Lions Moans, Groans and Negativity

First topic message reminder :

Despite the fact that I'll argue my point til the cows come home I do always try to remain positive and at least try to argue the merits of 1 player or tactic vs the other but the Lions is really dragging me down. I'll continue to argue the selection of players I think are better in the main thread but I just want to post all my negativity on this to get it a little bit out of my system.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/57007554

First up Matt Dawson; shut up no he doesn't Gatland is a terrible selector. 'I can understand what Gatland and the selectors are thinking with all their choices. It makes sense to me. There is not any player that I think is a risk.' You can tell why he doesn't get very many tv jobs bar larking around with Sue Barker. Ideally from a piece like Dawson's you may think that it's going to be heavy on analysis, suspected game plans etc, no simply I've played for him, he picked me and so I like him and back him without question. I go back to picking Mako Vunipola in Australia and basically allow him to learn on the job. Then watch him walk around knackered as your replacement loosehead looks on from the bench. As a selector surely you can't applaud a guy that could well have been 2 0 down in tests but for a John Terry style slip by Beale before guys left out from the below par pack of the first 2 games come flying to the rescue, take a bow Corbisiero and O'Brien.

I know we're lacking in some areas and that there are a number of areas within the England team for example which are about to swept aside but bloody hell, we're picking players like Jonny Hill, Elliot Daly, Bundee Aki for the Lions. We're plucking Courtney Lawes from no where seemingly to put him on the flank where England have suffered time and time again. They're made a conscious decision to leave out Navidi and Underhill for Lawes; it's madness. Lawes who apparently wasn't in that list of 50 odd players. He wasn't one of the names put forward initially by any Lions coach including Gatland. WTF does that say about his secondment away from his club who he managed to place bottom of the table until he stepped away and they recovered. Lawes himself again via the Beeb: 'I've played no rugby, so I was hoping my previous form would carry me over, so I'm very excited to go in and prove why I've been named in the squad," he told BBC Radio Northampton.

"I didn't get the email that apparently some people got. I had no idea.'

Hang on didn't Gatland say that players have missed out due to fitness and lack of form, give a wave Billy V, get some durability Jonny S. Except when it doesn't matter and you suddenly remember a player you missed while laying about having a beer for the last few months.

Daly, Jesus H. Christ. The proof positive that form has not been considered whatsoever. A terrible full back who makes me pine for Ugo Monye back there. A centre who even at Wasps when defending was optional looked woeful. A winger who may be considered better than Jonny May by a selector who 'tends to get things right'. Argghh.

I shudder to think to the ramshackle way we're going to play. Sounds like try to not give penalties away at the scrum and pressure their lineout. It's going to be messy and some people think England kick the leather off it (badly this year).

I didn't want to bring a positive note into this but I suppose as with previous tours there may be one or two drop outs and a replacement who rectifies the initial mistake. Or he could just ruin Marcus Smith's England integration to ask him to hold some tackle bags.

Keep it down beat guys.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:Nobody knows how the Boks will go, regardless of preparation and gelling the team, the biggest challenge for Nienaber is whether he can get the Boks to believe in the same vision and cause, Rassie had a stretch of five months with his World Cup Squad, Nienaber has mere weeks.

That has to be a factor alright (Nienaber).

Also how big a factor is altitude really? Most South African players do not live or play at altitude either. Is it really that big an advantage? Maybe 10 squad members play in Durban, Pretoria and Joberg, the rest of the 40 or so extended squad play in Cape Town or around the world. Edit: Is Durban at altitude? Maybe not, cant remember.

Reminds me of the story of the Aussie prop on tour in SA in a training camp in Port Elizabeth. When his coach was barking at him for being too slow he replied sincerely I'm really sorry it must be the altitude to which everyone obviously laughed.

It has been a well mooted narrative for many years that altitude make a difference, I suppose acclimatising to it might take a few days, it has been said the thinner air make the lungs burn in the last quarter, but whether it has such an effect I don’t think so. Have never really believed in it.

Durban is at sea level. Chhetahs, Bulls and Lions are at altitude.

Old Man wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:Nobody knows how the Boks will go, regardless of preparation and gelling the team, the biggest challenge for Nienaber is whether he can get the Boks to believe in the same vision and cause, Rassie had a stretch of five months with his World Cup Squad, Nienaber has mere weeks.

