Warren Gatland announced as Lions coach

by GunsGerms Tue 06 Sep 2016, 11:52 am

First topic message reminder :

Apparently, according to Ian McGeechan anyway Gatland has been given the job again.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 7:56 am

miaow wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
miaow wrote:Form and fitness is such a lazy platitude in and of itself.

Fair enough, I was just going by your thoughts Gatland picked players on rep ( or past performance) seemingly ignoring fitnness and form and was asking will he get away with that against NZ?

He's not ignoring fitness and form though, is he. It's just one part of the whole criteria that a coach considers when selecting a team, and the relative lack of fitness of some players was deemed worth the risk because of the "rep" as you put it of certain players. In the case of Sam Warburton, it worked, as he had an excellent performance in the second Test, and left the pitch due to injury with the Lions leading. In the case of Shane Williams in 2009, it didn't work, as he never really recaptured any amount of form, and was still playing below the standard you'd expect from him, by the time the Tests came round. But that's judging the decision after the fact, which I will say more on later.

Now, your opinion is that there was a better option because they were "fitter". I'm saying that that's a really simplistic way of understanding things, and that if you go back to the long list of reasons I made as to why Gatland would probably want Warburton in his team, and the past experience and knowledge he had that Warburton would be "fit" or match ready without very many matches, then you see why it's just too simplistic to pick the man who's been getting the headlines for the last six months, or someone who's "fitter" than his competition.

Will he get away with it in NZ? If the Lions play well, and are competitive, they could lose all three Tests and come away with good credit. That's the situation they face, the All Blacks are that good. However, this is such a pivotal moment for Gatland, due to the fact that I think he is treating this as a means to eventually land the All Blacks job himself, as you've probably read I've written elsewhere. There is no way he is going to be anything other than his own man in this regard, and whilst he doesn't want to receive the same kind of negative reaction as '13 (which means he may well select Hartley as captain, it's plausible) from the British and Irish press, he's not going to deviate too much from what he has done to be successful up until this point. In short: Gatland usually gets it there or thereabouts when it really matters. He's proven it with Wales and the Lions. That means he will select the players he trusts to execute the rugby he thinks best suited to compete with the All Blacks, and history has proven that that means he values "rep" and "past performance" (i.e. the ability to consistently perform at a standard deemed sufficient for him, and his rugby) over whoever has hit the headlines in the weeks and months prior to selection. If anything, he can be quite stubborn in selecting those form players in the place of those who have been quality or even just adequate in the past, even when it seems like they would improve the team (think Cuthbert vs. Liam Williams, Tipuric vs. Lydiate, although it's not quite analagous).

So do I think he will get away with it in NZ? It's not really the right question to be asking. If there's a whitewash and Gatland has selected several (or even just one or two) players who seemingly weren't the "form" players, then no, I expect he will receive quite the criticism. The wise response would be to just say "fair enough, the All Blacks are a supreme team in all of sport, and the Lions did well to compete for as long as they did" if they are truly rolled over due to their opponents' quality. Yet the media wouldn't have that. It'll look for scapegoats, and of course the fans will lap it up, because it's easy to digest. You saw the pre-emptive hysteria from much of the media in the last Tour, only for said hysteria and bile to be made to look quite foolish due to the margin of victory in the final game. If the Lions were to win? Then all this is forgotten, nobody cares a bit if he's selected contrary towhat the supposedly "common sense" consensus of the media and casual rugby fans would like him to. But therein lies the problem. It's judgement of the methodology after the fact. If it is successful more times than it is not, yet there is hysteria and uproar when it doesn't work, what good does that do?

The question isn't whether he will get away with it or not, whatever that means. I assume you're asking me whether he'll escape the ire of rugby fans and the media. As Australia proved, even regardless of the result (which is quite perverse for this sort of flip-flop media support which is usually based on success) he will come under a lot of criticism from certain factions of the Home Nations, and probably NZ too. I don't really care about that, and Gatland probably doesn't either: those who are predisposed to hate him, and waiting with baited breath to criticise him, will do so regardless, or praise him through gritted teeth if he does the remarkable and pulls off a Tour win. The question should be "is this methodology the most likely to allow the Lions to win at least 2 out of 3 Test matches?", and with Gatland at the helm, then yes, evidently it is. You don't select somebody based on their success, only to then hold them to different standards than they have been working under, to demand they mediate the way in which they manage. That's called setting someone up for failure, and I dare say there are large swathes on this board who would rather see that happen than for Gatland to pull off a Tour win using such methods.

You're quite right, I'm sure he was considering fitness and form and deciding it was worth the risk. I go back to unless we're down a few players and pushing the quality of the squad he doesn't need to do this and won't get away with it this time around, and by that I mean pick up a win. You're happy to see players given the chance to play themselves back to form, if we're pretty much at full strength in a particular position this is happening I think it shows a worrying lack of trust to some very good players. You still talk as if these players in the Lions squad are second rate players ('over whoever has hit the headlines in the weeks and months prior to selection'), come off it they're all quality and there really isn't the drop off you see elsewhere. It comes back to not favouring players and judging on what is in front of him.

by wayne Tue 13 Sep 2016, 9:36 am

My main point was that Shane Williams should not have been given all the opportunities he was given because a) he was completely off form and b) he shouldn't have even been on the tour because he told lies to a citing commission which would have destroyed a fellow professional's career and when he was caught out telling lies, he didn't even have the bottle to apologise to him. To add insult to injury on the Lions, Paul O'Connell was tasked with rooming with him as some kind of a protector.

Luke Fitz was in form back then and deserved his starts - nothing to do with nationalism. I'd have been quite happy to see Ugo Monye starting if he was fit enough.
[/quote]

Let me just start by saying I really didn't want to get involved in this topic, as I felt Miaow, was conducting himself very well, but when I saw the regurgitated rubbish being spouted yet again, I couldn't restrain myself any longer, I find it totally appropriate that the THUG who played a significant part in the early retirement of Jonathon Thomas because of his cowardly act in a Munster v Ospreys game, having to be the minder for Shane Williams on a Lions Tour.

by Guest Tue 13 Sep 2016, 10:38 am

Sin é wrote:His points are rubbish - basically, if you don't rate Gatland or think some* of the Welsh players are the bees knees and the cat's pajamas, it all down to nationalism

I hope you appreciate the irony there, accusing me of being overly defensive in favour of Welsh players? Shane Williams shouldn't have gone on the Lions Tour? The current World Player of the Year? How are you not able to understand that it was a reasonable risk to keep playing him out of form (in the hope that he would recapture at least the level of performance that he typically put in, if not his blistering '08 form) because he's such a good player relative to the rest of the options available to the Lions, or indeed in most of the rugby world at that time? The citing incident is frankly irrelevant to the discussion of their merits as players, you're shifting the posts because obviously Shane was a far superior player to Fitzgerald, and you can't justify the point that they should have had equal opportunity other than to disparage Shane to the point whereby he shouldn't have even been on Tour.

Gatland did exactly the same with Tommy Bowe, and it didn't work, but it was a decision made because Bowe was so much better than most of the other Home Nations players during that time. This is what it means to be a coach, to take the brunt of the stick when those risks don't come off. Gatland- regardless of the ire he receives from most people on these boards, regardless of the less than beautiful rugby he inspires in his teams- gets it right more often that not, and that is why he is Lions coach again. I'm trying to explain the methodology he uses to select players, which is not the kind of egalitarian, naive "everybody should be given equal opportunity" assumption that I think most posters and fans would like it to be; that's why he's so divisive, but it's worked for him continuously for the most part. Why would you choose Gatland as Head Coach, only to demand that he uses different methods than the ones he has been successful with? That's just bizarre.

Your inability to see the point I'm trying to make is your own problem, and I think it's quite clearly coloured by the chip on your shoulder. Which is fine, most posters will be parochial and argue for their countries' favour on a forum like this. It's your right to do so, but I'm equally able to then call you out for you claiming that there's a media conspiracy to appease the British audience amongst pundits, that Gatland hates the Irish (probably does) and that is why he so brutally axed BoD from the third Test (conjecture at best, and there are enough reasonable reasons in favour of JD2 to make this seem ridiculous). And I'm able to say that your opinion on the merits of rugby players, and the way the Lions should be coached, is tainted too much by factional nationalism, rather than taking a step back and trying to view it with a less subjective eye. Which is hard, of course, but then if that isn't an aspiration, what are you left with? You just get the partisan bickering that has been the typical output of this forum for the last 3-4 years, of "my country is better than yours" repeated on every single thread. I'm hoping for a discussion that's a bit better than that.

Sin é wrote:I have great time for plenty of Welsh players - for example, AW Jones & Stephen Jones. Faletau deserved his start over Heaslip on the 2013 Lions Tour. I also rated Martyn Williams highly and had no problem with him starting ahead of David Wallace for the last Test in 2009.

