that did not effect his decision making based on him knowing them better and trusting them more.

I am not saying that he picked anyone who did not deserve to go. In every tour there are worthy players who do get left behind, but you can't get away with the fact that he did leave several worthy Scottish players behind who were playing well at the time. No-one is saying that a whole team of Scots should have gone, but a few more certainly should have.

Anyway, I will give it the benefit of the doubt once again and hope that he does pick a fully inclusive team from all four countries this time around.

I am not going to indulge in any selection games at this stage though, it is way to early!

I'd be hoping for 5 or 6 to go on tour next time

You could argue Hogg, Johnson, Russell, McInally, Nel and Watson would be good candidates for a tour

Tramptastic wrote:I'd be hoping for 5 or 6 to go on tour next time

You could argue Hogg, Johnson, Russell, McInally, Nel and Watson would be good candidates for a tour

It will be a travesty if Russell isn't selected. Who doesn't love watching him play.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Tramptastic wrote:I'd be hoping for 5 or 6 to go on tour next time

You could argue Hogg, Johnson, Russell, McInally, Nel and Watson would be good candidates for a tour

It will be a travesty if Russell isn't selected. Who doesn't love watching him play.

Gatland

Collapse2005 wrote:

Tramptastic wrote:I'd be hoping for 5 or 6 to go on tour next time

You could argue Hogg, Johnson, Russell, McInally, Nel and Watson would be good candidates for a tour

It will be a travesty if Russell isn't selected. Who doesn't love watching him play.

He could be the creative flyhalf we need if it’s not going our way, would be great to see the lions play with his flare and character.

maestegmafia wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Tramptastic wrote:I'd be hoping for 5 or 6 to go on tour next time

You could argue Hogg, Johnson, Russell, McInally, Nel and Watson would be good candidates for a tour

It will be a travesty if Russell isn't selected. Who doesn't love watching him play.

He could be the creative flyhalf we need if it’s not going our way, would be great to see the lions play with his flare and character.

Having him playing at 10 with Slade-Tuilagi or Johnson-Tuilagi outside him would be amazing to watch

Johnson and Slade Or Slade and JD2 could be exciting too.

maestegmafia wrote:Johnson and Slade Or Slade and JD2 could be exciting too.

Slade and JD2 are fairly interchangable in terms of who plays 12 and who plays 13 too right?

Is JD2 still able to play 12 these days or is he only seen as a 13 now?

BigGee wrote:I think that sums up pretty well how most Scottish supporters feel about the Lions.

In truth we did not have a lot to complain about in some of the previous tours, maybe one or two players were unlucky but last time several players would have been worthy Lions and would not have devalued the jersey in any way. Every 50/50 selection went against us however and that was not fair.

Anyway, to some extent it is water under the bridge now and the dynamics have changed with Gatland no longer being Welsh coach. It was hard to see how that did not effect his decision making based on him knowing them better and trusting them more.

I am not saying that he picked anyone who did not deserve to go. In every tour there are worthy players who do get left behind, but you can't get away with the fact that he did leave several worthy Scottish players behind who were playing well at the time. No-one is saying that a whole team of Scots should have gone, but a few more certainly should have.

Anyway, I will give it the benefit of the doubt once again and hope that he does pick a fully inclusive team from all four countries this time around.

I am not going to indulge in any selection games at this stage though, it is way to early!

thanks, we all seem to be in agreement. 2017 was a travesty but very much expect more of the same!

alive555 wrote:

BigGee wrote:I think that sums up pretty well how most Scottish supporters feel about the Lions.

In truth we did not have a lot to complain about in some of the previous tours, maybe one or two players were unlucky but last time several players would have been worthy Lions and would not have devalued the jersey in any way. Every 50/50 selection went against us however and that was not fair.

Anyway, to some extent it is water under the bridge now and the dynamics have changed with Gatland no longer being Welsh coach. It was hard to see how that did not effect his decision making based on him knowing them better and trusting them more.