That has to be a factor alright (Nienaber).

Also how big a factor is altitude really? Most South African players do not live or play at altitude either. Is it really that big an advantage? Maybe 10 squad members play in Durban, Pretoria and Joberg, the rest of the 40 or so extended squad play in Cape Town or around the world. Edit: Is Durban at altitude? Maybe not, cant remember.

Reminds me of the story of the Aussie prop on tour in SA in a training camp in Port Elizabeth. When his coach was barking at him for being too slow he replied sincerely I'm really sorry it must be the altitude to which everyone obviously laughed.

It has been a well mooted narrative for many years that altitude make a difference, I suppose acclimatising to it might take a few days, it has been said the thinner air make the lungs burn in the last quarter, but whether it has such an effect I don’t think so. Have never really believed in it.

Yeah Id say playing at altitude is tough if you are not used to it, I suppose my argument was more that most South African players probably aren't used to it either so it would be hard for both sides.

Maybe add in the heat too and that's where the Irish and British start to huff and puff.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:Nobody knows how the Boks will go, regardless of preparation and gelling the team, the biggest challenge for Nienaber is whether he can get the Boks to believe in the same vision and cause, Rassie had a stretch of five months with his World Cup Squad, Nienaber has mere weeks.

That has to be a factor alright (Nienaber).

Also how big a factor is altitude really? Most South African players do not live or play at altitude either. Is it really that big an advantage? Maybe 10 squad members play in Durban, Pretoria and Joberg, the rest of the 40 or so extended squad play in Cape Town or around the world. Edit: Is Durban at altitude? Maybe not, cant remember.

Reminds me of the story of the Aussie prop on tour in SA in a training camp in Port Elizabeth. When his coach was barking at him for being too slow he replied sincerely I'm really sorry it must be the altitude to which everyone obviously laughed.

It has been a well mooted narrative for many years that altitude make a difference, I suppose acclimatising to it might take a few days, it has been said the thinner air make the lungs burn in the last quarter, but whether it has such an effect I don’t think so. Have never really believed in it.

Yeah Id say playing at altitude is tough if you are not used to it, I suppose my argument was more that most South African players probably aren't used to it either so it would be hard for both sides.

Maybe add in the heat too and that's where the Irish and British start to huff and puff.

I would suggest the South African players are more used to adapting to the high veldt as they play there regularly.

Old Man wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:Nobody knows how the Boks will go, regardless of preparation and gelling the team, the biggest challenge for Nienaber is whether he can get the Boks to believe in the same vision and cause, Rassie had a stretch of five months with his World Cup Squad, Nienaber has mere weeks.

That has to be a factor alright (Nienaber).

Also how big a factor is altitude really? Most South African players do not live or play at altitude either. Is it really that big an advantage? Maybe 10 squad members play in Durban, Pretoria and Joberg, the rest of the 40 or so extended squad play in Cape Town or around the world. Edit: Is Durban at altitude? Maybe not, cant remember.

Reminds me of the story of the Aussie prop on tour in SA in a training camp in Port Elizabeth. When his coach was barking at him for being too slow he replied sincerely I'm really sorry it must be the altitude to which everyone obviously laughed.

It has been a well mooted narrative for many years that altitude make a difference, I suppose acclimatising to it might take a few days, it has been said the thinner air make the lungs burn in the last quarter, but whether it has such an effect I don’t think so. Have never really believed in it.

You've never really believed that thinner air affects elite performing athletes, or indeed anyone exerting themselves ?

Anyone fancy climbing Everest this weekend.....I have a window.

Old Man wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:Nobody knows how the Boks will go, regardless of preparation and gelling the team, the biggest challenge for Nienaber is whether he can get the Boks to believe in the same vision and cause, Rassie had a stretch of five months with his World Cup Squad, Nienaber has mere weeks.

That has to be a factor alright (Nienaber).

Also how big a factor is altitude really? Most South African players do not live or play at altitude either. Is it really that big an advantage? Maybe 10 squad members play in Durban, Pretoria and Joberg, the rest of the 40 or so extended squad play in Cape Town or around the world. Edit: Is Durban at altitude? Maybe not, cant remember.