"I have plenty of black friends" etc. etc. You can still rate a few players from other countries' whilst being bigoted against that nation- or indeed any nation other than your own, I'm not claiming this is solely an anti-Welsh thing here- for the most part.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 10:46 am

Who do you reckon are the stand out, play them no matter what, players at present then?

by Guest Tue 13 Sep 2016, 10:49 am

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Dear me. Half of this page is unreadable nonsense. This is a rugby forum.

Yeah, exactly. Are you new to 606 or something?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:What do his opinions on nationalism and Irish culture have to do with the Lions?

I made literally no comment on Irish culture whatsoever, in a negative or positive sense. If it were, it would be in the latter, but it's pretty irrelevant to the topic we're discussing, which is the Lions and rugby and the arguments we're having within discussing that.

I dislike blinkered nationalism in most forms, and I wasn't saying the partisanship here was in any way specific to or conditional upon Irish culture. I don't think being so churned up about a topic to the point whereby you're unable to accept the merits of a senior and genuinely world class player over one so new on the scene, and one who (unfortunately) never really went on to do much more in and around the same level after that Tour, is a good way to discuss things.

I'll admit the elaboration went a bit off topic, but it was late, so forgive me. However, the inane analysis of Fitzgerald and Shane was the straw that broke the camel's back in what is a fairly long list of pretty dull and (in my view needlessly) nationalist assessments by the poster on the topic we're discussing.

Not disparaging Irish culture in any way. Not saying Irish or any rugby posters shouldn't be staunch in defending their rugby culture, and culture at large. There's a cut off point though for such views on this forum, and I'll call out when I think someone's just too blinkered to be taken seriously, as is the case here.

I'm happy to discuss any views opposing my own on Gatland's selection methodology, and how it's bad for the team, or whatever else anyone wishes to proposes. To do that, however, people need to rely on more than simply "ah, well, X wasn't given the same chance as Y, and Y didn't play as well as he could have", despite the fact that Y is Shane Williams and X is Luke Fitzgerald. Give me something more than lazy platitudes, and I'll hopefully won't have to call people out as overly nationalist.

by Sin é Tue 13 Sep 2016, 11:00 am

wayne wrote:Let me just start by saying I really didn't want to get involved in this topic, as I felt Miaow, was conducting himself very well, but when I saw the regurgitated rubbish being spouted yet again, I couldn't restrain myself any longer, I find it totally appropriate that the THUG who played a significant part in the early retirement of Jonathon Thomas because of his cowardly act in a Munster v Ospreys game, having to be the minder for Shane Williams on a Lions Tour.

Ah, so nothing changes. Ospreys/Shane Williams make up big fat lie to deflect blame for their own wrong doing without any consideration as to the consequences it will cause those being lied about.

Wayne makes up big fat lie about Paul O'Connell 'played a significant part' in for Jonathan Thomas's retirement.

This is why Shane Williams should have been punished for testifying at a hearing that he heard Marcus Horan use racial abuse at a player - Wayne seems to think its ok to tell lies as there are no consequences.

The similarities don't finish there. Shane Williams / Ospreys were caught out with their lies because the independent judges at the Citing Commission (1 Scot, 2 Englishmen) found that Shane Williams was no where near the incident when it supposedly took place so could not have heard it. (For absolute proof, a mic at the sideline picked up what Horan had said).

Wayne is trying to blame Paul O'Connell for Thomas's retirement (epilepsy seisures as a result of Multiple head traumas). What Wayne has failed to take into account that Paul O'Connell got Thomas in the face with his arm, no where near his brain so had nothing to do with any head traumas that Thomas would have got over the years playing rugby.

by Guest Tue 13 Sep 2016, 11:06 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Who do you reckon are the stand out, play them no matter what, players at present then?

Obviously no one is a "play them no matter what" player. You wouldn't take Gareth Edwards on Tour, for example, despite him being perhaps the best Welsh player of all time, and the closest thing we have to someone who would be considered under that title.

The point is, if Sam Warburton has an injury ravaged season, then it makes it more difficult for him to play, let alone be Tour captain. There is a cut off point for every player, but not every player's cut off point is the same.

As for who those players are now? I'm not really sure. I think Warburton is probably one of the few who would come under the bracket of being one of Gatland's favourites, as a player who will be given more chance and opportunity to start in the Test games than others, because of the history he and Gatland have. Unfortunately, I think Halfpenny could be another one, although having not played for most of last season it does require him to prove himself somewhat for Wales this year before he becomes an integral kicking cog. It may be that Gatland doesn't play it as tight in NZ as he has done, in which case Halfpenny won't be. I think it would be a shame to miss out on the running ability of either Liam Williams or Stuart Hogg on the basis of Halfpenny's boot, but then so be it: I'd be as guilty of everyone else here if I then raged against Gatland for picking Halfpenny only for him to miss the winning kick at goal. My defence of Gatland isn't absolute, however: I can see why he would favour Warburton as I don't think there is an openside flanker better than him available to the Lions. However, I think Halfpenny is pretty limited- if undeniably commited- as a full back, and would (for reasons of excitement rather than the result) prefer to see someone at 15 who can run the ball, and the Lions have at least two who are exceptional at that.

Any other players? I'm not sure. Is there a stand out tight head prop? I think you could include Adam Jones under the bracket of almost undroppable between 2010-2013. You'd play him regardless of if he had to spend the whole of the next week in an ice bath. If Halfpenny isn't fit/selected, then I think someone like Owen Farrell or Dan Biggar becomes integral, but at this stage it's too early to say who would be the kicker if not Halfpenny, simply because we don't know what the backline would be. Billy Vunipola and Faletau would bu up there, but then I think both sort of cancel each other out in that they're irreplacable for their countries, yet together for the Lions, can either be a "play them no matter what" player this far out from the Tour? It may be that when we look back on the Tour in years to come, whoever ends up starting the Tests will be given that title, because they're so good, and because of that competition, but as there's two players who are so neck and neck in terms of who would get selected, I think they cancel each other out, as I said.

Hartley could be one. He's got a decent all round game, and has that confrontational manner that will be needed in NZ, as long as it is controlled. There are also no real stand out candidates challenging him for the hooker berth, so it's almost be default that he sort of comes under the title, which I'm not sure is the best way to qualify someone. Maro Itoje could be one, as could Kruis, as could AWJ, or Jonny Gray...all very good players who could come to be integral to the Tour, but this far out? I'm not sure I have the foresight to predict that. So much depends on who Gatland likes, and that's never a certain thing, or rather it may be that whilst in the past it was a strong contingent of Welsh players, this time it might not be.

In short, I'm not sure. Other than Sam Warburton and Leigh Halfpenny (both of which are very conditional: if Warburton isn't made captain then his chances slip, as do Halfpenny's if he doesn't prove his fitness/his kicking stats drop), I'd say maybe George North? There's no-one quite like North available the the Home Nations, and he could do real damage to the All Blacks. I don't think the favouritism is as widespread and as fixed as you think I'm suggesting it is, which is a good thing. I'm just saying it's there, and it will become more obvious and more entrenched as the season wears on and Gatland's ideas of what he wants to do become clearer to him.

by wayne Tue 13 Sep 2016, 11:09 am

Sin é wrote:
wayne wrote:Let me just start by saying I really didn't want to get involved in this topic, as I felt Miaow, was conducting himself very well, but when I saw the regurgitated rubbish being spouted yet again, I couldn't restrain myself any longer, I find it totally appropriate that the THUG who played a significant part in the early retirement of Jonathon Thomas because of his cowardly act in a Munster v Ospreys game, having to be the minder for Shane Williams on a Lions Tour.

Ah, so nothing changes. Ospreys/Shane Williams make up big fat lie to deflect blame for their own wrong doing without any consideration as to the consequences it will cause those being lied about.

Wayne makes up big fat lie about Paul O'Connell 'played a significant part' in for Jonathan Thomas's retirement.

This is why Shane Williams should have been punished for testifying at a hearing that he heard Marcus Horan use racial abuse at a player - Wayne seems to think its ok to tell lies as there are no consequences.

The similarities don't finish there. Shane Williams / Ospreys were caught out with their lies because the independent judges at the Citing Commission (1 Scot, 2 Englishmen) found that Shane Williams was no where near the incident when it supposedly took place so could not have heard it. (For absolute proof, a mic at the sideline picked up what Horan had said).

Wayne is trying to blame Paul O'Connell for Thomas's retirement (epilepsy seisures as a result of Multiple head traumas). What Wayne has failed to take into account that Paul O'Connell got Thomas in the face with his arm, no where near his brain so had nothing to do with any head traumas that Thomas would have got over the years playing rugby.

Jonathon Thomas took the blow to the Jaw area which obviously caused a head trauma, and yes it was a significant part of him having to retire, and that panel took a deposition off the Munster manager as though he was closer to that incident than Shane. He wasn't.
Why do you think so many people wanted the ERCC taken from Ireland? Which was duly done a couple of years ago, and that is why many also want the HQ of the Guinness League taken from there.

by Guest Tue 13 Sep 2016, 11:11 am

Munchkin wrote:
You appear to be deflecting from the fact that either Williams or the Ospreys lied about Horan, and possibly in an attempt to soften the blow of a citing against one of their players for stamping on Horans head.

