Lions Watch: Six Nations Report

First topic message reminder :

Well we're nearly done with the Six Nations so if the Lions goes ahead who do you like the look of and who do you think will be touring?

Townsend is rumoured to be going as attack coach. He was pretty hopeless as attack coach for Scotland in his early days. Although, I think anyone would struggle to squeeze tries out of a backline with Parks, Morrison, De Luca, Danielli, Walker and Southwell. I assume he has taken principal control of the Glasgow and Scotland attacks in which case he has done a fairly good job in those places.

If you listen to rumours it'll be Robertson with the forwards, Farrell on defence and Townsend backs/attack under the authority of Gatland. Rowntree may go as scrum coach as he's been on the last three Lions tours. Howley may well make a return I suppose.

123456789. wrote:Townsend is rumoured to be going as attack coach. He was pretty hopeless as attack coach for Scotland in his early days. Although, I think anyone would struggle to squeeze tries out of a backline with Parks, Morrison, De Luca, Danielli, Walker and Southwell. I assume he has taken principal control of the Glasgow and Scotland attacks in which case he has done a fairly good job in those places.

If you listen to rumours it'll be Robertson with the forwards, Farrell on defence and Townsend backs/attack under the authority of Gatland. Rowntree may go as scrum coach as he's been on the last three Lions tours. Howley may well make a return I suppose.

That means Owen Farrell is going then.

Hes always going to be touring no matter who the coach is.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hes always going to be touring no matter who the coach is.

Definitely not based on form but he probably will be picked. Doesnt deserve it though in my view.

flyhalffactory wrote:

alive555 wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:Stats are usually objective e.g. "Tackles made" but are always misleading e.g. "Tackles Missed" now if you were an Australian winger who was unfortunate to be marking Jonah Lomu in his prime, then your stats could be extremely skewed.
We can argue the toss over the validity of stats until the cows come home but making sweeping statements over one tournament can be in itself misleading

Curry is a brilliant defender! not by 2021 6Ns standards but by ANC standards maybe and by the most relevant direct comparison SA v Eng WC 2019 then definitely not
DvdM is a rubbish defender! not by 2021 standards but over the last 12 months....maybe who knows

If you want my two-penneth Gatland & Co will not just pick on "form", if they are any decent coaches, they will look at the last 18 months form, the individual direct matches v SA and what the tour (weather, grounds etc) will be like .

There will be players in the squad based on their "experience credits", one thing for sure none of us will agree 100% with each other
 

What a joke of an argument. We just had 5 games vs the top teams in the northern hemishpere. Curry missed an average of 2 tackles more per game vs the EXACT SAME opposition Hamish Watson faced, who missed precisely none.

If the selectors dont look at stats, then might as well call up Martin Johnson

Peace Compardre  

I didn't say they don't look at stats, of course they look at stats, but the stats are a stake in the ground. I said a stat is objective i.e. "Missed Tackles" but on their own they don't really mean a thing e.g.
A. Tackles Missed - Player A = 10, Player B = 4 it would seem like player A is pretty poor, it would seem that Player B is 150% more effective, but if we add just one more stat into the mix, let's say
B. Tackles Made   - Player A = 100, Player B = 50, then we get a totally different complexion of the player performance as now it seems Player A is 100% more effective. Suddenly it look like its dependant on...... if we look at the individual stats or take them together
ok lets add one more
C. Tackle Efficiency % - B/(A+B) x100 - Player A = 91%, Player b = 93%, actually it would seem both players are pretty close

Three different stats - Three different outcomes or views!
Then we bring into account the accuracy of the data
Then we start adding more stats
Tackles - Offloads after being tackled
Tackles - Turnovered after being tackled
Tackles - Giving away a pen after being tackled
Suddenly the original stat is so immaterial.....as you said we may as well call up Gavin instead of Adam Hastings

I think DvdM should tour, mainly because he is a winger who primarily is there to score tries not defend, the SA wings are going to be big lumps and DvdM can go through any player or (in the case of the Sco v Eng try) players
I think Hamish should tour because he punches above his weight, he rarely gives away pens under pressure, he always pressurises the opposition and he is top form
But it's nothing to do with one stat

SA wings aren’t all that big, Kolbe runs around defenders not through them

123456789. wrote:I don't think you are wumming - but it seems bizarre to discount luck on one side and not on the other. Circumstances change - that is sport. You can't pick and choose which ones impact.

Thanks for taking the comment in the nature it was intended.

I'm not discounting the circumstances. I thought your comment was very 'glass half full' (probably a better way of putting it than 'clutching at straws', which didn't feel quite right at the time) and I suppose what I'm doing is offering the other side of the analysis. In that sense I'm not ignoring any at all, I'm including what I thought you left out to show you that, in another light, it's not looking as good. Which is natural, as fans we're going to see things differently depending on our biases and all the rest of it.

123456789. wrote:The whole Scotland beating France, not being equal to Wales beating France is a dubious point entirely. Rugby is played on grass not paper. Comparing any two games is utterly futile. In every single game there are hundreds of different factors. At the very least there are 46 different players with 46 different private lives. There are the different motivations, mitigations and permutations that exist in tournament rugby. Dulin's failure to kick the ball out is one facet in 80 minutes. Russell's red card was another. So of course the game was played slightly differently when Scotland played as to when Wales played. I believe firmly that over the course of a game, and certainly a season, these things even themselves out.

I think it's definitely fair to say that Scotland beating France in the last minute isn't the same level of opponent as Wales losing to France the week before, no? The circumstances are all important. The French visibly wilted in that last 20 minutes as the reality sank in that they weren't going to pull off the 20+ point win. They put themselves in the position to do so, though, and Scotland definitely rode their luck, as well as playing well at key moments to hold them out. Barnes certainly came down hard on the French in the first half. Hogg's yellow card came after multiple infringements to slow the French down near the line and a 5m lineout was the last play of the half, which the French then bottled (well played Gilchrist). There was another try scoring moment with Hogg off the field just after half time and once the French didn't take those two glorious chances, their focus and intensity dropped as they're such an emotional team and that let Scotland back in. Scotland's first try looked like double movement at best. Their second try was a freak rip where the defenders stopped (sloppy France). And then the final try came, as you say, after Dulin failed to kick it out. I'm not suggesting that the failure to kick it out was the single key moment France let Scotland off the hook. Not at all, it was one of several moments, as you say, but I sense you'd try to look at all the other moments from a 'glass half full perspective' - it's definitely possible to pick a very pro-Scottish way of seeing things that ignores Barnes' harsh officiating that visibly rattled the French, that ignores the good fortune in their other 2 tries, and that ignores the attitude and aptitude of the French, particularly in that second half, compared to the week before.