Reminds me of the story of the Aussie prop on tour in SA in a training camp in Port Elizabeth. When his coach was barking at him for being too slow he replied sincerely I'm really sorry it must be the altitude to which everyone obviously laughed.

It has been a well mooted narrative for many years that altitude make a difference, I suppose acclimatising to it might take a few days, it has been said the thinner air make the lungs burn in the last quarter, but whether it has such an effect I don’t think so. Have never really believed in it.

Yeah Id say playing at altitude is tough if you are not used to it, I suppose my argument was more that most South African players probably aren't used to it either so it would be hard for both sides.

Maybe add in the heat too and that's where the Irish and British start to huff and puff.

I would suggest the South African players are more used to adapting to the high veldt as they play there regularly.

Its either one or the other...SA players 'are more used to adapting to the 'high veldt'' or you've never believed it makes a difference......

Pie wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:Nobody knows how the Boks will go, regardless of preparation and gelling the team, the biggest challenge for Nienaber is whether he can get the Boks to believe in the same vision and cause, Rassie had a stretch of five months with his World Cup Squad, Nienaber has mere weeks.

That has to be a factor alright (Nienaber).

Also how big a factor is altitude really? Most South African players do not live or play at altitude either. Is it really that big an advantage? Maybe 10 squad members play in Durban, Pretoria and Joberg, the rest of the 40 or so extended squad play in Cape Town or around the world. Edit: Is Durban at altitude? Maybe not, cant remember.

Reminds me of the story of the Aussie prop on tour in SA in a training camp in Port Elizabeth. When his coach was barking at him for being too slow he replied sincerely I'm really sorry it must be the altitude to which everyone obviously laughed.

It has been a well mooted narrative for many years that altitude make a difference, I suppose acclimatising to it might take a few days, it has been said the thinner air make the lungs burn in the last quarter, but whether it has such an effect I don’t think so. Have never really believed in it.

You've never really believed that thinner air affects elite performing athletes, or indeed anyone exerting themselves ?

Anyone fancy climbing Everest this weekend.....I have a window.

Everest is around six times higher than the high veldt

Pie wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:Nobody knows how the Boks will go, regardless of preparation and gelling the team, the biggest challenge for Nienaber is whether he can get the Boks to believe in the same vision and cause, Rassie had a stretch of five months with his World Cup Squad, Nienaber has mere weeks.

That has to be a factor alright (Nienaber).

Also how big a factor is altitude really? Most South African players do not live or play at altitude either. Is it really that big an advantage? Maybe 10 squad members play in Durban, Pretoria and Joberg, the rest of the 40 or so extended squad play in Cape Town or around the world. Edit: Is Durban at altitude? Maybe not, cant remember.

Reminds me of the story of the Aussie prop on tour in SA in a training camp in Port Elizabeth. When his coach was barking at him for being too slow he replied sincerely I'm really sorry it must be the altitude to which everyone obviously laughed.

It has been a well mooted narrative for many years that altitude make a difference, I suppose acclimatising to it might take a few days, it has been said the thinner air make the lungs burn in the last quarter, but whether it has such an effect I don’t think so. Have never really believed in it.

Yeah Id say playing at altitude is tough if you are not used to it, I suppose my argument was more that most South African players probably aren't used to it either so it would be hard for both sides.

Maybe add in the heat too and that's where the Irish and British start to huff and puff.

I would suggest the South African players are more used to adapting to the high veldt as they play there regularly.

Its either one or the other...SA players 'are more used to adapting to the 'high veldt'' or you've never believed it makes a difference......

If it does make a difference, then yes, due to the fact that they play there regularly, it would make a difference to them, perhaps you should not take everything so literally, except perhaps the fact that Mount Everest is 7000 meters higher above sea level than the HighVeldt.

Altitude does make a difference, but not to the extremes some people make it out to be when still not more than a mile high.  And, if I recall, Johannesburg is about 1 mile up, Pretoria and Bloemfontein a bit less.  As altitude increases the % oxygen in the air decreases.  The body has to adapt to be able to more efficiently pull oxygen out of the air.  People born at altitude or come from people who lived at altitude adapt easier when going back and forth.  A loose rule of thumb is about one day for each 1000 ft. to 1500 ft. of altitude (this rule is out the window when going above 10000 ft.).  Another difference is at altitude, in general, is the lower humidity as elevation increases.  I think it can be harder for some people to get used to exerting in much lower humidity than what they are used to.  Much or nearly all of this can be accounted for with proper handling.  It's funny but it can start on the 12 hour flight to SA because planes usually are pressurised to the equivalent of 7500 ft. elevation and are about 10% humidity.