It's not deflecting, I just don't think it enters the equation of the merits of the two as rugby players. Frankly, I don't really care. Rugby players do horrendous things to each other on the rugby field, and plenty of them are probably pretty unsavoury people off the field as well. There are players selected for the Lions who have done far worse things, probably unbeknown to most of the public. I don't see how Shane should be character assassinated on the basis of what is still a contestable point, particularly when it is brought up quite literally to deflect from the topic being discussed: the respective merits of two people as rugby players.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find many players, retired or still playing, who would label Shane Williams as someone too unsavoury to play alongside for the Lions, when they are also happy to play with the likes of Mike Phillips etc. The point is, frankly, irrelevant.

by Guest Tue 13 Sep 2016, 11:13 am

No 7&1/2 wrote: I think it shows a worrying lack of trust to some very good players. You still talk as if these players in the Lions squad are second rate players ('over whoever has hit the headlines in the weeks and months prior to selection'), come off it they're all quality and there really isn't the drop off you see elsewhere. It comes back to not favouring players and judging on what is in front of him.

Yeah, absolutely, I agree. They're all quality, but are they all equally able to play the way Gatland wants? I'm not sure Haskell- in spite of his recent good form, and all that surrounds that- is a better openside to play for the Lions against NZ in NZ, playing Gatland's rugby.

You can then say "Gatland isn't the best coach then", and that's fine. But propose a legitimate better option? Propose someone without Gatland's Lions experience who would have something close to a good choice as Gatland did for the Lions committee?

by eirebilly Tue 13 Sep 2016, 11:15 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Who do you reckon are the stand out, play them no matter what, players at present then?

I would say for England. Itoje, Kruis and Hartley
Ireland I would say. Henshaw (maybe Mcloskey or Olding depending
Wales I would say Biggar
Scotland Hogg.

These are my choices.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 11:21 am

miaow wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote: I think it shows a worrying lack of trust to some very good players. You still talk as if these players in the Lions squad are second rate players ('over whoever has hit the headlines in the weeks and months prior to selection'), come off it they're all quality and there really isn't the drop off you see elsewhere. It comes back to not favouring players and judging on what is in front of him.

Yeah, absolutely, I agree. They're all quality, but are they all equally able to play the way Gatland wants? I'm not sure Haskell- in spite of his recent good form, and all that surrounds that- is a better openside to play for the Lions against NZ in NZ, playing Gatland's rugby.

You can then say "Gatland isn't the best coach then", and that's fine. But propose a legitimate better option? Propose someone without Gatland's Lions experience who would have something close to a good choice as Gatland did for the Lions committee?

Well I'd prefer someone not attached to a current national team as I think that muddies the water too much. I don't know who threw their hat in but I quite liked the thought of O'Shea, or someone like Townsend, both now taking up international roles. Any coach who is going in thinking I have to play player x as the other options I have chosen for the Lions well, that's not good enough.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 11:24 am

I don't think I have a stand out player billy. Even for England if I thought any of those 3 were off form or carrying a knock I'd say we have players like Lawes, Launchbury, George able to come and play at a v good level. More options then come in for the Lions.

by Guest Tue 13 Sep 2016, 11:26 am

I think that's reasonable, but Gatland is something of an anomaly in that he has gone on two Tours before. I don't think there will be a coach in the same position when the next coach for the Lions is selected in 2023 (God forbid it's Rob Howley). Would O'Shea really have been able to traverse all the difficulties that the Lions throw up, where Gatland doesn't have to due to his experience of the Tour? I'm not sure. I think it's a big risk to turn someone like Gatland down, particularly when they've been on two "successful", for want of a better word, Tours.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 11:35 am

O'Shea is a good coach for me, so yes I think he would have done well. You are correct though very hard for them not to give it to Gatland once Schmidt and Jones didn't go for it. As I said I would have preferred none of these lot but the committee have gone down another route.

by fa0019 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 11:36 am

Hogg does not suit NZ IMO.

HE will tour if fit but his defence is not good enough for a starting berth. Against NZ your FB needs to make all his tackles and Hogg for me isn't quite there. I fancy Seymour to make a name for himself mind... he's excellent in the air and has a gun dog type mentality which is invaluable.

I would suggest Watson for the 15 berth but to be truthful I think that the Lions to win need to play a territorial game from 9,10,12 and 15 to win. We need excellent kickers in all positions to pin NZ back with tough no nonsense defending.

Its difficult to say which is the best approach to NZ as they haven't lost in yonks but if we look at the teams who do best against them... its those who play controlled territorial games and try to win the hand to ball kicking battle.

Look at SA in the world cup. To be fair to them they almost stole the whole thing... against apparently the best side in history. They were in the match for 80 mins and never let them out of sight and led for 50 mins in fact.
You won't beat them or even stand a chance saying ah we got to beat them our way, beat them at the breakdown lark... because its like trying to roll six 6s with 5 dice.

I'd look at a backline of the following

Murray
Biggar
North
Farrell
_________
Seymour
_________

13 I think there are a number of possibilities but I think if Tuilagi is fit he can be an Ace card. The other is 15... Brown, Watson, Hogg, Halfpenny.. Has Biggar ever played 15?

I know SCW went into NZ with 10-12 combo and it failed but I think there were specific reasons for that. 1 the forwards were beat up losing what 8 lineouts in the first half. 2 JW was clearly unfit and BOD going off after 1 play clearly rocked the side... and after all that his A plan was the closest they got to NZ with all the above failures.

Look at how SA have played NZ when SA have put out competitive sides, look at the 09 tour when they beat NZ 3-0 over the winter. I firmly believe this is the way to play them. It can go wrong... very wrong in fact but I also think its the one shot at ruffling the feathers, strangling the game out of NZ and perhaps even.. dare we say wi.. (nah, I can't even bring myself to suggest such fantasy!!!).

by Sin é Tue 13 Sep 2016, 11:37 am

wayne wrote:
Sin é wrote:
wayne wrote:Let me just start by saying I really didn't want to get involved in this topic, as I felt Miaow, was conducting himself very well, but when I saw the regurgitated rubbish being spouted yet again, I couldn't restrain myself any longer, I find it totally appropriate that the THUG who played a significant part in the early retirement of Jonathon Thomas because of his cowardly act in a Munster v Ospreys game, having to be the minder for Shane Williams on a Lions Tour.

Ah, so nothing changes. Ospreys/Shane Williams make up big fat lie to deflect blame for their own wrong doing without any consideration as to the consequences it will cause those being lied about.

Wayne makes up big fat lie about Paul O'Connell 'played a significant part' in for Jonathan Thomas's retirement.

This is why Shane Williams should have been punished for testifying at a hearing that he heard Marcus Horan use racial abuse at a player - Wayne seems to think its ok to tell lies as there are no consequences.

The similarities don't finish there. Shane Williams / Ospreys were caught out with their lies because the independent judges at the Citing Commission (1 Scot, 2 Englishmen) found that Shane Williams was no where near the incident when it supposedly took place so could not have heard it. (For absolute proof, a mic at the sideline picked up what Horan had said).

Wayne is trying to blame Paul O'Connell for Thomas's retirement (epilepsy seisures as a result of Multiple head traumas). What Wayne has failed to take into account that Paul O'Connell got Thomas in the face with his arm, no where near his brain so had nothing to do with any head traumas that Thomas would have got over the years playing rugby.

Jonathon Thomas took the blow to the Jaw area which obviously caused a head trauma, and yes it was a significant part of him having to retire, and that panel took a deposition off the Munster manager as though he was closer to that incident than Shane. He wasn't.
Why do you think so many people wanted the ERCC taken from Ireland? Which was duly done a couple of years ago, and that is why many also want the HQ of the Guinness League taken from there.

Nope. Your making it up.

Statements written by Jonathan Thomas and Doctor Gareth Jones were presented within the ERC bundle. Thomas stated that he had let the Player go and was jogging back to get back into play when an arm was flung round. He described it as a decent strike to his lip. He did not see it coming and wondered what had happened as it was so fast. He said it was a powerful blow which knocked him to the ground and it took a period of time for him to compose himself and get up as there was a lot of blood. He said that the Player apologised to him after the game and he accepted that. Doctor Jones stated that Thomas sustained a midline full thickness laceration to his upper lip which required careful cleaning before the insertion of six fine sutures. The ERC bundle also contained photographs showing the injury after it had been sutured. It appears from press releases that Thomas will be fit to play in the next match scheduled for the following weekend.

As for Shane Williams/Marcus Horan:

Munster team manager Jerry Holland gave evidence at the hearing, while there were depositions from Munster players Jim Williams, Shaun Payne and John Kelly. The Ospreys alleged Williams had heard the remark but video evidence supported the assertion he wasn't present at the incident.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 11:50 am

fa0019 wrote:Hogg does not suit NZ IMO.

HE will tour if fit but his defence is not good enough for a starting berth. Against NZ your FB needs to make all his tackles and Hogg for me isn't quite there. I fancy Seymour to make a name for himself mind... he's excellent in the air and has a gun dog type mentality which is invaluable.