I don't know if these things do even them out but the point is, if you want to judge Scotland as a team, as we are here, using France as an opponent isn't fair given v Ireland, England, and Wales they were still going for the title until the 80th minute. Franky, that wasn't the case v Scotland. Clearly they were not playing with the intensity or focus as they did v Wales or Ireland, or even England despite their loss. It's admirable for Scotland to have held them out but the reality is France were basically starting the game with -20 points in what became a dead rubber in the final 10 minutes. So it's not quite right to use them as some kind of consistent yardstick. Dulin didn't kick the ball out as France were still in 'score as many points as possible mode'. Against Wales, they were in a 'win at all costs' mode. Same goes for against Ireland and England, who they lost to as well.

You can try to measure up players and teams against such 'yardsticks' but the problem is the yardstick is never quite the same. England were very poor v Scotland, does that make Wales and Ireland's wins against England better or worse? Scotland only lost to Ireland by 3 points but then was it the same as Wales losing by 2 points to the French? No, totally different circumstances and a different level of competitiveness in the game. I accept that some teams are better coming from behind and some are better at holding on to a lead but I never really thought Scotland's comeback v Ireland would win the game and it was probably expected that Ireland went down and finished off the job they had done for the previous 60 minutes moments after the equalising try.

So I think it's fair to point these things out. It's possible to compare but we have to do it with context.

123456789. wrote:The analysis of the Wales games are bizarre, somehow one cannot be taken into consideration because Wales were bad and the architecture. The other game a red card was entirely inconsequential to the analysis. Remember the same all conquering side Wales side that narrowly lost the grand slam beat a 'mince' Scotland side by one point. With a sketchy holding on call and a potential tackle off of the ball in the last minute. I'm not bitter (believe it or not), a Championship side would never have been in that position, Scotland were 14 points up and should never have placed themselves at the mercy of the referee but much the same applies to Wales in Paris. Taking objective measurements alone: results and statistics - Scotland are not the fourth best team currently in the British Isles.

I feel like I've touched on this above really about the whole 'glass half full' perspective.

I'm not saying it's irrelevant, not at all. I'm hopefully providing context which might no be total but it's at least fair.

If a major part of the problem for Scotland is their inability to win games away from home (which played a part in the lack of Scots in 2017), then is beating Wales at one of their club grounds when there are no fans a sign that Scotland are now capable of winning away from home? In a very strict and literal sense, it appears so. But the context shows that, actually, what would have been key parts of winning away from home before covid (fan pressue, familiarity of surroundings) are not in the equation for that game. So what value could they be for the Lions? Well if the tour does go ahead this year then maybe the fan issue isn't a problem. But the South Africans will be playing on home stadia, in home conditions and pitches that their players were used to. The wind alone in that Wales game showed that the Welsh players were hardly used to or expecting the conditions on that day. Further context to that game is Scotland were in their continuity phase with big motivation after their dreadful 2019 RWC. Wales were in their rebuild phase, which is the same for England in this six nations, they haven't just become useless overnight.

You have to take ALL of that context in to play if you're going to make the claim that Scotland have now won away from home in the six nations and that makes them better than 2017. I'm not saying that it's an irrelevant point, it isn't, but it needs the qualifying context.

Again you're being very glass half full about Scotland v Wales. Wales missed 6 points at goal, no? Russell threw an intercept on his line moments before the break? The tackle off the ball didn't look like anything much, it's a normal rugby incident with momentum and happens all the time. Harris was on the ball momentarily and then was immediately off his feet/not supporting his body weight. Another ref might have given a penalty - Barnes maybe to Wales, Nigel Owens to Scotland. This referee just allowed play on which might have been the best decision in the circumstances.

Yes, a close finish, but I called Scotland 'mince' (probably a bit harsh) as the whole chat after the England win was Scotland were going to win the grand slam. At least you thought you'd be in with a chance of winning. Wales were now useless, Ireland weren't much better, and it was all set up for a Grand Slam decider against the French. That was the chat, maybe not from you but from plenty of people, fans, media pundits and all the rest of it.

And what happened? Two games later and they've lost 2 in a row. They didn't play well v Wales and the tide had turned before the red card (which was a red, no doubt about it, and so you can hardly complain). Wales don't look like an 80 minute team just like the French but they were well on their way back in to the game. And yet we're meant to believe that because Scotland had a 14 point lead (one try which was very fortuitous dropped by Halfpenny in to the arms of the opposition) they were...what? Better? I'm not sure. Maybe if you pause the game there then fine but this is my point, it's selective assessment. How many times have the All Blacks come back in the last quarter and won the game after being behind? I'm not saying Wales or even England were the All Blacks but England could have won the game late on v Scotland if one of their attacking lineouts actually worked.

The problem I have is we're suddenly back to talking about the game and Scotland 'on paper'. Yes, 'on paper' Scotland were 17 points up against Wales and could have won...but they didn't. 'On paper' Scotland have been just about to turn a corner and join the other three home nations for the last 5-6 years. It's been a long time and lots of false dawns for Scotland and I can see how as a fan it's frustrating but looking at this from the outside, I see a team that isn't far off peaking. They can improve some aspects of their game but their ceiling? In my opinion, based on where Scotland are, and where they have been (group stages of a RWC), I don't think they're at the same level as the other three teams. Either now at this very moment with regards to form, in terms of individual talent that could be taken out of their environment and tour with the Lions, or in terms of medium term future growth i.e. the next RWC.

So now we're back to basically talking about Scotland 'on paper' and it's possible to take a very sympathetic view to the Scots on that basis which is basically taking results and performances and applying 'ifs and buts' such as 'if only we'd not had the red card against Wales' or 'if only we had scored 3 more points against the Irish instead', and then coming to the conclusion that you were on the brink of a Grand Slam. I'm not saying you're doing this but some Scottish fans definitely do. That's probably where the clutching at straws comes in, it's wishful thinking after many long years of suffering support, and I don't blame or envy you for that. For me, Scotland are quite clearly the 4th best/worst team out of the 4 home nations. I don't think anyone seriously thinks they're better than England, Ireland handed them another mauling for 60 minutes and then I think took their foot off the gas which suited the likes of Hogg and Huw Jones to a tee, and Wales showed that even when far from their peak they're still better at winning. On a literal basis, yes, Scotland are third best given they finished below Wales and Ireland. But do we expect Scotland to overtake those two and stay ahead of England over the next three years? Do we expect Scotland to do better at the next world cup?

123456789. wrote:As for the 2019 World Cup, the Lions has a very long history of proving that World Cups are almost entirely immaterial to the tour that comes after. Woodward took the England side (a Championship side might I add - they would never have been in the situation Scotland were in against Wales or Wales were against France by 2003) from the world cup and got humped. Wales were terrible in 2007 and brought a large amount to the series in 2009. England got knocked out in the group stages in 2015 and were pumped by Australia, then provided a colossal proportion of the 2017 squad. Scotland, as you pointed out, should have beaten Australia in 2015 and provided two players two years on.