Elevation does not seem to be much of an issue in America with sports teams going to Denver, which is called the Mile High City (assuming the name has nothing to due with weed being legal there).  But visiting teams don't stay more than a few days.  

I think it does make a difference with some people, not much in others, and people just have to adapt as fast as possible.  Hydrate like mad, train properly, suck it up and play.

From the last tour England had I can't say I noticed an effect physically but the conditions are very different for kicking. We were outdone there consistently kicking too far.

I think you must be right. Ball should travel longer and not curl in as much. I remember reading about baseball in Denver compared to other teams which are mostly at or near sea level. I think, and this might be wrong, the baseballs could theoretically travel up to 10% further.

I don't have any personal perspective on this but I do recall Ireland in 2016 being in control in their 2nd Test vs SA in Johannesburg, having already won the 1st Test and on the brink of a historic series win. Believe it was 19-3 to Ireland after about 55-60 minutes but SA ran out 32-26 winners after the Irish lads collapsed in the last 20 minutes. They did look visibly exhausted and were falling off simple tackles. I've no reason to doubt what's been said about the acclimatisation period other than maybe it needs to be a bit longer to prepare for competitive rugby. I hear what you're saying about Denver but American sports aren't that aerobic with the exception of basketball - the fact it's indoors shouldn't make any difference though should it

In football the most well known example was when Argentina travelled to La Paz, Bolivia in 2009 for an important WC qualifier. Worth noting the Argentinian coach at the time was none other than Diego Maradona who reportedly paid very little attention to what the sports scientists were saying . Bolivia incredibly won 6-1 against Messi et al and Diego's Argentina eventually qualified by the skin of their teeth. However La Paz is several thousand feet high and I believe FIFA stipulate you're not allowed to host international matches there any more

La Paz is 12000 ft. high!  More than twice as high as Denver or Johannesburg.  That is up there where there is literally almost half the % Oxygen as sea level.
It can take forever to adjust, if at all, and I can understand why matches can't be scheduled there any more.  On the other hand, I recall the American soccer team has gone into Mexico City (7000 ft. and highly polluted as well) and won.   For whatever it's worth.

I think at more civilised altitudes, it is still a matter of adjustment and not everyone can pull it off the same  Plus adjusting to staying in a lower humidity environment I still think is part of it which has to be factored into the process.  Medical science keeps moving the needle regarding activity at altitude.  There are better methods than even 10 years ago to help people adapt.    

I think you make a great point about Rugby and the aerobic, or really both the aerobic and anaerobic nature of it.  I doubt there is another sport that combines both aspects of physicality or athletic performance as Rugby does.  And maybe that makes it more difficult.  But other teams have gone into the Republic at altitude and won.  Not frequently, but I think that is mostly down to the Boks being the Boks.

There's a reason why Sherpas on Everest are, predominantly, all local folk

Stats for Home nations vs SA at the highveld and at coastal venues.

England highveld played 11, won 3, lost 8
England coastal played 5, won 1, drawn 1, lost 3

Wales highveld, played 7, lost 7
Wales Coastal , played 3, lost 3

Ireland Highveld, played 4, lost 4
Ireland Coastal, played 6, lost 5, won 1

Scotland Highveldt, played 2, lost 2
Scotland Coastal, Played 5, lost 5

Lions stats

Lions highveld, played 17, loss 9, won 5, drawn 3
Lions Coastal, played 22, loss 13, won 6, drawn, 3

England highveld played 11, won 3, lost 8

What do England know that the others don't about playing SA in SA? They are the only country to have won on highveld  and won 3 at that, of the others only Ireland have actually won a game anywhere in SA.

It can't be due to it all being down to the odd times when England have been a dormant force, they have always been erratic and their wins are scattered over 20 years.

Since the start of this millennium, England have played 10 game against the Boks in SA, won 2, drawn 1 and lost 7 but 4 games came within one score. Three of them with Bok wins, 1 with England win. So England have pushed the Boks close in 5 games. Apart from the 2007 series where we got stuffed twice we have always managed to push them close.