I would suggest Watson for the 15 berth but to be truthful I think that the Lions to win need to play a territorial game from 9,10,12 and 15 to win. We need excellent kickers in all positions to pin NZ back with tough no nonsense defending.

Its difficult to say which is the best approach to NZ as they haven't lost in yonks but if we look at the teams who do best against them... its those who play controlled territorial games and try to win the hand to ball kicking battle.

Look at SA in the world cup. To be fair to them they almost stole the whole thing... against apparently the best side in history. They were in the match for 80 mins and never let them out of sight and led for 50 mins in fact.
You won't beat them or even stand a chance saying ah we got to beat them our way, beat them at the breakdown lark... because its like trying to roll six 6s with 5 dice.

I'd look at a backline of the following

Murray
Biggar
North
Farrell
_________
Seymour
_________

13 I think there are a number of possibilities but I think if Tuilagi is fit he can be an Ace card. The other is 15... Brown, Watson, Hogg, Halfpenny.. Has Biggar ever played 15?

I know SCW went into NZ with 10-12 combo and it failed but I think there were specific reasons for that. 1 the forwards were beat up losing what 8 lineouts in the first half. 2 JW was clearly unfit and BOD going off after 1 play clearly rocked the side... and after all that his A plan was the closest they got to NZ with all the above failures.

Look at how SA have played NZ when SA have put out competitive sides, look at the 09 tour when they beat NZ 3-0 over the winter. I firmly believe this is the way to play them. It can go wrong... very wrong in fact but I also think its the one shot at ruffling the feathers, strangling the game out of NZ and perhaps even.. dare we say wi.. (nah, I can't even bring myself to suggest such fantasy!!!).

Territorially I think Ford is the best 10 when at the top of his game. Looks to be getting back to that. I think for the time being Tuilagi is miles away, just can't stay fit. I really believe we can get right on top of them in the forwards, so much quality around the pack but I would be disappointed if we picked the backs on trying to stop NZ rather than what we can do to them. As it is Hogg has probably the best boot of the lot at 15.

by wayne Tue 13 Sep 2016, 11:56 am

Sin é wrote:
wayne wrote:
Sin é wrote:
wayne wrote:Let me just start by saying I really didn't want to get involved in this topic, as I felt Miaow, was conducting himself very well, but when I saw the regurgitated rubbish being spouted yet again, I couldn't restrain myself any longer, I find it totally appropriate that the THUG who played a significant part in the early retirement of Jonathon Thomas because of his cowardly act in a Munster v Ospreys game, having to be the minder for Shane Williams on a Lions Tour.

Ah, so nothing changes. Ospreys/Shane Williams make up big fat lie to deflect blame for their own wrong doing without any consideration as to the consequences it will cause those being lied about.

Wayne makes up big fat lie about Paul O'Connell 'played a significant part' in for Jonathan Thomas's retirement.

This is why Shane Williams should have been punished for testifying at a hearing that he heard Marcus Horan use racial abuse at a player - Wayne seems to think its ok to tell lies as there are no consequences.

The similarities don't finish there. Shane Williams / Ospreys were caught out with their lies because the independent judges at the Citing Commission (1 Scot, 2 Englishmen) found that Shane Williams was no where near the incident when it supposedly took place so could not have heard it. (For absolute proof, a mic at the sideline picked up what Horan had said).

Wayne is trying to blame Paul O'Connell for Thomas's retirement (epilepsy seisures as a result of Multiple head traumas). What Wayne has failed to take into account that Paul O'Connell got Thomas in the face with his arm, no where near his brain so had nothing to do with any head traumas that Thomas would have got over the years playing rugby.

Jonathon Thomas took the blow to the Jaw area which obviously caused a head trauma, and yes it was a significant part of him having to retire, and that panel took a deposition off the Munster manager as though he was closer to that incident than Shane. He wasn't.
Why do you think so many people wanted the ERCC taken from Ireland? Which was duly done a couple of years ago, and that is why many also want the HQ of the Guinness League taken from there.

Nope. Your making it up.

Statements written by Jonathan Thomas and Doctor Gareth Jones were presented within the ERC bundle. Thomas stated that he had let the Player go and was jogging back to get back into play when an arm was flung round. He described it as a decent strike to his lip. He did not see it coming and wondered what had happened as it was so fast. He said it was a powerful blow which knocked him to the ground and it took a period of time for him to compose himself and get up as there was a lot of blood. He said that the Player apologised to him after the game and he accepted that. Doctor Jones stated that Thomas sustained a midline full thickness laceration to his upper lip which required careful cleaning before the insertion of six fine sutures. The ERC bundle also contained photographs showing the injury after it had been sutured. It appears from press releases that Thomas will be fit to play in the next match scheduled for the following weekend.

As for Shane Williams/Marcus Horan:

Munster team manager Jerry Holland gave evidence at the hearing, while there were depositions from Munster players Jim Williams, Shaun Payne and John Kelly. The Ospreys alleged Williams had heard the remark but video evidence supported the assertion he wasn't present at the incident.

So your saying Doctor Sin that what occurred in the incident did not contribute to his head trauma history, Thomas was on the ground for at least 12 seconds and then began to stir, in the video clip it doesn't show him getting up so the possibility was he was down for a lot longer I would beg to differ and I have the man saying the same to me, (obviously you are now going to say I made that up as well), and what that has to do with him playing the following week I do not know, there have been many instances since that date of players turning out the following week, he also said the Jonny Wilkinson episode did as well, and as I said above the Munster Team manager was not closer to the incident than Shane so why was he there to give evidence?

by fa0019 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 11:59 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:
fa0019 wrote:Hogg does not suit NZ IMO.

HE will tour if fit but his defence is not good enough for a starting berth. Against NZ your FB needs to make all his tackles and Hogg for me isn't quite there. I fancy Seymour to make a name for himself mind... he's excellent in the air and has a gun dog type mentality which is invaluable.

I would suggest Watson for the 15 berth but to be truthful I think that the Lions to win need to play a territorial game from 9,10,12 and 15 to win. We need excellent kickers in all positions to pin NZ back with tough no nonsense defending.

Its difficult to say which is the best approach to NZ as they haven't lost in yonks but if we look at the teams who do best against them... its those who play controlled territorial games and try to win the hand to ball kicking battle.

Look at SA in the world cup. To be fair to them they almost stole the whole thing... against apparently the best side in history. They were in the match for 80 mins and never let them out of sight and led for 50 mins in fact.
You won't beat them or even stand a chance saying ah we got to beat them our way, beat them at the breakdown lark... because its like trying to roll six 6s with 5 dice.

I'd look at a backline of the following

Murray
Biggar
North
Farrell
_________
Seymour
_________

13 I think there are a number of possibilities but I think if Tuilagi is fit he can be an Ace card. The other is 15... Brown, Watson, Hogg, Halfpenny.. Has Biggar ever played 15?

I know SCW went into NZ with 10-12 combo and it failed but I think there were specific reasons for that. 1 the forwards were beat up losing what 8 lineouts in the first half. 2 JW was clearly unfit and BOD going off after 1 play clearly rocked the side... and after all that his A plan was the closest they got to NZ with all the above failures.

Look at how SA have played NZ when SA have put out competitive sides, look at the 09 tour when they beat NZ 3-0 over the winter. I firmly believe this is the way to play them. It can go wrong... very wrong in fact but I also think its the one shot at ruffling the feathers, strangling the game out of NZ and perhaps even.. dare we say wi.. (nah, I can't even bring myself to suggest such fantasy!!!).

Territorially I think Ford is the best 10 when at the top of his game. Looks to be getting back to that. I think for the time being Tuilagi is miles away, just can't stay fit. I really believe we can get right on top of them in the forwards, so much quality around the pack but I would be disappointed if we picked the backs on trying to stop NZ rather than what we can do to them. As it is Hogg has probably the best boot of the lot at 15.

The problem I have with Ford is his defence and I don't think you can hide that from NZ... they will piledrive him all day. Same with Hogg.

Its not about trying to pick teams to stop NZ... its about picking a team to try and win a series. If you control territory against NZ you will compete with them (thats assuming you're not man shamed up front). If NZ have a chink in their armour its around ball to hand kicking at the moment.

1 playmaker, 1 kicker will be mincemeat vs. NZ. You have to keep them guessing and spread their concentration to 2+ players (and not a Mike Tindall type alternate which is almost as bad as saying Bakkies Botha is your alternate kicker).

SA at the moment is a bad example but SA of 2009, SA of 2015 are probably the closest anyone has got to beating/dominating this side.

by **George Carlin** Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:15 pm

Some strange stuff being written about Stuart Hogg. I have seen nothing to suggest that he is suddenly suspect defensively. He has pulled off plenty of last minute cover tackles in the 6N and has the speed to track back as well as any other home nation offering. Over the past 4 seasons, Glasgow conceded fewer tries than any other team.

So where is this coming from? Willie Le Roux is the best part of 2 stones lighter than Hogg and I don't hear any complaints about him.