So fo me, Scotland were a marginally better team in 2017 than they are in 2021. I'll get that out of the way first. I completely disagree that the World Cup is irrelevant. Particularly given the fact we played, what, 2-3 games with crowds after Japan due to the pandemic? So the RWC results and performances take on even greater significance this time around given that no one has played a southern hemisphere team since Japan as well.

For me, we have to talk about results, performances, and the actual ability of the players, and to limit the 'on paper' chat because, 6 weeks ago, 'on paper', Scotland were on course to win a Grand Slam. It's been that way for the last 5-6 years as well, of Scotland having 'turned a corner' or being on the brink of something. I'm yet to see it, I see a team that persistently seems to find their level - which is 4th of the home nations, 5th in the six nations, capable of causing an upset or two along the way and playing a good, exciting brand of rugby. But to go to the next level? What would the next level really be? It would probably be finding a way to win ugly, win against the odds and all the rest of it. Maybe they did that v France? Maybe they threatened to do that against Wales and Ireland? But until there's some consistency of proof there to actually get over the line, we have to work on the assumption that performances and results like the last 12 months from Scotland are closer to the upper limit of their potential rather than a sign of being a springboard in to something significantly better. Why? Mainly because of the competition being strangely weak (Wales and Ireland two new coaches in nearly a decade, England going through a poor patch for several reasons).

The RWC matters because there can be no excuses. There cannot be any 'oh we were building' or 'oh the players were tired after a Lions tour' or any of the above reasons given for why the other teams in 2020 were poor. Because everything works in 4 year cycles now. The RWC is the time when European teams have their advantages stripped away as well and they're really tested for what they are. Some of them, usually the Irish, get found out: they cannot replicate their better results like beating NZ or winning Grand Slams for a few reasons. One is the lack of home advantage, another if the different weather conditions outside Europe impacting their playing style and fitness, and another is the ability to go back to back against good opposition without managing fixtures as happens during the Autumn Internationals. Also, the likes of Fiji and Argentina have full player release, which is usually not the case in the AIs.

Scotland were found out in 2019. You cannot deny that. England suffered the same fate in 2015 but you're ignoring the fact that that was a monumental underperformance with explainable factors (home pressure, terrible coaching preparation, RFU mismanagement with Burgess) and even then they came close to beating Wales. More importantly, because that world cup was dreadful, they followed that up by sacking their coach and England went on two win back to back six nations as well as a clean sweep v Australia on tour. Was Scotland's performance out in Japan a massive underperformance of the same magnitute? Based on their game v Ireland, it wasn't a huge departure from some of their six nations performances and results. Ireland have done that to Scotland in the past. And Japan outplayed Scotland who maybe were in a similar situation to France last week, chasing a scoreline rather than a win, but they were still outplayed. Maybe it was a huge underperformance, so how did they follow it up? Did they do what England did? No, they kept their head coach and even in the covid circumstances, they still came 4th in the six nations. You can analyse the good fortune against France but it's not worth it. The point is their 'bounce back' after an embarrassing exit at the world cup may well be as good as it gets for them. Beating the likes of Wales and France when they're not playing well might actually be Scotland's level - England's level was almost complete dominance, which they then replicated out in Japan. So the RWC matters. It matters how teams respond to it but it also matters how they perform in them as well. It also matters especially so this Lions year.

Scotland's performances in 2015, however, were top drawer. For me, they were a better team than now. Marginally. Mainly because of Cotter. Hogg is better now, Gray is better. In terms of qualified wingers, Duhan is better than Visser. But you cannot argue with the way Scotland played against Australia in that world cup. They outplayed them, they had as good as won the game. Yes, the conditions suited Scotland as it was as good as home soil, and that plays its part in the disparity between 2015 and 2019. Particularly the rain against Australia which no doubt played a major pat in Bennett's intercept late on. But whatever, it doesn't matter, this wasn't Scotland 'on paper' - this was Scotland going toe to toe with the eventual RWC finalists and but for a dreadful, as-good-as corrupt decision by Joubert, they had won the game. You can take stats like the two wins v France in 2020 and 2021 as yardsticks, as I said, and say 'well Cotter didn't manage that in 2015-2017' but that is where again the context matters: France bottling both of those games, one with a red card early on for no good reason, and then in the most recent game because they gave up on the smaller prize once the bigger prize was out of their grasp.

With that in mind, if Scotland were better in 2015-17 than they were from 2019-21, how does this impact their Lions chances? Well, in theory, when taking Scotland as a team...not great. That's the reality of it and I don't believe I can be alone in thinking that. I cannot be the only one who's thinking 'yes, good result, but what about 2019?'. Because that's really a better barometer than the results of 2020-2021 when it comes to finding out 'test match animal' ability and all the rest of it.

Fortunately of course, teams don't get picked for the Lions, players do. And so to round this all off I'll hopefully leave on a positive note. As this has turned in to a bit of a negative post when, as I say, I know it cannot have been fun supporting Scotland since roughly 2005. Particularly when it comes to the Lions. But I also don't think we need to tell lies either just for the sake of almost humouring the Scottish fans? It feels worryingly like setting the fans up for a fall as well.

So individuals: while Scotland as a team might have been better in 2015-17, I think on an individual basis they have a marginally better claim this time around. Possibly.

- 4 players toured in 2013: Richie Gray, Hogg, Maitland, and Ryan Grant. Grant was an injury replacement.
- 5 players toured in 2017: Hogg, Seymour, Laidlaw, Russell, and Dell. The latter two were part of the 'geography 6'. Laidlaw was a replacement for Youngs before the tour left.

Of the potential players in 2017, the main names raised were: Maitland, Barclay, the two Grays, Fraser Brown, WP Nel (injured at time of selection), Fagerson, Hamish Watson, Ryan Wilson, Ali Price, Russell and Laidlaw (both eventually called up). Here is an article that supports this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39648980. I added Ali Price myself though he wasn't mentioned.

What this showed in 2017 is that, by and large, you cannot really make a case for anyone who Gatland didn't pick. In my opinion, anyway. Maitland? Over who? Nowell? Possibly. After that I can't see justification for anyone else, and actually the position of 'injury reserve' as Laidlaw and Russell were was probably a fair one then and is likely to be a fair position again this time for a good number of Scots.