Undoubtedly, there were better sides in the home countries than England over these periods, so why have England had comparative success? The only thing I can think of is that England have traditionally had a big rugged pack that could usually get close to the Bok pack.

I think part of it is that England plays SA relatively more regular in SA than the other nations, they have playd a similar number lf matches in SA as the others put together.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:England highveld played 11, won 3, lost 8

What do England know that the others don't about playing SA in SA? They are the only country to have won on highveld  and won 3 at that, of the others only Ireland have actually won a game anywhere in SA.

It can't be due to it all being down to the odd times when England have been a dormant force, they have always been erratic and their wins are scattered over 20 years.

Since the start of this millennium, England have played 10 game against the Boks in SA, won 2, drawn 1 and lost 7 but 4 games came within one score. Three of them with Bok wins, 1 with England win. So England have pushed the Boks close in 5 games. Apart from the 2007 series where we got stuffed twice we have always managed to push them close.

Undoubtedly, there were better sides in the home countries than England over these periods, so why have England had comparative success? The only thing I can think of is that England have traditionally had a big rugged pack that could usually get close to the Bok pack.

Pack size has a lot to do with it. Generally over the last few years England has done the best against SH teams despite their mixed performances in Europe (except for when Ireland were flying particularly high).

All I know is the last England fly half to be part of a team that won in SA was Danny Cipriani. Where, oh where, is Danny when we need him? Our peoples are calling....

Old Man wrote:

Pie wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:Nobody knows how the Boks will go, regardless of preparation and gelling the team, the biggest challenge for Nienaber is whether he can get the Boks to believe in the same vision and cause, Rassie had a stretch of five months with his World Cup Squad, Nienaber has mere weeks.

That has to be a factor alright (Nienaber).

Also how big a factor is altitude really? Most South African players do not live or play at altitude either. Is it really that big an advantage? Maybe 10 squad members play in Durban, Pretoria and Joberg, the rest of the 40 or so extended squad play in Cape Town or around the world. Edit: Is Durban at altitude? Maybe not, cant remember.

Reminds me of the story of the Aussie prop on tour in SA in a training camp in Port Elizabeth. When his coach was barking at him for being too slow he replied sincerely I'm really sorry it must be the altitude to which everyone obviously laughed.

It has been a well mooted narrative for many years that altitude make a difference, I suppose acclimatising to it might take a few days, it has been said the thinner air make the lungs burn in the last quarter, but whether it has such an effect I don’t think so. Have never really believed in it.

Yeah Id say playing at altitude is tough if you are not used to it, I suppose my argument was more that most South African players probably aren't used to it either so it would be hard for both sides.

Maybe add in the heat too and that's where the Irish and British start to huff and puff.

I would suggest the South African players are more used to adapting to the high veldt as they play there regularly.

Its either one or the other...SA players 'are more used to adapting to the 'high veldt'' or you've never believed it makes a difference......

If it does make a difference, then yes, due to the fact that they play there regularly, it would make a difference to them, perhaps you should not take everything so literally, except perhaps the fact that Mount Everest is 7000 meters higher above sea level than the HighVeldt.

Ok. I literally thought you meant that the fact they play there more regularly makes a difference because that is, literally, what you wrote..... but then literally you stated that you've never really believed it made a difference. Literally.

Pie wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Pie wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:Nobody knows how the Boks will go, regardless of preparation and gelling the team, the biggest challenge for Nienaber is whether he can get the Boks to believe in the same vision and cause, Rassie had a stretch of five months with his World Cup Squad, Nienaber has mere weeks.

That has to be a factor alright (Nienaber).

Also how big a factor is altitude really? Most South African players do not live or play at altitude either. Is it really that big an advantage? Maybe 10 squad members play in Durban, Pretoria and Joberg, the rest of the 40 or so extended squad play in Cape Town or around the world. Edit: Is Durban at altitude? Maybe not, cant remember.

Reminds me of the story of the Aussie prop on tour in SA in a training camp in Port Elizabeth. When his coach was barking at him for being too slow he replied sincerely I'm really sorry it must be the altitude to which everyone obviously laughed.