What I do think is that we cannot beat NZ without scoring tries - the Springboks have proven it time and time again. With someone like Farrell at 10 or 12, there is no need to block a spot for Halfpenny at 15. That extra 5% accuracy he potentially brings is not worth the lack of attack that is the compromise. Hogg, L Williams and Mike Brown contribute much more to their clubs in both attack and defence.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:15 pm

No problems with Fords defence to be fair. You're more likely to have issues with Farrell being over agressive. You favour Watson at 15; hows his defence there?

by fa0019 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:19 pm

George Carlin wrote:Some strange stuff being written about Stuart Hogg. I have seen nothing to suggest that he is suddenly suspect defensively. He has pulled off plenty of last minute cover tackles in the 6N and has the speed to track back as well as any other home nation offering. Over the past 4 seasons, Glasgow conceded fewer tries than any other team.

So where is this coming from? Willie Le Roux is the best part of 2 stones lighter than Hogg and I don't hear any complaints about him.

What I do think is that we cannot beat NZ without scoring tries - the Springboks have proven it time and time again. With someone like Farrell at 10 or 12, there is no need to block a spot for Halfpenny at 15. That extra 5% accuracy he potentially brings is not worth the lack of attack that is the compromise. Hogg, L Williams and Mike Brown contribute much more to their clubs in both attack and defence.

Haven't heard of any complaints about Willie Le Roux? Obviously haven't spoken to any bokke in about 2 years then. Hogg missed a crucial one on the line in the 6N this year and I seem to recall it not being a rare event. I rate him but he's a luxury player. He takes it forward a lot, he also loses possession a lot. His behind the back pass was epic but his game for me is a lot like Mike Catt and Percy Montegomery.. a lot of good, a bit of bad and he works well only with the correct set up.

by fa0019 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:25 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:No problems with Fords defence to be fair. You're more likely to have issues with Farrell being over agressive. You favour Watson at 15; hows his defence there?

I think Ford tackles well for his size but he often gets bullied by big sides.

15 for me is troublesome... no one really ticks all the boxes required and against NZ its such a key position. The player you would want to have top class speed, size to take big players like Savea yet a flyhalf type kick to pin the NZ backline. I would seriously consider Dan Biggar but not sure if he can do it.

Gatland probably won't do it so but I think we have to approach this series much like 97 (not in strategy but in honesty) i.e. if we play to their strengths they'll smash us to pieces. If we play our A typical approach home nations best XV.... they'll smash us to pieces. What we need is something a little different to re-address the above.

by Sin é Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:26 pm

miaow wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:Dear me. Half of this page is unreadable nonsense. This is a rugby forum.

Yeah, exactly. Are you new to 606 or something?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:What do his opinions on nationalism and Irish culture have to do with the Lions?

I made literally no comment on Irish culture whatsoever, in a negative or positive sense. If it were, it would be in the latter, but it's pretty irrelevant to the topic we're discussing, which is the Lions and rugby and the arguments we're having within discussing that.

I dislike blinkered nationalism in most forms, and I wasn't saying the partisanship here was in any way specific to or conditional upon Irish culture. I don't think being so churned up about a topic to the point whereby you're unable to accept the merits of a senior and genuinely world class player over one so new on the scene, and one who (unfortunately) never really went on to do much more in and around the same level after that Tour, is a good way to discuss things.

I'll admit the elaboration went a bit off topic, but it was late, so forgive me. However, the inane analysis of Fitzgerald and Shane was the straw that broke the camel's back in what is a fairly long list of pretty dull and (in my view needlessly) nationalist assessments by the poster on the topic we're discussing.

Not disparaging Irish culture in any way. Not saying Irish or any rugby posters shouldn't be staunch in defending their rugby culture, and culture at large. There's a cut off point though for such views on this forum, and I'll call out when I think someone's just too blinkered to be taken seriously, as is the case here.

I'm happy to discuss any views opposing my own on Gatland's selection methodology, and how it's bad for the team, or whatever else anyone wishes to proposes. To do that, however, people need to rely on more than simply "ah, well, X wasn't given the same chance as Y, and Y didn't play as well as he could have", despite the fact that Y is Shane Williams and X is Luke Fitzgerald. Give me something more than lazy platitudes, and I'll hopefully won't have to call people out as overly nationalist.

I haven't a clue what your ramblings about nationalism has to do with this. And please stop turning it into a Luke Fitz v Shane Williams because I have already stated that Ugo Monye (who was top try scorer on that tour, but who hasn't done much since) was also well ahead of SW.

I think you need to have a good look in the mirror with regard to overt nationalism (which seems to be having a very strong negative impact in the UK at the moment).

by BamBam Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:27 pm

fa0019 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:No problems with Fords defence to be fair. You're more likely to have issues with Farrell being over agressive. You favour Watson at 15; hows his defence there?

15 for me is troublesome... no one really ticks all the boxes required and against NZ its such a key position. The player you would want to have top class speed, size to take big players like Savea yet a flyhalf type kick to pin the NZ backline.

Sounds like a job for Harry Mallinder (FELC)

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:30 pm

fa0019 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:No problems with Fords defence to be fair. You're more likely to have issues with Farrell being over agressive. You favour Watson at 15; hows his defence there?

I think Ford tackles well for his size but he often gets bullied by big sides.

15 for me is troublesome... no one really ticks all the boxes required and against NZ its such a key position. The player you would want to have top class speed, size to take big players like Savea yet a flyhalf type kick to pin the NZ backline. I would seriously consider Dan Biggar but not sure if he can do it.

Gatland probably won't do it so but I think we have to approach this series much like 97 (not in strategy but in honesty) i.e. if we play to their strengths they'll smash us to pieces. If we play our A typical approach home nations best XV.... they'll smash us to pieces. What we need is something a little different to re-address the above.

Interested to know what you mean by bulllied and who are the big sides. As I said there's more faults with Farrel being overly aggressive in the tackle. If it's just a big guy you want at ten we may as well stick Mallinder there. Dan Biggar at full back...right.

For me we have the people available in the pack to grind them down and keep on top. We do need to play in the right places but we can't be afraid to give it a go when it's on.

by fa0019 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:36 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
fa0019 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:No problems with Fords defence to be fair. You're more likely to have issues with Farrell being over agressive. You favour Watson at 15; hows his defence there?

I think Ford tackles well for his size but he often gets bullied by big sides.

15 for me is troublesome... no one really ticks all the boxes required and against NZ its such a key position. The player you would want to have top class speed, size to take big players like Savea yet a flyhalf type kick to pin the NZ backline. I would seriously consider Dan Biggar but not sure if he can do it.

Gatland probably won't do it so but I think we have to approach this series much like 97 (not in strategy but in honesty) i.e. if we play to their strengths they'll smash us to pieces. If we play our A typical approach home nations best XV.... they'll smash us to pieces. What we need is something a little different to re-address the above.

Interested to know what you mean by bulllied and who are the big sides. As I said there's more faults with Farrel being overly aggressive in the tackle. If it's just a big guy you want at ten we may as well stick Mallinder there. Dan Biggar at full back...right.

For me we have the people available in the pack to grind them down and keep on top. We do need to play in the right places but we can't be afraid to give it a go when it's on.

I think Biggar has the potential to be a very versatile player actually. I think he could play 15 if needs be. He's not short of pace and has a top class kick on him as well as being a very competent defender.

I just don't think looking for a dominant pack is good enough as it won't happen. You will never dominate NZ upfront even though people always say, oh they have weakness in their front 5 etc. I can't remember a time when anyone ever did that to NZ... perhaps the Mitchell years when AUS strangled them in the world cup of 2003.

by mikey_dragon Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:39 pm

Biggar often stands where the 15 should be as he is very good under the high ball and has a big boot. I think he might have come on as replacement full-back once or twice but that's about it. I certainly wouldn't start him there against NZ but I would start him at fly-half.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:40 pm

Fair enough, never seen him play there so I can't really comment on his defence, same with Watson really. I reckon he'd be great there, very good in the air and great at running it back like Hogg.

And we won't get by by kicking it to them either, plenty have tried.

What do you mean by Ford being bullied and who are the big sides?

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:42 pm

Certainly stands a good chance to start at 10 mikey, had a purple patch as good as any 10 around in the last 18 months or so. Think it's out of him Ford and Farrell to start there as things stand. Sexton if he can come back strong will obviously push but think he's on the wane a bit.

by mikey_dragon Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:42 pm

Ford is suspect to the odd charge down isn't he? And weren't there questions being asked of him during the tour to Aus? I'd select Farrell for the Lions, but Ford is a very good option for England.

by fa0019 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:44 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Fair enough, never seen him play there so I can't really comment on his defence, same with Watson really. I reckon he'd be great there, very good in the air and great at running it back like Hogg.

And we won't get by by kicking it to them either, plenty have tried.

What do you mean by Ford being bullied and who are the big sides?

Why does EJ throw him to the furthest point of contact all the time? Its because put him in his standard channel and defences will send their biggest and ugliest down his channel time and time again. With Farrell for instance at least they know they won't waste energy smashing down a well fortified wall, with Ford they know it will break eventually.

