66 minutes

by RuggerRadge2611 Wed 05 Jul 2017, 9:15 pm

First topic message reminder :

66 minutes.

That is the amount of test match minutes Scotland has contributed to the Lions test matches in 4 tours

-2005-

3rd (dead rubber) test
Gordon Bulloch 10 minutes

from the bench

-2009-

3rd (dead rubber) test
Ross Ford 43 minutes from the

bench

-2013-
3rd test
Richie Gray 13 minutes from the
bench

-2017-
No test involvement

People honestly wonder why we struggle to get behind the team?

by Cyril Sat 08 Jul 2017, 12:47 pm

RiscaGame wrote:
Cyril wrote:I had my doubts over Gatland, but he's justified his selections with a brilliant series result.

Fair play to him.

Very true. He's a twit, but you can't knock what he has done the last two tours really.

I think it's brilliant that he walked into the presser wearing a clown nose too (apparently).

Haha. Good on him!

by Gooseberry Sat 08 Jul 2017, 12:57 pm

Just imagine whay couldve been had there been a 10 minute cameo from Ronald McDonald though.

Jokes aside despite everything you cant really complain that he hasnt done the job in the end. I dont think many people other than Gwlad really beleive the management got everything right or that the Lions were as good as the All Blacks on blanace of the series but you cant argue with the result. It far exceeds expectations.

So we can all continue to whinge but you cant ignore Gatlands record as a Lions coach which stacks up as a great.

by mikey_dragon Sat 08 Jul 2017, 1:49 pm

Gooseberry wrote:
So we can all continue to whinge but you cant ignore Gatlands record as a Lions coach which stacks up as a great.

Results are all that matter. Gatland gets good results and has done throughout most of his coaching career. Some will find anything to whinge about and that boils down to their favourite players not being picked.

by RuggerRadge2611 Sat 08 Jul 2017, 1:59 pm

Here's an interesting fact. The Lions have never won a test series without at least one Scot in each test squad...

by Guest Sat 08 Jul 2017, 2:08 pm

Good stat

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 08 Jul 2017, 2:17 pm

To be fair, and I'm sure the NZ fans will agree, the All Blacks were well off form on this tour. I don't think I have seen so many unforced errors and they completely lacked the clinical edge they usually possess. So many opportunities missed, such as Savea on more than one occasion. Barrett's goal kicking was also poor and generally it was just very lacklustre compared to what we are used to.

I really don't think the tests were of any particularly high quality. Two teams giving away lots of penalties and making lots of errors was the story of the tour for me, and not what I expected to see.

by No 7&1/2 Sat 08 Jul 2017, 2:28 pm

Result isn't all that matters. 3 good games. Ironically I enjoyed the win less than the other 2!

by Guest Sat 08 Jul 2017, 2:30 pm

Just reckon the Lions came with good players, good culture and a good game plan. We missed Coles to start with. Then Crotty and B Smith went down. And SBW really farked things up in Test 2. We didn't put our best foot forward but should have had enough to clinch it. We didn't and that's credit to the Lions. It was a tense series and a good series. Who remembers the Lions routing the heck out of mid week fodder in other tours? Not this one. It was a big tour. A great tour.

by fa0019 Sat 08 Jul 2017, 4:22 pm

ebop wrote:Just reckon the Lions came with good players, good culture and a good game plan. We missed Coles to start with. Then Crotty and B Smith went down. And SBW really farked things up in Test 2. We didn't put our best foot forward but should have had enough to clinch it. We didn't and that's credit to the Lions. It was a tense series and a good series. Who remembers the Lions routing the heck out of mid week fodder in other tours? Not this one. It was a big tour. A great tour.

I think to be honest if you had a test class kicker you would have walked all 3. Barrett has won a number of games on his own especially in his super sub days but with the tee in hand he's proved unreliable. Don't look at stats. Bakkies Botha would get 14/14 in front of the posts.

A lot of Barrett's misses were straight forward kicks you'd expect 3-4 players in a test side should have got. If NZ want to win a world cup with him with the tee I do think in mcup final matches such as these then NZ have a conundrum to fix.

Kicking stats based upon success rate always need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Paterson, Laidlaw, Peter Grant... these guys were/are 90% kickers... but they never push the boundaries. Morne Steyn would take an kick from within the opposition half with another 5m too and still would get close to such persons. Daly doesn't take kicks from within the oppositions half and yet he seems to get more than he misses.

by Gwlad Sat 08 Jul 2017, 9:19 pm

123456789 wrote:For me it's a fairly simple debate, Wales had the second highest number of players on tour. Are they better than Scotland? No. Are they better than Ireland? No. Why were many of them selected? Because Gatland was the head coach.