It has been a well mooted narrative for many years that altitude make a difference, I suppose acclimatising to it might take a few days, it has been said the thinner air make the lungs burn in the last quarter, but whether it has such an effect I don’t think so. Have never really believed in it.

Yeah Id say playing at altitude is tough if you are not used to it, I suppose my argument was more that most South African players probably aren't used to it either so it would be hard for both sides.

Maybe add in the heat too and that's where the Irish and British start to huff and puff.

I would suggest the South African players are more used to adapting to the high veldt as they play there regularly.

Its either one or the other...SA players 'are more used to adapting to the 'high veldt'' or you've never believed it makes a difference......

If it does make a difference, then yes, due to the fact that they play there regularly, it would make a difference to them, perhaps you should not take everything so literally, except perhaps the fact that Mount Everest is 7000 meters higher above sea level than the HighVeldt.

Ok. I literally thought you meant that the fact they  play there more regularly makes a difference because that is, literally, what you wrote..... but then literally you stated that you've never really believed it made a difference. Literally.

OK, literally, I pay no heed to it, but as I literally said, it is mooted that it makes a difference, hence, literally, if it does make a difference, then the SA players who literally play the highveldt , literally, more often, would then by virtue of that have an advantage.

mikey_dragon wrote:Curry has to be on the bench as back-row cover, he’s good at the breakdown.

Collapse - Pat Lam will be the next Wales coach, and if he’s good enough (probably) the next Lions coach, so we’ll probably keep seeing a Welsh captain .

Why do you think that Pat Lam would settle to be the next Wales coach?  He played for Newcatsle and coaches Bristol - far more likely to be the next England coach for me - why take on a small job when you can take on a big job!  Best no 8 /captain I ever saw.  If England have any sense (big question mark) he would be Englands next coach.

Lam will go to the highest bidder, can Wales or England even afford him? He's the highest paid DOR/Coach in the game.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Lam will go to the highest bidder, can Wales or England even afford him? He's the highest paid DOR/Coach in the game.

If Lam is already at the highest bidder, where else can he go?

doctor_grey wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Lam will go to the highest bidder, can Wales or England even afford him? He's the highest paid DOR/Coach in the game.

If Lam is already at the highest bidder, where else can he go?

It's got be Int rugby, but all nations would need to up what they're paying. Checking the figures....England seem the most realistic, although not sure if these are true.

1. Lam 800k
2. Jones 750k
3. Farrell 600k
4. Privac 450k
5. Foster 400k
6. Mitchell 350k

Old Man wrote:

Pie wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:Nobody knows how the Boks will go, regardless of preparation and gelling the team, the biggest challenge for Nienaber is whether he can get the Boks to believe in the same vision and cause, Rassie had a stretch of five months with his World Cup Squad, Nienaber has mere weeks.

That has to be a factor alright (Nienaber).

Also how big a factor is altitude really? Most South African players do not live or play at altitude either. Is it really that big an advantage? Maybe 10 squad members play in Durban, Pretoria and Joberg, the rest of the 40 or so extended squad play in Cape Town or around the world. Edit: Is Durban at altitude? Maybe not, cant remember.

Reminds me of the story of the Aussie prop on tour in SA in a training camp in Port Elizabeth. When his coach was barking at him for being too slow he replied sincerely I'm really sorry it must be the altitude to which everyone obviously laughed.

It has been a well mooted narrative for many years that altitude make a difference, I suppose acclimatising to it might take a few days, it has been said the thinner air make the lungs burn in the last quarter, but whether it has such an effect I don’t think so. Have never really believed in it.

You've never really believed that thinner air affects elite performing athletes, or indeed anyone exerting themselves ?

Anyone fancy climbing Everest this weekend.....I have a window.

Everest is around six times higher than the high veldt

They really should call that veldt place something else, then.

George Carlin wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Pie wrote:

Old Man wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Old Man wrote:Nobody knows how the Boks will go, regardless of preparation and gelling the team, the biggest challenge for Nienaber is whether he can get the Boks to believe in the same vision and cause, Rassie had a stretch of five months with his World Cup Squad, Nienaber has mere weeks.

That has to be a factor alright (Nienaber).