When he's on the wing he does alright defending the channel with the touchline. Its one on one and often not against a massive lock, backrower. He is a decent one on one tackler.. but in open space he will get exploited and EJ has devised his defence specifically to cater for that issue.

by **George Carlin** Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:45 pm

fa0019 wrote:
George Carlin wrote:Some strange stuff being written about Stuart Hogg. I have seen nothing to suggest that he is suddenly suspect defensively. He has pulled off plenty of last minute cover tackles in the 6N and has the speed to track back as well as any other home nation offering. Over the past 4 seasons, Glasgow conceded fewer tries than any other team.

So where is this coming from? Willie Le Roux is the best part of 2 stones lighter than Hogg and I don't hear any complaints about him.

What I do think is that we cannot beat NZ without scoring tries - the Springboks have proven it time and time again. With someone like Farrell at 10 or 12, there is no need to block a spot for Halfpenny at 15. That extra 5% accuracy he potentially brings is not worth the lack of attack that is the compromise. Hogg, L Williams and Mike Brown contribute much more to their clubs in both attack and defence.

Haven't heard of any complaints about Willie Le Roux? Obviously haven't spoken to any bokke in about 2 years then. Hogg missed a crucial one on the line in the 6N this year and I seem to recall it not being a rare event. I rate him but he's a luxury player. He takes it forward a lot, he also loses possession a lot. His behind the back pass was epic but his game for me is a lot like Mike Catt and Percy Montegomery.. a lot of good, a bit of bad and he works well only with the correct set up.

Yes, absolute subjectivity works like that.

Let's just say that I have watched him a great deal over the past 5 years and I have seen no evidence to suggest that Hogg "also loses possession a lot".

And yes, I know plenty of Cheetahs and Sharks' fans who don't have any problem with Le Roux's defence.

by Sin é Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:48 pm

wayne wrote:
Sin é wrote:
wayne wrote:
Sin é wrote:
wayne wrote:Let me just start by saying I really didn't want to get involved in this topic, as I felt Miaow, was conducting himself very well, but when I saw the regurgitated rubbish being spouted yet again, I couldn't restrain myself any longer, I find it totally appropriate that the THUG who played a significant part in the early retirement of Jonathon Thomas because of his cowardly act in a Munster v Ospreys game, having to be the minder for Shane Williams on a Lions Tour.

Ah, so nothing changes. Ospreys/Shane Williams make up big fat lie to deflect blame for their own wrong doing without any consideration as to the consequences it will cause those being lied about.

Wayne makes up big fat lie about Paul O'Connell 'played a significant part' in for Jonathan Thomas's retirement.

This is why Shane Williams should have been punished for testifying at a hearing that he heard Marcus Horan use racial abuse at a player - Wayne seems to think its ok to tell lies as there are no consequences.

The similarities don't finish there. Shane Williams / Ospreys were caught out with their lies because the independent judges at the Citing Commission (1 Scot, 2 Englishmen) found that Shane Williams was no where near the incident when it supposedly took place so could not have heard it. (For absolute proof, a mic at the sideline picked up what Horan had said).

Wayne is trying to blame Paul O'Connell for Thomas's retirement (epilepsy seisures as a result of Multiple head traumas). What Wayne has failed to take into account that Paul O'Connell got Thomas in the face with his arm, no where near his brain so had nothing to do with any head traumas that Thomas would have got over the years playing rugby.

Jonathon Thomas took the blow to the Jaw area which obviously caused a head trauma, and yes it was a significant part of him having to retire, and that panel took a deposition off the Munster manager as though he was closer to that incident than Shane. He wasn't.
Why do you think so many people wanted the ERCC taken from Ireland? Which was duly done a couple of years ago, and that is why many also want the HQ of the Guinness League taken from there.

Nope. Your making it up.

Statements written by Jonathan Thomas and Doctor Gareth Jones were presented within the ERC bundle. Thomas stated that he had let the Player go and was jogging back to get back into play when an arm was flung round. He described it as a decent strike to his lip. He did not see it coming and wondered what had happened as it was so fast. He said it was a powerful blow which knocked him to the ground and it took a period of time for him to compose himself and get up as there was a lot of blood. He said that the Player apologised to him after the game and he accepted that. Doctor Jones stated that Thomas sustained a midline full thickness laceration to his upper lip which required careful cleaning before the insertion of six fine sutures. The ERC bundle also contained photographs showing the injury after it had been sutured. It appears from press releases that Thomas will be fit to play in the next match scheduled for the following weekend.

As for Shane Williams/Marcus Horan:

Munster team manager Jerry Holland gave evidence at the hearing, while there were depositions from Munster players Jim Williams, Shaun Payne and John Kelly. The Ospreys alleged Williams had heard the remark but video evidence supported the assertion he wasn't present at the incident.
So your saying Doctor Sin that what occurred in the incident did not contribute to his head trauma history, Thomas was on the ground for at least 12 seconds and then began to stir, in the video clip it doesn't show him getting up so the possibility was he was down for a lot longer I would beg to differ and I have the man saying the same to me, (obviously you are now going to say I made that up as well), and what that has to do with him playing the following week I do not know, there have been many instances since that date of players turning out the following week, he also said the Jonny Wilkinson episode did as well, and as I said above the Munster Team manager was not closer to the incident than Shane so why was he there to give evidence?

What I have produced is the report of Thomas's own doctor - he had a cut upper lip which required stitches. What you have done is labelled Paul O'Connell a THUG who was responsible for his retirement. I read an interview that Thomas gave about his condition, and he seems to take responsibility himself for 'playing hard' and being the hard man and ignoring any knocks he did take.

As regards the Horan citing and to why the Munster team manager was there? Why would he not be? He (or the head coach) goes with the player to all citings.

Shane Williams was proven to be lying becuase of VIDEO EVIDENCE - he wasn't anywhere near the incident so couldn't have heard what he said and a sideline mic picked up what Horan actually said.

Horan got 7 stitches in his head as a result of Seveali'i stamping him on the head. If I was you, I'd probably be blaming that on Horan's health problems and early retirement!

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:50 pm

mikey_dragon wrote:Ford is suspect to the odd charge down isn't he? And weren't there questions being asked of him during the tour to Aus? I'd select Farrell for the Lions, but Ford is a very good option for England.

He has been charged down. A few times last summer if my fading memory is proving correct...though it may be later than that. Was starting to happen to him when there seemed no other option but him and players could target him. To be fair to him he struggled at the start of last season before recovering slighlty through 6Ns.

by fa0019 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:53 pm

George Carlin wrote:
fa0019 wrote:
George Carlin wrote:Some strange stuff being written about Stuart Hogg. I have seen nothing to suggest that he is suddenly suspect defensively. He has pulled off plenty of last minute cover tackles in the 6N and has the speed to track back as well as any other home nation offering. Over the past 4 seasons, Glasgow conceded fewer tries than any other team.

So where is this coming from? Willie Le Roux is the best part of 2 stones lighter than Hogg and I don't hear any complaints about him.

What I do think is that we cannot beat NZ without scoring tries - the Springboks have proven it time and time again. With someone like Farrell at 10 or 12, there is no need to block a spot for Halfpenny at 15. That extra 5% accuracy he potentially brings is not worth the lack of attack that is the compromise. Hogg, L Williams and Mike Brown contribute much more to their clubs in both attack and defence.

Haven't heard of any complaints about Willie Le Roux? Obviously haven't spoken to any bokke in about 2 years then. Hogg missed a crucial one on the line in the 6N this year and I seem to recall it not being a rare event. I rate him but he's a luxury player. He takes it forward a lot, he also loses possession a lot. His behind the back pass was epic but his game for me is a lot like Mike Catt and Percy Montegomery.. a lot of good, a bit of bad and he works well only with the correct set up.
Yes, absolute subjectivity works like that.

Let's just say that I have watched him a great deal over the past 5 years and I have seen no evidence to suggest that Hogg "also loses possession a lot".

And yes, I know plenty of Cheetahs and Sharks' fans who don't have any problem with Le Roux's defence.

I seem to see him doing it occasionally yes and too much for test rugby. Its test match rugby we're only concerned about. Not Pro12 or AP or even Top14. its test match rugby where it counts. Hogg often looks for the offload, often looks for the 50% shot. He's one step ahead of most in his team but if he team aren't there its useless and such play actually does more harm then good giving the opposition quick and easy turnovers.
For him to be considered for the Lions test team he either has to curb such play or at least build his play around the strengths of those he's playing around... if they can't anticipate nor get to his offloads then he needs to hold on/refrain from trying such moves.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:54 pm

fa0019 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Fair enough, never seen him play there so I can't really comment on his defence, same with Watson really. I reckon he'd be great there, very good in the air and great at running it back like Hogg.

And we won't get by by kicking it to them either, plenty have tried.

What do you mean by Ford being bullied and who are the big sides?