I am not saying that he picked anyone who did not deserve to go. In every tour there are worthy players who do get left behind, but you can't get away with the fact that he did leave several worthy Scottish players behind who were playing well at the time. No-one is saying that a whole team of Scots should have gone, but a few more certainly should have.

Anyway, I will give it the benefit of the doubt once again and hope that he does pick a fully inclusive team from all four countries this time around.

I am not going to indulge in any selection games at this stage though, it is way to early!

thanks, we all seem to be in agreement. 2017 was a travesty but very much expect more of the same!

Scotland throwing to the back in the final line out of the 2015 world cup quarter final was a travesty.

Joubert awarding australia THAT penalty was a travesty

Fraser Brown conceding a penalty that gave England an easy-out at 38-31 up was a travesty

Conceding a try that drew the game after being 31-0 down was a travesty

Having 3/4 less players on a lions tour than we should have is just mildly disappointing in comparison to the above noted travesties.

AWJ Captain?

I for one love the Lions. Yes, there will always be contentious selection issues, such as Woodward's ridiculous choices for '05 and Gatland's favouritism of the Welsh tourists in 2017, but it's a genuine chance to see the best of the home nations take on the best that the Southern Hemisphere have to offer.

I have never had the means to go on a Lions tour as a supporter but it is something I would love to do simply to enjoy the company of fans from the other Nations.

As for the players themselves, I always hark back to the team ethos given to us by a teacher whilst coaching the Under 14 B team: "It doesn't matter if you hate the teammate next to you around the school - on that pitch, he's your mate, and you look after him no matter what!" I can't stand various players when they play for their own Nations against my beloved England, but as a Lion, they're great and part of the gang.

I don't care who is in charge - the people who chose the coach know a great deal more than me, and the same goes for the coach themselves. There will always be a bit of bias - why wouldn't there be? However, there's also reasons why potentially great players do not get selected: I believe Cipriani to be a fantastic attacking 10 who can turn a game on its head, but when the going gets tough it's difficult to argue against him not being selected. AWJ over Launchbury in 2017 to tour is a classic case in point. JL is a fantastic player but he did not have the leadership qualities of AWJ and probably lacks his never-say-die attitude too. Doesn't matter who they select though. I will always support the Lions team.

Tramptastic wrote:I'd be hoping for 5 or 6 to go on tour next time

You could argue Hogg, Johnson, Russell, McInally, Nel and Watson would be good candidates for a tour

Right now I would take 4 of those you mention.

LondonTiger wrote:

Tramptastic wrote:I'd be hoping for 5 or 6 to go on tour next time

You could argue Hogg, Johnson, Russell, McInally, Nel and Watson would be good candidates for a tour

Right now I would take 4 of those you mention.

Oooo which 4?

LondonTiger wrote:

Tramptastic wrote:I'd be hoping for 5 or 6 to go on tour next time

You could argue Hogg, Johnson, Russell, McInally, Nel and Watson would be good candidates for a tour

Right now I would take 4 of those you mention.

Hogg needs to go
Russell needs to go
McInally needs to go
Watson needs to go

Are those your 4 LT?

Nel is a possibility
Johnson could go, but he's only got a handful of international caps so by no means is he a certainty

I'd say Hogg, Russell, McInally should be considered nailed on if it was picked today. Nel is probably the third tighthead after Furlong and Sinckler so he'd be in for me.

Watson is a great player, but there's a long list of contenders for the 7 jersey for me. In no particular order, Curry/Underhill/Tipuric/Navidi/Leavy/VDF would all have a reasonable claim

Yeah, Hogg as one of the two best FBs available to us. Same for McInally at hooker. Russell because he offers something different and Watson because while in a congested field has a real x-factor

BamBam wrote:I'd say Hogg, Russell, McInally should be considered nailed on if it was picked today. Nel is probably the third tighthead after Furlong and Sinckler so he'd be in for me.