Also how big a factor is altitude really? Most South African players do not live or play at altitude either. Is it really that big an advantage? Maybe 10 squad members play in Durban, Pretoria and Joberg, the rest of the 40 or so extended squad play in Cape Town or around the world. Edit: Is Durban at altitude? Maybe not, cant remember.

Reminds me of the story of the Aussie prop on tour in SA in a training camp in Port Elizabeth. When his coach was barking at him for being too slow he replied sincerely I'm really sorry it must be the altitude to which everyone obviously laughed.

It has been a well mooted narrative for many years that altitude make a difference, I suppose acclimatising to it might take a few days, it has been said the thinner air make the lungs burn in the last quarter, but whether it has such an effect I don’t think so. Have never really believed in it.

You've never really believed that thinner air affects elite performing athletes, or indeed anyone exerting themselves ?

Anyone fancy climbing Everest this weekend.....I have a window.

Everest is around six times higher than the high veldt

They really should call that veldt place something else, then.

Yeah, can be misleading, but we already have the lowveldt, which is the Mpumulanga and Limpopo area, thus the highveldt was all that was left.

On the negativity front, all the talk coming out of South Africa is of a third wave. While there's a lot of momentum for the tour to take place, it's quite possible the schedule gets changed, possibly with fewer matches.

I see there are also some rumblings over the French tour to Australia. The quarantine procedures are quite onerous, and the costs are high. As some top players won't be available anyway, there are questions about whether the whole exercise is worth it.

Yep, everything will be played and hosted in a bubble, all players will be vaccinated, that includes the Provincial teams playing the Lions as well.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Lam will go to the highest bidder, can Wales or England even afford him? He's the highest paid DOR/Coach in the game.

If Lam is already at the highest bidder, where else can he go?

It's got be Int rugby, but all nations would need to up what they're paying. Checking the figures....England seem the most realistic, although not sure if these are true.

1. Lam 800k
2. Jones 750k
3. Farrell 600k
4. Privac 450k
5. Foster 400k
6. Mitchell 350k

England have to go for Baxter next otherwise it makes a mockery of club coaching in England. Even if it doesn't work they have to give him the chance to thrive or fail considering the success he's built at club level. England hasn't given up on its rugby systems in the way the other Home Nations have and it might mean they have to go through 4 years of mediocrity again to finally get over the idea of club success = international reward. On the other hand, if Baxter does better than Lancaster then it should be happy days for the RFU. But they have to reward Baxter in some shape or form - if he wants the job of course.

All three tests will now be played in Cape Town so the altitude should not be a problem anymore.

y ddraig goch wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Lam will go to the highest bidder, can Wales or England even afford him? He's the highest paid DOR/Coach in the game.

If Lam is already at the highest bidder, where else can he go?

It's got be Int rugby, but all nations would need to up what they're paying. Checking the figures....England seem the most realistic, although not sure if these are true.

1. Lam 800k
2. Jones 750k
3. Farrell 600k
4. Privac 450k
5. Foster 400k
6. Mitchell 350k

England have to go for Baxter next otherwise it makes a mockery of club coaching in England. Even if it doesn't work they have to give him the chance to thrive or fail considering the success he's built at club level. England hasn't given up on its rugby systems in the way the other Home Nations have and it might mean they have to go through 4 years of mediocrity again to finally get over the idea of club success = international reward. On the other hand, if Baxter does better than Lancaster then it should be happy days for the RFU. But they have to reward Baxter in some shape or form - if he wants the job of course.

That is the thing about Baxter. He's Exeter through and through. There is no guarantee that he'll want to leave or that he'll want to step back from the kind of hands on coaching that he'll be involved with now.

LordDowlais wrote:All three tests will now be played in Cape Town so the altitude should not be a problem anymore.

Huge boost for the Lions. Has it actually been confirmed nothing on twitter.

Does that mean that the club games will still go ahead around SA or will they be moved to Cape Town too?

I reckon it will be a big disadvantage that the first two tests will be reffed by southern hemisphere referees Ben O'Keffee and Nic Berry. SH refs in particular tend to be heavily biased towards SH sides.

Only the final test will be reffed by a french man Mathew Reynal and by that stage it could be 2-0 if the Lions are reffed out of it.

Collapse2005 wrote:Does that mean that the club games will still go ahead around SA or will they be moved to Cape Town too?