Why does EJ throw him to the furthest point of contact all the time? Its because put him in his standard channel and defences will send their biggest and ugliest down his channel time and time again. With Farrell for instance at least they know they won't waste energy smashing down a well fortified wall, with Ford they know it will break eventually.

When he's on the wing he does alright defending the channel with the touchline. Its one on one and often not against a massive lock, backrower. He is a decent one on one tackler.. but in open space he will get exploited and EJ has devised his defence specifically to cater for that issue.

He doesn't. Check out the tackle stats against Aus in the summer, was it the 1st test where Ford made the 3rd highest out of all players? Aus clearly went looking for him (as you state running down his channel) and it didn't work. Now you could say we shouldn't pick a player where he will be targeted but as long as that player is making his tackles (which he has done) I'm not bothered. Eventually the opposition will stop sending men towards you as they know you're not weak, until then they're wasting their time.

So was the first Aus test what you were referring to when you said he was bullied? If it was I'd honestly take that as a tick against his name.

by fa0019 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:56 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
fa0019 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Fair enough, never seen him play there so I can't really comment on his defence, same with Watson really. I reckon he'd be great there, very good in the air and great at running it back like Hogg.

And we won't get by by kicking it to them either, plenty have tried.

What do you mean by Ford being bullied and who are the big sides?

Why does EJ throw him to the furthest point of contact all the time? Its because put him in his standard channel and defences will send their biggest and ugliest down his channel time and time again. With Farrell for instance at least they know they won't waste energy smashing down a well fortified wall, with Ford they know it will break eventually.

When he's on the wing he does alright defending the channel with the touchline. Its one on one and often not against a massive lock, backrower. He is a decent one on one tackler.. but in open space he will get exploited and EJ has devised his defence specifically to cater for that issue.

He doesn't. Check out the tackle stats against Aus in the summer, was it the 1st test where Ford made the 3rd highest out of all players? Aus clearly went looking for him (as you state running down his channel) and it didn't work. Now you could say we shouldn't pick a player where he will be targeted but as long as that player is making his tackles (which he has done) I'm not bothered. Eventually the opposition will stop sending men towards you as they know you're not weak, until then they're wasting their time.

So was the first Aus test what you were referring to when you said he was bullied? If it was I'd honestly take that as a tick against his name.

You're looking at stats sure yet the stats doesn't say where he defends. He does not defend the 10 channel. He is moved off to the wing and that is a different kettle of fish.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:58 pm

No, he defended the 10 channel with Farrell coming in outside him. Give the Aus 1st test a wtch fa.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 12:59 pm

Farrell coming in when Burell was at 6s and 7s in defence despite being quite good defensively normally.

by reallybored Tue 13 Sep 2016, 1:26 pm

fa0019 wrote:
George Carlin wrote:Some strange stuff being written about Stuart Hogg. I have seen nothing to suggest that he is suddenly suspect defensively. He has pulled off plenty of last minute cover tackles in the 6N and has the speed to track back as well as any other home nation offering. Over the past 4 seasons, Glasgow conceded fewer tries than any other team.

So where is this coming from? Willie Le Roux is the best part of 2 stones lighter than Hogg and I don't hear any complaints about him.

What I do think is that we cannot beat NZ without scoring tries - the Springboks have proven it time and time again. With someone like Farrell at 10 or 12, there is no need to block a spot for Halfpenny at 15. That extra 5% accuracy he potentially brings is not worth the lack of attack that is the compromise. Hogg, L Williams and Mike Brown contribute much more to their clubs in both attack and defence.

Haven't heard of any complaints about Willie Le Roux? Obviously haven't spoken to any bokke in about 2 years then. Hogg missed a crucial one on the line in the 6N this year and I seem to recall it not being a rare event. I rate him but he's a luxury player. He takes it forward a lot, he also loses possession a lot. His behind the back pass was epic but his game for me is a lot like Mike Catt and Percy Montegomery.. a lot of good, a bit of bad and he works well only with the correct set up.

by wayne Tue 13 Sep 2016, 2:00 pm

Sin é wrote:
wayne wrote:
Sin é wrote:
wayne wrote:
Sin é wrote:
wayne wrote:Let me just start by saying I really didn't want to get involved in this topic, as I felt Miaow, was conducting himself very well, but when I saw the regurgitated rubbish being spouted yet again, I couldn't restrain myself any longer, I find it totally appropriate that the THUG who played a significant part in the early retirement of Jonathon Thomas because of his cowardly act in a Munster v Ospreys game, having to be the minder for Shane Williams on a Lions Tour.

Ah, so nothing changes. Ospreys/Shane Williams make up big fat lie to deflect blame for their own wrong doing without any consideration as to the consequences it will cause those being lied about.

Wayne makes up big fat lie about Paul O'Connell 'played a significant part' in for Jonathan Thomas's retirement.

This is why Shane Williams should have been punished for testifying at a hearing that he heard Marcus Horan use racial abuse at a player - Wayne seems to think its ok to tell lies as there are no consequences.

The similarities don't finish there. Shane Williams / Ospreys were caught out with their lies because the independent judges at the Citing Commission (1 Scot, 2 Englishmen) found that Shane Williams was no where near the incident when it supposedly took place so could not have heard it. (For absolute proof, a mic at the sideline picked up what Horan had said).

Wayne is trying to blame Paul O'Connell for Thomas's retirement (epilepsy seisures as a result of Multiple head traumas). What Wayne has failed to take into account that Paul O'Connell got Thomas in the face with his arm, no where near his brain so had nothing to do with any head traumas that Thomas would have got over the years playing rugby.

Jonathon Thomas took the blow to the Jaw area which obviously caused a head trauma, and yes it was a significant part of him having to retire, and that panel took a deposition off the Munster manager as though he was closer to that incident than Shane. He wasn't.
Why do you think so many people wanted the ERCC taken from Ireland? Which was duly done a couple of years ago, and that is why many also want the HQ of the Guinness League taken from there.

Nope. Your making it up.

Statements written by Jonathan Thomas and Doctor Gareth Jones were presented within the ERC bundle. Thomas stated that he had let the Player go and was jogging back to get back into play when an arm was flung round. He described it as a decent strike to his lip. He did not see it coming and wondered what had happened as it was so fast. He said it was a powerful blow which knocked him to the ground and it took a period of time for him to compose himself and get up as there was a lot of blood. He said that the Player apologised to him after the game and he accepted that. Doctor Jones stated that Thomas sustained a midline full thickness laceration to his upper lip which required careful cleaning before the insertion of six fine sutures. The ERC bundle also contained photographs showing the injury after it had been sutured. It appears from press releases that Thomas will be fit to play in the next match scheduled for the following weekend.

As for Shane Williams/Marcus Horan:

Munster team manager Jerry Holland gave evidence at the hearing, while there were depositions from Munster players Jim Williams, Shaun Payne and John Kelly. The Ospreys alleged Williams had heard the remark but video evidence supported the assertion he wasn't present at the incident.
So your saying Doctor Sin that what occurred in the incident did not contribute to his head trauma history, Thomas was on the ground for at least 12 seconds and then began to stir, in the video clip it doesn't show him getting up so the possibility was he was down for a lot longer I would beg to differ and I have the man saying the same to me, (obviously you are now going to say I made that up as well), and what that has to do with him playing the following week I do not know, there have been many instances since that date of players turning out the following week, he also said the Jonny Wilkinson episode did as well, and as I said above the Munster Team manager was not closer to the incident than Shane so why was he there to give evidence?

What I have produced is the report of Thomas's own doctor - he had a cut upper lip which required stitches. What you have done is labelled Paul O'Connell a THUG who was responsible for his retirement. I read an interview that Thomas gave about his condition, and he seems to take responsibility himself for 'playing hard' and being the hard man and ignoring any knocks he did take.

As regards the Horan citing and to why the Munster team manager was there? Why would he not be? He (or the head coach) goes with the player to all citings.

Shane Williams was proven to be lying becuase of VIDEO EVIDENCE - he wasn't anywhere near the incident so couldn't have heard what he said and a sideline mic picked up what Horan actually said.

Horan got 7 stitches in his head as a result of Seveali'i stamping him on the head. If I was you, I'd probably be blaming that on Horan's health problems and early retirement!

Can you read, look at the first box did I say he was responsible for his retirement, NO, you can read whatever article you like Jonathon Thomas is no hard man never was and never will, he wasn't into the underhand tricks, a true gentleman. He never deserved what he got out of that exchange, and more than likely POC didn't either.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 13 Sep 2016, 2:01 pm

eirebilly wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Who do you reckon are the stand out, play them no matter what, players at present then?

I would say for England. Itoje, Kruis and Hartley
Ireland I would say. Henshaw (maybe Mcloskey or Olding depending
Wales I would say Biggar
Scotland Hogg.

These are my choices.

I think, from a Lions perspective, injury permitting the players I just don't see not making the Test Squad (i.e. 23) are as follows:

Dan Cole, Dylan Hartley, Maro Itoje, Billy Vunipola, Rhys Webb, Dan Biggar, George North and Anthony Watson.