So let's look at the individuals in 2019. Who are the names being mentioned, in some sense of order of likelihood:

- Stuart Hogg: Nailed on. Test starter. Possible captain (vice captain more likely).
- Hamish Watson: very good chance but stiff competition in back row. An injury or two makes his claim much clearer/better.
- Duhan VDM: has the game breaking ability that makes him a test star. He's probably in the squad if he stays fit.
- Finn Russell: horses for courses. Will likely be in the squad at some stage depending on injuries or the size of the squad. Might be missing out on the original touring party, hasn't done enough to demand guaranteed inclusion despite poor form and/or age of his competition.
- Sam Johnson: a dark horse in a position of weakness for the Lions, he has longevity of quality and class going in his favour.
- George Turner: good fortune with injuries puts him in as something of a bolter. Played well and in a position where key men are either old, lacking in durability, or out of form, he might make the squad even without an injury. With an injury and he'll likely be a 'right place, right time' player like Tom Youngs. Could even play a pat in the tests, particularly from the bench.
- Jonny Gray: close but lack of versatility compared to Henderson, Beirne, and Lawes (let alone Itoje) probably has him lined up as first injury reserve.
- Zander Fagerson: right on the verge of the squad as a no nonsense scrummaging and carrying prop. Doesn't have the quality of the main two from 2017 and maybe just shaded out by Porter. Either in the squad as 3rd choice or first injury reserve, so he's close.
- Rory Sutherland: similar situation to Fagerson, lack of form of English props and Marler's absence gives him a chance. A lot hinges on Marler's availability. If Marler unavailable he probably tours, if not he probably won't but will be one of the first reserves.
- Chris Harris: if one game can get you on tour this man maybe played that game v France. Showed a defensive ability that could even make him a test player. Might need an injury to a defensive stalwart like Jonathan Davies and for Tuilagi to miss out but is in the picture.
- Jamie Ritchie: not as good as the other potential back row players. Will likely need 2-3 injuries, which are likely, to be included but isn't far away. Versatility to play either flank works in his favour but too many better players are ahead of him to make the original squad.
- Huw Jones: A rough diamond who could be a star of the midweek team. Has experience of SA going in his favour. Hard to say given quality of utility backs like Daly and Slade but not unreasonable to consider him among the top injury replacements.
- Sean Maitland: an old head who can play across the backline. In a more attritional, more aerial style of rugby he might be called up as he was in 2013 but hard to see it given the ability of Williams and Watson, or the more standard wingers. Lack of blistering pace not helping his cause. In the pack of reserve outside backs but not the first name in that group.
- Fraser Brown: lack of game time and lack of outstanding quality v other potentials means he misses out unless multiple injuries. National captaincy experience does work in his favour for a late surge.
- Stuart McInally: "" ""
- Adam Hastings: can do a job in multiple positions but would only be included as a late call up with many injuries.
- Scott Cummings: played very well but in a position of strength, he'll be no more than a midweek dirt tracker if picked as a late injury replacement or as part of a large touring squad. Outside the squad at this stage by some distance.
- Ali Price: very low odds of touring, there are better 9s left out of the other nations' squads (Care, Webb, Cooney). Would need 2-3 injuries until his visibility and test experience puts him in the picture but isn't a complete no hoper. His best chance might lie in being a late call up like a geo 6 who will only play in the midweek games as cannot see Gatland trusting him in test matches.
- Sam Skinner: versatile, underrated, good club form, and regularly plays well for Scotland. A very long shot due to lack of game time.
- Darcy Graham: offers something different but would require many injuries to make the tour.

There are probably a few I've left out like Berghan and Cherry but I consider their chances very low. If I've forgotten anyone glaring I apologise.

For me, I'm looking at that and I see a minimum of 1 Scot in the original squad, with a maximum of around 5. However, what I see is a far greater number of 'first reserve' Scots as compared to 2017, and this is where they might be in a healthier position to 4 years ago. You look at the depth at hooker, for instance, and it definitely seems to be the case as they have 4 test quality hookers available which not many teams in the six nations do. None are head and shoulders above the likes of Jamie George or Ken Owens, so it might not help for the Lions, but it helps the Scotland team in the future. With injuries, there could be up to 10+ Scots who eventually make the squad as a lot of them are in the picture, although to a man, it's hard to include them over players from the other 3 teams.

So when it comes to Lions chat, yes it's important to talk about the team's form and their ability to get over the line, or win games, or play to their potential. But in many ways it's not the be all and end all, the Lions is still all about individual players becoming Lions. Given what happened to the likes of Mark Bennett and Barclay from 2015-2017, maybe they look better as individuals now than they did then - it's hard to say. I'd give the 2015 the marginal edge, in no small part due to Cotter, yet players like Hogg, Russell, and Gray are clearly better now than they were 6 years ago as well, so perhaps there's actually nothing in it or it's pointless even comparing.

Either way, the point I'm trying to make is that it probably won't be a massive change from 2017. Which wasn't a huge change from 2013 - as it's still all about individual players. Laidlaw was better than Price, Duhan VDM is better than Visser, Maitland was good enough to tour in 2013. I don't think that Scotland is crying out with players who are better than the last time in any great way. At least not to the point of showing they're better than the Welsh/English/Irish counterparts. You can use the glass half full to say Scotland are actually better now, because of the results and all the rest of it, but I'm not so sure. Either way, that won't be what gets players on the Lions - it will be individual basis and that's where a player's ceiling comes in. As good as Watson is, who is one of the best Scots after Hogg with the best chance to make the tour, is his ceiling as high as Tipuric's, Curry's, and Underhill's? For me, no. And that's why it's so cruel on the Scots but that's what keeps happening - when you look at the list of Scots from 2017 who were in contention, once the emotion is taken out of it, you cannot argue Gatland 'got it wrong' picking only 2 (eventually 5). I would expect that, over the next few years, the same thing will happen again with the likes of Ritchie, J Gray, even Russell. When we have more and more evidence, and less 'on paper' support for these players and what they could possibly do, I expect that we'll see it's fair enough that so many of them are on the fringes of the squad but probably needing injuries to a player or two from the main squad to be called up. That's just the way I see it though. It just so happens that it's also how a coach like Gatland sees it as well but I think you have to let his record speak for itself.

Sorry, whatahitson

gave up reading that after I got the gist

Everything Scotland did good was luck, the opposition not caring, no crowds or the ref

Everything others did to Scotland was not luck, the opposition not caring, no crowds or the ref

Thanks for the clarification

whatahitson - were you involved with Peter Jackson's adaption of The Hobbit by any chance?

200 pages of children's fantasy writing painstakingly crammed into 10 hours of cinema bears a striking resemblance to many of your meandering posts on here.

R!skysports wrote:Sorry, whatahitson

gave up reading that after I got the gist

If at first you don't succeed...

Why write one paragraph when you can write an essay instead.

Old Man wrote:Just a reminder, Gatland and Wales has been a thorn in the side of South Africa for a while now. Even the Bok coaches were nervous about how to beat Wales in the Semi Final.

Their style of play somehow thwarts our style of play, their no risk, no play in their half methodology unsettles the Boks.

Their players know that system well. So it stands to reason for me at least that is what Gatland will bring.

This is a relevant point.

It's not just about picking the best players, or the most in form players, which is what is happening at the moment with punditry picks.