Just read this headline from WOL:-

Lions set to play all three Tests in Cape Town
The British and Irish Lions have arrived in Johannesburg ahead of this summer's tour of South Africa, but are reportedly likely to now play all three Tests in Cape Town.

South African president Cyril Ramaphosa has bumped up the country's coronavirus response to "level four" ahead of the tour, introducing measures which will restrict travel and impose a 9pm to 4am curfew.

According to the Daily Mail, a fresh schedule is due to be confirmed on Tuesday, but the Lions are now expected to remain in the north of the country for three tour matches, taking on the Sharks next Wednesday at Ellis Park, before facing the Bulls the following Saturday at Loftus Versfeld in Pretoria.

However, it's believed the whole series is then likely to switch to Cape Town for the final four weeks.

It means the Lions will play South Africa A, the Stormers and the three games with the Springboks there, with Soweto’s FNB Stadium set to sacrifice its two Test matches.

This is what the Mail are saying:-


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-9734907/Lions-rip-tour-plans-THREE-tests-set-staged-Cape-Town.html

lostinwales wrote:

y ddraig goch wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Lam will go to the highest bidder, can Wales or England even afford him? He's the highest paid DOR/Coach in the game.

If Lam is already at the highest bidder, where else can he go?

It's got be Int rugby, but all nations would need to up what they're paying. Checking the figures....England seem the most realistic, although not sure if these are true.

1. Lam 800k
2. Jones 750k
3. Farrell 600k
4. Privac 450k
5. Foster 400k
6. Mitchell 350k

England have to go for Baxter next otherwise it makes a mockery of club coaching in England. Even if it doesn't work they have to give him the chance to thrive or fail considering the success he's built at club level. England hasn't given up on its rugby systems in the way the other Home Nations have and it might mean they have to go through 4 years of mediocrity again to finally get over the idea of club success = international reward. On the other hand, if Baxter does better than Lancaster then it should be happy days for the RFU. But they have to reward Baxter in some shape or form - if he wants the job of course.

That is the thing about Baxter. He's Exeter through and through. There is no guarantee that he'll want to leave or that he'll want to step back from the kind of hands on coaching that he'll be involved with now.

Baxter probably is the best bet. Just seen the list there, wondering where Jamie Joseph ranks?

Lam would have to take a pay cut, otherwise I can’t see a union bidding for him. If he would like to coach at the top level then I guess he has to. 450K is generous for Pivac. I imagine it took Gatland 8 years to get something like that out of the WRU.

Are those figures before or after the Covid related pay cuts?

And does anyone else think that Steve Borthwick is being primed/ mentored for the next England coach? Wasnt that part of the plan a couple of years ago for Jones to do that during this period as well as coach England. Makes perfect sense to me - he has been coaching for near 10 years between Japan and England, gets a head coach club job here and then will move up when Jones goes after the world cup. 3 seasons including the one just gone.

Oh, so just rumour and conjecture then.

Ryan starts for Ireland then.

On some of the popular rugby podcasts, there's been more questioning of why the options to play at in the UK, or in Australia, were so quickly shelved.

We have more information now, so it is easier to weigh the options than it was when the decision had to be taken. I had some sympathy with the Australia option, when it seemed like neither the UK or South Africa would have fans. As it turns out, Australia is concerned about its own COVID-19 situation now, so maybe that wouldn't have worked out.

In the face of such uncertainty, cancellation or postponement were the only options offering full control. Any of the others left us at the mercy of later developments, as we are finding out now.

Rugby Fan wrote:On some of the popular rugby podcasts, there's been more questioning of why the options to play at in the UK, or in Australia, were so quickly shelved.

We have more information now, so it is easier to weigh the options than it was when the decision had to be taken. I had some sympathy with the Australia option, when it seemed like neither the UK or South Africa would have fans. As it turns out, Australia is concerned about its own COVID-19 situation now, so maybe that wouldn't have worked out.

In the face of such uncertainty, cancellation or postponement were the only options offering full control. Any of the others left us at the mercy of later developments, as we are finding out now.

Agree - how could anyone make a truly informed decision when Covid is in control, not us?  The only thing we can do is jabs in arms - with the truly effective vaccines.  I really hope the Lions matches happen.  The new agenda makes good sense considering.  But we really won't know almost until the day of each match.