You can make strong arguments for others and, of course, I have my own preferred line-up in mind, but whichever way you cut it I can't see the players above not making the bench for the 1st Test as a minimum.

by funnyExiledScot Tue 13 Sep 2016, 2:10 pm

As for those discussing Stuart Hogg, it strikes me that some of the opinions are a little out of date. Those who describe him as a luxury and prone to losing the ball are, in my view, talking about Stuart Hogg circa 2013. He was too green for the last Lions tour, and whilst he was (and still is) a thrilling attacking option to have a fullback, what has changed quite noticeably is his judgement. He has a sledgehammer of a right boot on him and now uses it to much better effect. You also see far less of him running the ball back when it isn't on and getting isolated, something that used to happen all too often. I still think he could be better under the high ball, but I think his attacking game more than makes up for it.

I'd select him for the squad and take it from there. He is, Mr Gatland, a specialist fullback. Please let's not have him at 10!

by wayne Tue 13 Sep 2016, 2:22 pm

Finally Sin, in your earlier piece you reckoned Paulie was "TASKED" to room with him, in a piece in Wales online at the time of his retirement (Paulie), Shane said that he had the pleasure of rooming with him on the 2009 Tour, and that he was a top top man, and the significant part was that they roomed on a number of occasions. Does that sound of a man with a grudge, NO, unlike you it was done and dusted and to finally put the nail in your coffin they also toured with the Lions in 2005. 2 years after the Horan incident, if something had happened we would have heard about it by now.

I'm afraid you're just a bitter little man.

by irnbrew Tue 13 Sep 2016, 2:26 pm

Right i heard a discussion over the week-end it went like this It will all depend on what Gat game plan is will determine who goes .For instance we could all pick lets say 4 and 5 who are the most skilful but if his game plan is to just beat the ABs up he will pick the most brutal 4 and 5 and if that was the case a lot of players already mentioned on here would not go and a lot who have not been mentioned will Horses for courses .What do you lot think about that argument no doubt some are brutal and skilful .

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Sep 2016, 2:44 pm

It's the argument made above brew in which a player would be heavily favoured even if off form as his game suits the plan more. Bit of a waste if you ask me.

by Sin é Tue 13 Sep 2016, 2:53 pm

wayne wrote:
Sin é wrote:
wayne wrote:
Sin é wrote:
wayne wrote:
Sin é wrote:
wayne wrote:Let me just start by saying I really didn't want to get involved in this topic, as I felt Miaow, was conducting himself very well, but when I saw the regurgitated rubbish being spouted yet again, I couldn't restrain myself any longer, I find it totally appropriate that the THUG who played a significant part in the early retirement of Jonathon Thomas because of his cowardly act in a Munster v Ospreys game, having to be the minder for Shane Williams on a Lions Tour.

Ah, so nothing changes. Ospreys/Shane Williams make up big fat lie to deflect blame for their own wrong doing without any consideration as to the consequences it will cause those being lied about.

Wayne makes up big fat lie about Paul O'Connell 'played a significant part' in for Jonathan Thomas's retirement.

This is why Shane Williams should have been punished for testifying at a hearing that he heard Marcus Horan use racial abuse at a player - Wayne seems to think its ok to tell lies as there are no consequences.

The similarities don't finish there. Shane Williams / Ospreys were caught out with their lies because the independent judges at the Citing Commission (1 Scot, 2 Englishmen) found that Shane Williams was no where near the incident when it supposedly took place so could not have heard it. (For absolute proof, a mic at the sideline picked up what Horan had said).

Wayne is trying to blame Paul O'Connell for Thomas's retirement (epilepsy seisures as a result of Multiple head traumas). What Wayne has failed to take into account that Paul O'Connell got Thomas in the face with his arm, no where near his brain so had nothing to do with any head traumas that Thomas would have got over the years playing rugby.

Jonathon Thomas took the blow to the Jaw area which obviously caused a head trauma, and yes it was a significant part of him having to retire, and that panel took a deposition off the Munster manager as though he was closer to that incident than Shane. He wasn't.
Why do you think so many people wanted the ERCC taken from Ireland? Which was duly done a couple of years ago, and that is why many also want the HQ of the Guinness League taken from there.

Nope. Your making it up.

Statements written by Jonathan Thomas and Doctor Gareth Jones were presented within the ERC bundle. Thomas stated that he had let the Player go and was jogging back to get back into play when an arm was flung round. He described it as a decent strike to his lip. He did not see it coming and wondered what had happened as it was so fast. He said it was a powerful blow which knocked him to the ground and it took a period of time for him to compose himself and get up as there was a lot of blood. He said that the Player apologised to him after the game and he accepted that. Doctor Jones stated that Thomas sustained a midline full thickness laceration to his upper lip which required careful cleaning before the insertion of six fine sutures. The ERC bundle also contained photographs showing the injury after it had been sutured. It appears from press releases that Thomas will be fit to play in the next match scheduled for the following weekend.

As for Shane Williams/Marcus Horan:

Munster team manager Jerry Holland gave evidence at the hearing, while there were depositions from Munster players Jim Williams, Shaun Payne and John Kelly. The Ospreys alleged Williams had heard the remark but video evidence supported the assertion he wasn't present at the incident.
So your saying Doctor Sin that what occurred in the incident did not contribute to his head trauma history, Thomas was on the ground for at least 12 seconds and then began to stir, in the video clip it doesn't show him getting up so the possibility was he was down for a lot longer I would beg to differ and I have the man saying the same to me, (obviously you are now going to say I made that up as well), and what that has to do with him playing the following week I do not know, there have been many instances since that date of players turning out the following week, he also said the Jonny Wilkinson episode did as well, and as I said above the Munster Team manager was not closer to the incident than Shane so why was he there to give evidence?

What I have produced is the report of Thomas's own doctor - he had a cut upper lip which required stitches. What you have done is labelled Paul O'Connell a THUG who was responsible for his retirement. I read an interview that Thomas gave about his condition, and he seems to take responsibility himself for 'playing hard' and being the hard man and ignoring any knocks he did take.

As regards the Horan citing and to why the Munster team manager was there? Why would he not be? He (or the head coach) goes with the player to all citings.

Shane Williams was proven to be lying becuase of VIDEO EVIDENCE - he wasn't anywhere near the incident so couldn't have heard what he said and a sideline mic picked up what Horan actually said.

Horan got 7 stitches in his head as a result of Seveali'i stamping him on the head. If I was you, I'd probably be blaming that on Horan's health problems and early retirement!

Can you read, look at the first box did I say he was responsible for his retirement, NO, you can read whatever article you like Jonathon Thomas is no hard man never was and never will, he wasn't into the underhand tricks, a true gentleman. He never deserved what he got out of that exchange, and more than likely POC didn't either.

You claimed that the ''THUG Paul O'Connell played a significant part in Thomas's early retirement!''

Here is your exact quote:

wayne wrote:I couldn't restrain myself any longer, I find it totally appropriate that the THUG who played a significant part in the early retirement of Jonathon Thomas because of his cowardly act in a Munster v Ospreys game, having to be the minder for Shane Williams on a Lions Tour.

Jonathan THOMAS wrote:
“Not for one minute do I think the rules should be changed or the game toned down,” Thomas says. “I just think players need to be educated about the dangers of playing with head trauma. They take a bang to the head and think: ‘I’ll play on because I’ve two days off after the game.’ That’s doing serious damage.

“I’ve been guilty of staying on the pitch at all costs. It’s the gladiatorial mindset and it’s difficult to shake. I’ve always believed in playing hard and you have a laugh with your team-mates if someone in the squad is a bit soft. You give them a kick up the backside and say: ‘Come on, let’s go to war …’”

THE GUARDIAN wrote:
Thomas picks out a possible moment when his epilepsy emerged – and it was not a bone-rattling hit which knocked him cold. “Let’s rewind to the Gloucester game in December 2013,” he says. “I took an innocuous clash to the head with my team-mate and didn’t really flinch. But for the next 35 minutes my mind went completely blank. I couldn’t remember any lineout calls or even my role in the team. I was getting deja vu-type flashbacks. At half-time I felt sick and came off. I’ve had bad knocks and usually you’re fine a few days later but for three weeks I kept failing my return-to-play protocols. Eventually I came back and played the remainder of that season without obvious problems.”

by Sin é Tue 13 Sep 2016, 3:09 pm

wayne wrote:Finally Sin, in your earlier piece you reckoned Paulie was "TASKED" to room with him, in a piece in Wales online at the time of his retirement (Paulie), Shane said that he had the pleasure of rooming with him on the 2009 Tour, and that he was a top top man, and the significant part was that they roomed on a number of occasions. Does that sound of a man with a grudge, NO, unlike you it was done and dusted and to finally put the nail in your coffin they also toured with the Lions in 2005. 2 years after the Horan incident, if something had happened we would have heard about it by now.

I'm afraid you're just a bitter little man.

Make your mind up. You called Paul O'Connell a THUG.

You have seemed to have missed the reason why O'Connell ended up rooming with Shane Williams Rolling Eyes

I just couldn't be bothered explaining it to you.

by Sponsored content