A player like George Turner could easily find himself as the starting Lions hooker if the circumstances fall in his favour. It's all about finding a team to beat the Boks and England showed how you get that wrong out in Japan by sticking instead of twisting, under the assumption that 'if it's good enough to beats the ABs, it's good enough to beat the Boks'.

Many Welsh players showed they have a knack for winning as well as their ability to bottle games when the pressure is on as well. They did that for years v Australia. A mix of English, Irish, and Welsh has been the winning formula for Gatland's Lions in the 3 tours he has coached and it was no different in 2009.

Eventhough the rugby landscape is very different to the one 12 years ago, it works in the favour of teams and players who have beaten the Boks in recent years. Also, it helps a player like Henderson or Ringrose to be up against de Allende, or for Youngs to have played Faf du Klerk at club level.

Soul Requiem wrote:Why write one paragraph when you can write an essay instead.

For your benefit I'll write the short version:

- It's easy to look at things 'glass half full' as fans.
- It's not much good talking about Scotland 'on paper' v their actual results/performances/players.
- Context is always important and can be used to analyse those results/performances/players without going in to 'glass half full' mode, or trying to play the game/pick the squad 'on paper'.
- Scottish players will struggle due to their dreadful performance at the 2019 RWC. Their inability to do something remarkable in 2020 when Ireland and Wales overhauled their set ups, and England were in cruise control, has hurt their chances as well.
- Lions tours are still about individuals, not teams, and many Scottish players are there or thereabouts - but probably on the fringes of the squad, which has been the case in past tours.

The long version just justifies each point.

KC, is the style somewhat familiar or is it me ...........................................

Proper mystery ain't it.

bsando wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p09c6c9r

The BBC Rugby Pod cover the Lions and 6 Nations quite well regarding the recent debate on here.

The Lions tour, in my view, is a pretty pompous and archaic entity in comparison to other tournaments on the world rugby calendar. I get far more excited for the Rugby World Cup because it is a wonderful tournament that brings large swathes of fans from different nationalities together. Uruguay beating Fiji, a side stacked with talented individuals, was the epitome of what international rugby is all about. Heart and determination. It isn't always being the best team because you have the best players from the highest paid clubs, no matter how exciting the prospect.

So Lions selection, I think a large part of what is wrong with the Lions tour is the selection policy or lack thereof. It's entirely dependant on the touring Head Coach and his team and like it or not, is also influenced by the size of each home nations union and their fan base. Keeping it short, the Lions needs a clear selection policy separate of the Head Coach and his assistants. Gatland said away form counted for a lot in 2017. That could mean absolutely nothing this tour given the circumstances. He could quite easily say that away form counts for little because there were no crowds, who could argue with that? A form based Lions side consisting of x amount of players from each home union would be a totally different side to the one we'll probably see in a few months time.

Dreadful stuff.

Pompous and archaic? What's the altenative - soulless and corporate? And what competition devised in the professional era has stood the test of time? If you dislike something you had better be sure you have something superior to replace it otherwise it sounds like 'deconstruction' for the sake of it.

If the Lions has a problem with meaning then pretending that international rugby where the national teams are stuffed full of imports is somehow a 'purer' form of rugby is hard to justify.

Removing the power and control of those in positions of authority, in spite of their track record of overachievement, on the basis that you don't like something about it (i.e. it hurts your feelings) sounds an awful lot like the aforementioned 'deconstruction'. We see a lot of it flying around the political world, I'm surprised to see it seep through in to sport to be honest as you can't argue with results. The last thing sport needs is to become a committee led ponzi scheme at every level, where results and responsibility can be shirked.

For all that has been lost by turning sport professional (and a lot has been lost, particularly in rugby) results and winning is clearly a good part of professional sport. If it's not the decision of the head coach, then who or what? X factor style vote? Ian McGeechan picking the team for the next 1000 years?

By and large, when the dust settles, you see that most of the anger over certain players is often unfounded and due to partisan hopes rather than any sense of justified grievance. This is the difference between winners and losers, which is what sport is all about. Lancaster failed to put his foot down in 2015 and had an incoherent sense of style, personnel, and it eventually cost him with the ultimate failure. Eddie Jones has shown England what winning is all about and Gatland did a similar thing with Wales. England fans wanted Cipriani just like Welsh fans wanted Hook for years but in hindsight how much of that was actually fair or justified? The same thing comes to mind with the Russell chat - you win zero points for style, even if that's what we as fans love to see as it gets us all a-flutter in the stands.

I also think it's worth pointing out that many players have made Lions tours based on form. Tom Youngs etc. But some players are just more effective and therefore 'better' rugby players even if we don't like it. Also, forcing a head coach to pick players that don't suit the way he coaches sounds like a recipe for disaster and exactly the kind of nonsense that has inflicted the likes of South Africa in recent years. Keep politics out of sport.

To save whatahitson some effort and time, does anyone want to read his response to every post since his last on the thread?

BamBam wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

BamBam wrote:Scotland absolutely have players good enough to tour, only the most blinkered would say otherwise. Unfortunately their best players are in positions where Blockhead can give the "benefit of the doubt" to others, as has occurred over the past couple of tours

That’s what he’s paid to do, along with Farrell et al. It’s really not worth losing sleep about. Imagine if you were in that job and were told who you had to pick. You’d tell them to f*** off!

Definitely not losing any sleep, I think we're going to end up with more England players than deserve it if purely based on the 6N! If we lose against the Boks as a result of Gatland picking his favourites rather than form players, his selection will be rightly criticised.

The English players are better than most, that's why. What's this whole idea about 'deserving it'? Are fans really reliable judges? Russell 'deserves' to tour because he plays with a glint in his eye and excites us?

The fact is the English have been far and away the best team in the NH since the last time England were the best team in the world. Only the Welsh have come anywhere near, with the Irish lagging behind with their RWC performances yet again. The Scots are a very distant 4th but no one likes hearing that, no one accepted that England were miles ahead and focusing on how to win a WC eventhough that's what this six nations proved.

Daly will be on tour and it's going to rustle some jimmies, that's for sure. But he'll be on tour because he's good enough to be on tour. That's it. Immediate form be damned.

Ate South africa having any warms ups?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I love big Hamish, but it has to be Curry at 7 for me. The guy has everything and he will just grow even further when put on the Lions stage.

Tipuric has quietly been the best back row player this tournament IMO. Everything Wales do well he is at the heart of.

Curry is the ultimate impact sub but could easily end up as the starting 7. Underhill will go as a blinside under Gatland, Tipuric as a 7. If that isn't the three back row options in at least one of the tests then I think it'll be because of injury. Beirne will play a part at some point but it's hard to say where.

I'm calling it now as well: Hamish Watson will play 8 in at least one of the midweek games. If Faletau, Stander, or Vunipola gets injured before the tour then Watson is a guarantee to go as he will be a better carrying option than the next best 8 (who would that even be? Nathan Hughes? Moriarty?). I think Watson is just as likely to play 8 as he is 7. I'm not sure he'll make a test side under Gatland though.