Watson is a great player, but there's a long list of contenders for the 7 jersey for me. In no particular order, Curry/Underhill/Tipuric/Navidi/Leavy/VDF would all have a reasonable claim

Dunno if I'd take sinckler, he's a bit hot headed (as much as tightheads are meant to be psychos)

I think Watson brings something the others dont, his ball carrying and support lines are a cut above the rest and he's near impossible to shift off the ball once his planted over it

Think the 7 selection is possibly the most difficult to make with so many options, would definitely have no issue if Watson was picked.

Sinckler has to go for me, he was on the bench for all three tests in 2017 and I really think he could challenge Furlong for the starting spot this time round. Brings a very similar skillset, strong carrying and the passing ability of a decent centre! He has had his hot headed moments, but he's still the best option after Furlong in my book

Seriously trying to pick a Lions squad now? Wait to see if Phil Vickery retires first

Gooseberry wrote:Seriously trying to pick a Lions squad now? Wait to see if Phil Vickery retires first

I reckon he's got one more tour left in him

Tramptastic wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Johnson and Slade Or Slade and JD2 could be exciting too.

Slade and JD2 are fairly interchangable in terms of who plays 12 and who plays 13 too right?

Is JD2 still able to play 12 these days or is he only seen as a 13 now?

He can and has played both for the lions. I would love to have a fast footballing centre like Slade in midfield with him. Most welsh fans dream of having a Slade-esq player come through. We wee pinning hopes on Owen Williams but he has struggled.

Tramptastic wrote:

Gatlands complaints about Scotland not winning away from home is justified but at the same time barely any of wales' players had form so quite a few scottish supporters felt hard done by. That same summer our reserves beat australia away from home and then in the autumn our first team smashed them at home - something the welsh players have always struggled to do. When you look at it like that is it not easy to see why Scotland supporters felt a bit underwhelmed?

They lost to Fiji too. Are you all back to coat-tailing Australia already? At least wait until the world cup...

BigGee wrote:Anyway, to some extent it is water under the bridge now and the dynamics have changed with Gatland no longer being Welsh coach. It was hard to see how that did not effect his decision making based on him knowing them better and trusting them more.

You sure about that?

There are some seriously bitter Scottish members on here, even though Gatland will go down as the best coach in BI Lions history.

But yes perhaps more Scottish players could have gone on the last tour, but not necessarily at the expense of the Welsh players.

It does seem that certain members have an axe to grind with regards to Gatland and Wales, but I suppose Warren Gatland can console himself with being one of the most successful international coaches to coach in the NH in the modern era.

LordDowlais wrote:There are some seriously bitter Scottish members on here, even though Gatland will go down as the best coach in BI Lions history.

But yes perhaps more Scottish players could have gone on the last tour, but not necessarily at the expense of the Welsh players.

It does seem that certain members have an axe to grind with regards to Gatland and Wales, but I suppose Warren Gatland can console himself with being one of the most successful  international coaches to coach in the NH in the modern era.

id like to see what your reaction had been if the lions coach had chosen the squad on form and results, and not favouritism, and there had been 2 or fewer welsh on the 2017 lions tour. How Gatland justified 12 is well beyond reason. It was a joke.

2017 6 Nations

England /19pts / 16 players selected
Ireland / 14 pts / 11 players selected
France
Scotland / 14 pts / 2 players selected
Wales / 10 pts/ 12 players selected

and before getting all up yourself the tour was pretty poor given the lions lost twice to provincial sides, and only won 1 of the 3 test matches.

The four home nations are all currently far closer in ability than in many years, certainly far more than prior to the 2017 tour.

Each tour the abilities of the four nations vary. 1993 five Welshman toured, eight Scots toured would have been nine if Armstrong, the best scrumhalf, had of been fit. Scotland where grandslammers a year before the selection with a number of world class players. Wales were seriously struggling at international level against anyone.

Far too much sway is put on the impact of the coaches national allegiance. It’s a very easy stick to beat the coach with.

alive555 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:There are some seriously bitter Scottish members on here, even though Gatland will go down as the best coach in BI Lions history.