I reckon Curry and Underhill, if the latter is fit, will be the flankers with Tipuric on the bench. Or Tipuric to start with Curry on the bench. If Underhill doesn't make it then...who knows. It could easily be Watson coming in, or Stander. A lot depends on Billy Vunipola who, given his injuries last time around, I cannot see Gatland just discarding before he's had a chance to work with him.

TJ wrote:Lets have a look at the Stats off the 6N stats page

Curry 217 m in 41 carries,  63 tackles made, 11 missed, turnovers won 1, conceded 6, broken tackles 8

Tips  112 m in 22 carries,  86 tackles made, 2 missed turnovers won 3, conceded 1. broken tackles 1

the Mish  321 m in 67 carries. 55 tackles made. missed none.  turnovers made 4. conceded 3.  broken tackles 14
https://www.sixnationsrugby.com/statistics/

Good stats, it shows how different each 7 plays for each team.

Which is also why stats in isolation are misleading. Each team plays differently. Each player has a different task i.e. Stander and Vunipola carrying, whereas Watson problably carries more than the Scottish 8 as he's better at it.

That to me just reaffirms that Watson is probably going to end up playing number 8 for the Lions. Dark horse as a test 8? Stranger things have happened.

No 7&1/2 wrote:In other good news John Inverdale has retired.

Good news? Senseless comment.

As it happens and I'm probably in a minority but I always thought John Inverdale was fine and I think it's a shame he's going.

123456789. wrote:Is Curry, Tipuric or Watson rugby's equivalent of Scholes, Lampard or Gerrard? There is the dangerous alternative that are all very good and it entirely depends how the Lions want to go about playing South Africa. The general consensus seems to be that England's decision to go with two opensides left them underpowered and South Africa took advantage.

The best back-row in terms of both metres made and carries (statistically) would be: 6. Stander 7. Watson 8. Faletau.

The best in terms of turnovers would be: 6. Beirne 7. Ritchie 8. Stander (Watson comes in fourth in terms of back-rows, if you wanted to be sneaky and class Beirne as a second-row then it'd be 6. Ritchie 7. Watson 8. Stander)

In terms of tackles made: 6. Navidi 7. Tipuric 8. Faletau

In terms of dominant tackles: 6. Curry 7. Watson 8. Navidi

In terms of penalties conceded: 6. Beirne 7. Curry 8. Ritchie

In terms of passes made: 6. Beirne 7. Tipuric 8. Stander

In terms of handling errors: 6. Beirne 7. Fagerson 8. Faletau (Mish made one handling error for 67 carries)


Apologies for the stats overload. Although, it increasingly seems to me that a back-row of Stander, Watson and Faletau may be the perfect balance of athleticism, breakdown impact and carrying. With Curry on the bench to turn the screw at the breakdown toward the end of the game, maybe even Curry and Tipuric if they go for a 6-2 split. Add Itoje and Beirne together in the second-row and it's beginning to look an athletic pack that would dominate the breakdown. In fact, I would be perfectly happy if the Lions turned up with a pack of 1. Jones 2. Owens 3. Furlong 4. Beirne 5. Itoje 6. Stander 7. Watson 8 Faletau. If Warren Gatland reads this he just ought to DM me and we can sort a proper moneyball approach to this whole tour.

Great comment and great analogy.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ate South africa having any warms ups?

There is a possible test vs USA

Moriarty?! Moriarty isn’t even the best 8 at the Dragons!

Hazel Sapling wrote:In terms of advanced stats, the NBA has started looking at things like Total Rebound Percentage and there is an argument to ask what proportion of a teams tackles or carries are made by J Gray for Scotland vs Itoje for England is maybe more useful than saying J Gray made 22 tackles and Itoje 10. It won't adjust entirely for different defensive systems but it might reflect the game better.

In the 2 Six Nations (8 competitive games, ignore Italy) since the RWC Scotland won 4 games, England 4, Ireland 4 and Wales 3. France are top performers with 5. Include the ANC and England and Ireland move up the table whilst Scotland and Wales stay where they are.

There's also something to be said for having an eye for the game. Gatland has a pretty good track record of his judgement being right, even if he's on the conservative side of things. Too conservative and you end up like Schmidt, micromanaging and suffocating the team. Too loose and it's like Scotland under Townsend, undermined by the star man wanting three beers.

The moneyball approach in sport has justified a lot of iPad clinging mediocre professionals. Sometimes it's just a case of accepting what's right in front of your eyes.

I hate to say it as well but I've got a pretty good track record when it comes to Lions tours and judging players...

whatahitson wrote:

I hate to say it as well but I've got a pretty good track record when it comes to Lions tours and judging players...

Ah that must be available to see on another site. After all you've only been on here since late 2019 at the very earliest

Unless

BamBam wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

I hate to say it as well but I've got a pretty good track record when it comes to Lions tours and judging players...

Ah that must be available to see on another site. After all you've only been on here since late 2019 at the very earliest

Unless

Friends, loved ones, and my cohort of fans are the only ones privvy to this track record. You'll just have to take my word for it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I would like a freshened set from my point of view. Would be nice for Edwards. On a slightly selfish view it would be interesting should Jones step down to get a closer look at Roberston in an international set up. His rep is excellent but you never know,

Robertson sees it as a stepping stone to the ABs job. The most likely situation is he becomes Gatland's assistant after Foster and takes over after 4 years.

England should go for Pat Lam in 2024. He has what Eddie Jones has and would be a better pick than Baxter. Jones is going nowhere until after the world cup.

mountain man wrote:As it happens and I'm probably in a minority but I always thought John Inverdale was fine and I think it's a shame he's going.

I just don't know why the producers execs whoever came up with the BBC team and have stuck with them for so long. Names over interesting analysis or talent for me. The rumour of Warburton stepping in is good. Really impressed with him overall and should know the questions he needs to ask.

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ate South africa having any warms ups?

There is a possible test vs USA

Ta. Such a long wait between tests, possibility of no crowd or a vastly reduced one certainly puts up more questions than normal.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:As it happens and I'm probably in a minority but I always thought John Inverdale was fine and I think it's a shame he's going.

I just don't know why the producers execs whoever came up with the BBC team and have stuck with them for so long. Names over interesting analysis or talent for me. The rumour of Warburton stepping in is good. Really impressed with him overall and should know the questions he needs to ask.

Warburton is not a journalist. He is not going to be the anchor for the BBC's rugby broadcasts. That will be Gabby Logan and someone else will be promoted to join her.

Nice to you to celebrate someone's retirement though. That was the good news you were referring to, of course?

whatahitson wrote:

BamBam wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

I hate to say it as well but I've got a pretty good track record when it comes to Lions tours and judging players...

Ah that must be available to see on another site. After all you've only been on here since late 2019 at the very earliest

Unless

Friends, loved ones, and my cohort of fans are the only ones privvy to this track record. You'll just have to take my word for it.

So no one then. That’s that cleared up

BamBam wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

BamBam wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

I hate to say it as well but I've got a pretty good track record when it comes to Lions tours and judging players...

Ah that must be available to see on another site. After all you've only been on here since late 2019 at the very earliest

Unless

Friends, loved ones, and my cohort of fans are the only ones privvy to this track record. You'll just have to take my word for it.

So no one then. That’s that cleared up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Old Man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ate South africa having any warms ups?

There is a possible test vs USA

Ta. Such a long wait between tests, possibility of no crowd or a vastly reduced one certainly puts up more questions than normal.

There are rumours that me might have 50% filled stadiums for the tour, but not confirmed

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:As it happens and I'm probably in a minority but I always thought John Inverdale was fine and I think it's a shame he's going.

I just don't know why the producers execs whoever came up with the BBC team and have stuck with them for so long. Names over interesting analysis or talent for me. The rumour of Warburton stepping in is good. Really impressed with him overall and should know the questions he needs to ask.

I’d try to bring in a former ref like Nigel O. who would add a perspective not normally heard from commentators and former players. He would certainly be entertaining. Nick Mullins, Austin Healey, Owens calling matches together.

By the way, I didn’t mind Inverdale either.

whatahitson wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I would like a freshened set from my point of view. Would be nice for Edwards. On a slightly selfish view it would be interesting should Jones step down to get a closer look at Roberston in an international set up. His rep is excellent but you never know,

Robertson sees it as a stepping stone to the ABs job. The most likely situation is he becomes Gatland's assistant after Foster and takes over after 4 years.

England should go for Pat Lam in 2024. He has what Eddie Jones has and would be a better pick than Baxter. Jones is going nowhere until after the world cup.

I doubt Gatland will get the AB job after Foster. He's had a pretty awful time in charge of the Chiefs so far. I can't see the NZ public getting behind him unless there's a dramatic upturn in Chiefs performances next year. Razor I imagine would be a far more popular option but as he's not been either an assistant or an international coach elsewhere might count against him. He is a serial winner with a team playing excellent rugby. I was surprised he wasn't given a part time role with the ABs to help him transition in though if you were Foster that's the last thing you'd want.

Lam took some time to get Bristol playing how he wants and it's a pretty loose style. I'm not sure that it would fit well at international level nor that England fans and the media would be happy with the lengthy transition period whilst the team got up to speed. We saw with Pivac how quickly the media turn on a new coach and how quickly some called for him to leave early rather than give him chance. Obviously he's done the business now but would Lam get away with similar? I don't know the English media are pretty rabid as seen by how they are going after the English Coach with the best win percentage and fresh from a RWC final appearance.

whatahitson wrote:

BamBam wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

BamBam wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

I hate to say it as well but I've got a pretty good track record when it comes to Lions tours and judging players...

Ah that must be available to see on another site. After all you've only been on here since late 2019 at the very earliest

Unless

Friends, loved ones, and my cohort of fans are the only ones privvy to this track record. You'll just have to take my word for it.

So no one then. That’s that cleared up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

So your current act is a defence mechanism for multiple personalities?

whatahitson wrote:

TJ wrote:Lets have a look at the Stats off the 6N stats page

Curry 217 m in 41 carries,  63 tackles made, 11 missed, turnovers won 1, conceded 6, broken tackles 8

Tips  112 m in 22 carries,  86 tackles made, 2 missed turnovers won 3, conceded 1. broken tackles 1

the Mish  321 m in 67 carries. 55 tackles made. missed none.  turnovers made 4. conceded 3.  broken tackles 14
https://www.sixnationsrugby.com/statistics/

Good stats, it shows how different each 7 plays for each team.

Which is also why stats in isolation are misleading. Each team plays differently. Each player has a different task i.e. Stander and Vunipola carrying, whereas Watson problably carries more than the Scottish 8 as he's better at it.

That to me just reaffirms that Watson is probably going to end up playing number 8 for the Lions. Dark horse as a test 8? Stranger things have happened.

Stats in isolation can be misleading I agree.
However this proves (in my opinion) how Eddie Jones takes a potentially great player and ruins him all for the sake of fitting into his "system". The 2021 Curry is much worse than the 2019 version (six months before going into the WC), admittedly he was only 21 but he was 6' 1", 17st lean, good distribution, fast, played with a smile but now.... same height but close onto 17.5st, just a snarling, "on the edge" in yer face flanker who has lost his way.
If you take Tipuric as an example in the WC S-F against SA, his rugby brain highlighted the difference between his play (recycling, quick at distribution, varying his play, not getting into an arm wrestle) and on top of his opponent, where Curry's "all out war, gung-ho, dominant tackles, niggly" and came out very much second best. Like most of Eddie's forwards Curry looks great in a forward dominated game but poor otherwise.
Fast forward into start of 2021, Tipuric comes back from serious injury, suspiciously not totally match fit going into the 6Ns but trounces Curry in every facet of forward play except one....Dominant Tackles and there lies the rub "Eddies Law" I want yer big enough to strangle the very soul of of the opponent, there is no other option, there is no Plan B
This is not a difference in playing style, this is one player allowed to express his innate intelligence, being allowed to adapt throughout the game and another who is programmed to play one way.
If you process this to the tour then Curry will have to be re-programmed or he'll have to be dumped for a more natural player Watson or a more intelligent player Tipuric
Personally I think the best balance we have is
6 Beirne
7 Tipuric or Watson
8 Faletau

Jones has ruined Tom Curry?

formerly known as Sam wrote:

whatahitson wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I would like a freshened set from my point of view. Would be nice for Edwards. On a slightly selfish view it would be interesting should Jones step down to get a closer look at Roberston in an international set up. His rep is excellent but you never know,

Robertson sees it as a stepping stone to the ABs job. The most likely situation is he becomes Gatland's assistant after Foster and takes over after 4 years.

England should go for Pat Lam in 2024. He has what Eddie Jones has and would be a better pick than Baxter. Jones is going nowhere until after the world cup.

I doubt Gatland will get the AB job after Foster. He's had a pretty awful time in charge of the Chiefs so far. I can't see the NZ public getting behind him unless there's a dramatic upturn in Chiefs performances next year. Razor I imagine would be a far more popular option but as he's not been either an assistant or an international coach elsewhere might count against him. He is a serial winner with a team playing excellent rugby. I was surprised he wasn't given a part time role with the ABs to help him transition in though if you were Foster that's the last thing you'd want.