But yes perhaps more Scottish players could have gone on the last tour, but not necessarily at the expense of the Welsh players.

It does seem that certain members have an axe to grind with regards to Gatland and Wales, but I suppose Warren Gatland can console himself with being one of the most successful  international coaches to coach in the NH in the modern era.

id like to see what your reaction had been if the lions coach had chosen the squad on form and results, and not favouritism, and there had been 2 or fewer welsh on the 2017 lions tour. How Gatland justified 12 is well beyond reason. It was a joke.

2017 6 Nations

England /19pts / 16 players selected
Ireland / 14 pts / 11 players selected
France
Scotland / 14 pts / 2 players selected
Wales / 10 pts/ 12 players selected

and before getting all up yourself the tour was pretty poor given the lions lost twice to provincial sides, and only won 1 of the 3 test matches.

You keep harping on about 1 6N in over a decade where you finished above Wales. It makes you sound very bitter.

Lets look at it this way, when was the last time Scotland won an away match against decent opposition ? Italy aside, I cannot remember the last time Scotland won away in the 6N. It does not happen very often.

Yet here you are asking why Warren Gatland did not take more Scottish players, away, to the hardest country to beat in the world at rugby.

LordDowlais wrote:

alive555 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:There are some seriously bitter Scottish members on here, even though Gatland will go down as the best coach in BI Lions history.

But yes perhaps more Scottish players could have gone on the last tour, but not necessarily at the expense of the Welsh players.

It does seem that certain members have an axe to grind with regards to Gatland and Wales, but I suppose Warren Gatland can console himself with being one of the most successful  international coaches to coach in the NH in the modern era.

id like to see what your reaction had been if the lions coach had chosen the squad on form and results, and not favouritism, and there had been 2 or fewer welsh on the 2017 lions tour. How Gatland justified 12 is well beyond reason. It was a joke.

2017 6 Nations

England /19pts / 16 players selected
Ireland / 14 pts / 11 players selected
France
Scotland / 14 pts / 2 players selected
Wales / 10 pts/ 12 players selected

and before getting all up yourself the tour was pretty poor given the lions lost twice to provincial sides, and only won 1 of the 3 test matches.

You keep harping on about 1 6N in over a decade where you finished above Wales. It makes you sound very bitter.

Lets look at it this way, when was the last time Scotland won an away match against decent opposition ? Italy aside, I cannot remember the last time Scotland won away in the 6N. It does not happen very often.

Yet here you are asking why Warren Gatland did not take more Scottish players, away, to the hardest country to beat in the world at rugby.

whats that got to do with 2017? zero, not a thing. you came in second from last, yet got 12 players selected. suggest you stop whining about denying the obvious bias.

alive555 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

alive555 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:There are some seriously bitter Scottish members on here, even though Gatland will go down as the best coach in BI Lions history.

But yes perhaps more Scottish players could have gone on the last tour, but not necessarily at the expense of the Welsh players.

It does seem that certain members have an axe to grind with regards to Gatland and Wales, but I suppose Warren Gatland can console himself with being one of the most successful  international coaches to coach in the NH in the modern era.

id like to see what your reaction had been if the lions coach had chosen the squad on form and results, and not favouritism, and there had been 2 or fewer welsh on the 2017 lions tour. How Gatland justified 12 is well beyond reason. It was a joke.

2017 6 Nations

England /19pts / 16 players selected
Ireland / 14 pts / 11 players selected
France
Scotland / 14 pts / 2 players selected
Wales / 10 pts/ 12 players selected

and before getting all up yourself the tour was pretty poor given the lions lost twice to provincial sides, and only won 1 of the 3 test matches.

You keep harping on about 1 6N in over a decade where you finished above Wales. It makes you sound very bitter.

Lets look at it this way, when was the last time Scotland won an away match against decent opposition ? Italy aside, I cannot remember the last time Scotland won away in the 6N. It does not happen very often.

Yet here you are asking why Warren Gatland did not take more Scottish players, away, to the hardest country to beat in the world at rugby.

whats that got to do with 2017? zero, not a thing. you came in second from last, yet got 12 players selected. suggest you stop whining about denying the obvious bias.

I think MDs post is pretty self explanatory with regards to his point. Consistency and the ability to win away from home extremely likely to be a key decision maker in close calls. Both Ireland and England had a great deal of success away from home.

maestegmafia wrote:The four home nations are all currently far closer in ability than in many years, certainly far more than prior to the 2017 tour.

Each tour the abilities of the four nations vary. 1993 five Welshman toured, eight Scots toured would have been nine if Armstrong, the best scrumhalf, had of been fit. Scotland where grandslammers a year before the selection with a number of world class players. Wales were seriously struggling at international level against anyone.

Far too much sway is put on the impact of the coaches national allegiance. It’s a very easy stick to beat the coach with.

To be pedantic, didn't Scotland win the GS in 1990, 3 years earlier. Some of the Scots selected, most of the fowards, were pretty average players.

Yes sorry three years before is correct.

maestegmafia wrote:...Far too much sway is put on the impact of the coaches national allegiance. It’s a very easy stick to beat the coach with...

No-one used to beat up the Lions coaches over selection, because the final decision usually wasn't up to them. McGeechan got Director's Cut approval in 1997, and that's where it started. Four years later, Henry wasn't attacked for his choices; it was his management which was called into question. The first coach to really be slated over selection was Clive Woodward, primarily from Wales, which is one reason I find it surprising whenever Welsh supporters are upset when Gatland is attacked for his selection bias. Either all attacks are allowable in principle, or none.

Gatalnd did use away results to pick in 2013 mainly the 30 3 game. He did get over that though in 2017 to an extent.

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:...Far too much sway is put on the impact of the coaches national allegiance. It’s a very easy stick to beat the coach with...

No-one used to beat up the Lions coaches over selection, because the final decision usually wasn't up to them. McGeechan got Director's Cut approval in 1997, and that's where it started. Four years later, Henry wasn't attacked for his choices; it was his management which was called into question. The first coach to really be slated over selection was Clive Woodward, primarily from Wales, which is one reason I find it surprising whenever Welsh supporters are upset when Gatland is attacked for his selection bias. Either all attacks are allowable in principle, or none.

I thought Woodward’s squad was perceived to rely to heavily on players that were recently returned from injury. Wales having won the grandslam that year probably surprised a few people but I think we would say in Wales that there weren’t many welsh players excluded who should have made the tour.

In part because SCW selected about 99 players.

maestegmafia wrote:I thought Woodward’s squad was perceived to rely to heavily on players that were recently returned from injury.

There's a lot to say about Woodward's selections but, as I mentioned, Lions coaches hadn't realy been targeted for that kind of selection criticism before. The Welsh media broke new ground in accusing him of bias before a match had even been played (looking at you, JPR). Gatland has a fine set of results as Lions coach but, if accusing him of bias is off limits, then that should also have been true in 2005.

Geechs tour in 97 to SA was one of the most balanced selections.

Jenks
Bento
Guscott
Gibbs
Ieuan
Townsend
Dawson
Smith
Wood
Wallace
Davidson
Johnson
Hill
Danglo
Rodber

LondonTiger wrote:In part because SCW selected about 99 players.

I'll sound like a Woodward apologist, which I'm not but the size of his squad turned out to be one of his better choices. By the end of the tour, we'd run out of players. The 2009 tour made a point of saying they would scale-down but had to bus in replacements regularly (farcically, in the case of Ryan Jones). In essence, you need more players than you can effectively manage. It's easier to make quick replacement decisions in South Africa, as you can call up players faster. Do the same in Oz or NZ, and you end up with Shane Williams/Tom Court in 2013, and the Geography Six in 2017. Woodward was right about needing the squad size but his way of managing them (treating them as two squads) was disastrous.