Lam took some time to get Bristol playing how he wants and it's a pretty loose style. I'm not sure that it would fit well at international level nor that England fans and the media would be happy with the lengthy transition period whilst the team got up to speed. We saw with Pivac how quickly the media turn on a new coach and how quickly some called for him to leave early rather than give him chance. Obviously he's done the business now but would Lam get away with similar? I don't know the English media are pretty rabid as seen by how they are going after the English Coach with the best win percentage and fresh from a RWC final appearance.

If Gatland beats South Africa (world champions) with the Lions I think he is in pole position to take over from Foster. Obviously that's a big ask. Covid didn't help him get reacquainted with NZ rugby at the Chiefs but I assume he will show what he can do in the 2 years he'll have post-Lions.

What I suspect will happen with Foster is they'll potter along doing much the same of what Hansen did. That will then be 8 years of not winning the world cup (IMO England are going to win it in France). If that happens, then it's very hard to see anyone other than Gatland - a third way. Or maybe just a break from what's gone before, which was continuity. Hansen failed fom 2016-2019. The poor, in fact dreadful, form of South Africa and Australia during this time masked the issues with NZ rugby and how they had become too insular and were being left behind/caught up by the chasing pack. The Lions tour was a monumental failure, they should have buried the Lions as they should most years given the talent gap between the respective nations. The world cup wasn't a surprise, NZ were there for the taking and I think the Boks would have choked them in the final anyway. After a golden, perhaps even best ever period from 2011-2015, NZ have flattered to deceive. They've now lost to the Pumas for the first time as well.

If they don't win the world cup in 2023 then Foster is gone as does the whole coaching set up/system. That's where I think they will turn to Gatland the pragmatist. They'll give him four years to try to win something with Robertson under his wing to take over if it fails in the way Hansen was there under Henry. If Gatland does well maybe he gets 8 years, maybe not. It's hard to say beyond 2023 really but I think if Foster fails, then it's Gatland's on a plate.

It's hard to say with Lam. Fans and the media are fickle. Even moreso in the age of social media. I can't see anyone better placed to take over after Jones than Lam. He has chops that McCall and Baxter do not. He's the perfect blend of north and south. If England don't go for him then he'll be courted by the IRFU, WRU, SRU, and possibly even the ARU to become head coach. He has experience in Ireland, NZ, and England. More importantly he's a proven winner. I'd like to see him involved with England before Eddie Jones leaves in the way Baxter has been.

doctor_grey wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:As it happens and I'm probably in a minority but I always thought John Inverdale was fine and I think it's a shame he's going.

I just don't know why the producers execs whoever came up with the BBC team and have stuck with them for so long. Names over interesting analysis or talent for me. The rumour of Warburton stepping in is good. Really impressed with him overall and should know the questions he needs to ask.

I’d try to bring in a former ref like Nigel O. who would add a perspective not normally heard from commentators and former players.  He would certainly be entertaining.  Nick Mullins, Austin Healey, Owens calling matches together.

By the way, I didn’t mind Inverdale either.  

Dont mind a ref brought in as a cameo as they do in football but not sure too much would be added as part of a 2 person co commentator role. It should be up to those commentator s to know and explain the laws or the interpretations anyway. I too like Healey and that is a particular area he has improved on even offering the occasional explanation of a scrum.

Inverdale is as good as Woodward and guscott in their respective roles. 1 down...

I have no idea how they use the referees in soccer football. The last match I actually watched was a long time ago when Man U came back late against Bayern Munich. They use the former referees as cameos in American Football. But I think it would be interesting to try out having a ref as the third person in the booth, as long as they are entertaining and add value. If the experiment fails that’s OK. Can’t be too much worse than what we are currently getting.

Soul Requiem wrote:Jones has ruined Tom Curry?

Yes Eddie develops an "on the edge" mindset......very much like Owen Farrell, great player, bordering on world class when he was 19/20/21, totally different player now. Itoje another one, potentially world class as a late teen, world class 22-24 potential England & Lions captain, fast forward 2021, niggly, on the edge and often caught out as being "over the edge" did he not equal 6Ns record as most penalised player. Slade is another one, totally different mindset with Exeter than he has with England

These players don't evolve from naturally classy club players with coached potential to be world class to "on the edge" internationals
This 6Ns 2021 revealed Pens Conceded Itoje (12), Mako V (9) in the top 2 and England having 4 in the top 12 players with Tom Curry (6) on the flip side Tom Curry tops the Dominant Tackles (7) with Itoje equal 2nd (6).

I might be wrong but I can see only one common denominator = Eddie Jones

Talk about an over reaction based on three matches.

I tend to think the performances of Curry and Itoje during the world cup and since show your opinion to be a fallacy.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ate South africa having any warms ups?

Yeah, they're going to read all of whatahitson's posts since October 2019. Maybe the tour won't go ahead after all?

There's potential for Gatland to throw in a few curveballs. I didn't think we had this much competition in all these positions but it turns out we do.

Part of me also sees Gatland going with the tried and tested in Vunipola x 2, Itoje, Farrell, Daly. It's a "winning team" so he might be reluctant to change it.

It would be good to see a massive back line go out into the tests, containing the likes of Henshaw, North and VDM. Murray and Sexton look set for the jersey, where-as Russell has probably harmed his chances but will still tour. The Irish halfbacks are slow and brittle IMO, but Biggar and Farrell are flaky. With none of the Welsh 9's really staking a claim for the Wales jersey I think it looks a little bit grim at half-back. A lot can change between now and then though

Soul Requiem wrote:Talk about an over reaction based on three matches.

I tend to think the performances of Curry and Itoje during the world cup and since show your opinion to be a fallacy.

Do you mean my opinion? or someone else's opinion

How can an opinion be a fallacy?

I am talking about Itojes and Curry's performance in the World Cup Final (pretty average) and of course their match against NZ (best match England have played in my memory, Itoje & Curry were awesome) and the 5 matches in the 6Ns. We cannot really use the ANC as most coaches used that for development their squads

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ate South africa having any warms ups?

Yeah, they're going to read all of whatahitson's posts since October 2019. Maybe the tour won't go ahead after all?

If they come through they'd be battle hardened.

mikey_dragon wrote:There's potential for Gatland to throw in a few curveballs. I didn't think we had this much competition in all these positions but it turns out we do.

Part of me also sees Gatland going with the tried and tested in Vunipola x 2, Itoje, Farrell, Daly. It's a "winning team" so he might be reluctant to change it.

It would be good to see a massive back line go out into the tests, containing the likes of Henshaw, North and VDM. Murray and Sexton look set for the jersey, where-as Russell has probably harmed his chances but will still tour. The Irish halfbacks are slow and brittle IMO, but Biggar and Farrell are flaky. With none of the Welsh 9's really staking a claim for the Wales jersey I think it looks a little bit grim at half-back. A lot can change between now and then though

Judging by gatlands past selections would anyone be surprised by him picking Mako Vunipola and Jones in the 2nd row? Fear for the prop getting it in the neck on the other side of the scrum. That's probably why Vickery has ruled himself out.