But for me the Lions is special, and represents rugby from Britain and Ireland. I loved every minute of the series, and whilst I disagree with most of Gatland's close calls it's hard to argue with them now.

The lions were one point away from a series win. Would we have provided that point? Maybe Nel and Dickinson if they were fit could have held the scrum up better but they weren't so it's academically, the Grays I believe would have done the Lions proud but Itoje played well and Alun Wyn Jones is one of Gatland's favourites. The back row is a point of contention and I do believe Watson could have made a real splash on tour. Russell would have been an all or nothing card at the end. Dunbar has been a bit off since he did his acl, Bennett and Jones were injured as was Maitland and Hogg. As for Seymour, Daly and Watson were better on the tour. So by my reckoning if it weren't for injuries we could have been at around 8-12 Lions but it didn't happen. Our players went and turned over Australia in Australia, the Lions achieved a remarkable result.

The best way to look at it is to embrace the Lions, embrace the fact that we didn't have many players involved but the ones we did played their part in the midweek games and in the background as well I would imagine. But also the shirt makes a difference, players reach a higher level in the shirt. And Scottish players put so much into the shirt, would Jonathan Davies be inspired to reach a level far higher than he does for Wales if it weren't for the achievements in the past of Hastings, Calder, Townsend, Tait etc. We could pull out of the Lions, demand they wear different colour socks and watch them play the same team they would have done anyway or this outstanding generation Scotland have put together can realise their potential and pummel Wales time and time again, because let's face it they aren't very good, and turn England over at Murrayfield to prove THAT game was an anomaly, turn over Ireland in Dublin to prove that the opening game wasn't and give New Zealand a run for their money in November to prove that we are good enough. But in the mean time let's enjoy the Lions because Scotland have put an awful lot into the shirt over the years and it isn't about one tour, it's about the history. And if it wasn't for us the modern Lions would be very different, Telfer and McGeechan ushered the Lions into the pro era. And if you can't get intoxicated by the romance of it then at the end of the day the Lions just achieved something remarkable and it's always nice for an excuse for one more beer.

this is why your team isn't in the Lions, you've beaten Wales twice since 2003 ffs, all of a sudden we aren't very good? Not sure what that makes Scotland then, much worse I guess.

by David-Douglas Sat 08 Jul 2017, 10:12 pm

Gwlad wrote:
123456789 wrote:For me it's a fairly simple debate, Wales had the second highest number of players on tour. Are they better than Scotland? No. Are they better than Ireland? No. Why were many of them selected? Because Gatland was the head coach.

But for me the Lions is special, and represents rugby from Britain and Ireland. I loved every minute of the series, and whilst I disagree with most of Gatland's close calls it's hard to argue with them now.

The lions were one point away from a series win. Would we have provided that point? Maybe Nel and Dickinson if they were fit could have held the scrum up better but they weren't so it's academically, the Grays I believe would have done the Lions proud but Itoje played well and Alun Wyn Jones is one of Gatland's favourites. The back row is a point of contention and I do believe Watson could have made a real splash on tour. Russell would have been an all or nothing card at the end. Dunbar has been a bit off since he did his acl, Bennett and Jones were injured as was Maitland and Hogg. As for Seymour, Daly and Watson were better on the tour. So by my reckoning if it weren't for injuries we could have been at around 8-12 Lions but it didn't happen. Our players went and turned over Australia in Australia, the Lions achieved a remarkable result.

The best way to look at it is to embrace the Lions, embrace the fact that we didn't have many players involved but the ones we did played their part in the midweek games and in the background as well I would imagine. But also the shirt makes a difference, players reach a higher level in the shirt. And Scottish players put so much into the shirt, would Jonathan Davies be inspired to reach a level far higher than he does for Wales if it weren't for the achievements in the past of Hastings, Calder, Townsend, Tait etc. We could pull out of the Lions, demand they wear different colour socks and watch them play the same team they would have done anyway or this outstanding generation Scotland have put together can realise their potential and pummel Wales time and time again, because let's face it they aren't very good, and turn England over at Murrayfield to prove THAT game was an anomaly, turn over Ireland in Dublin to prove that the opening game wasn't and give New Zealand a run for their money in November to prove that we are good enough. But in the mean time let's enjoy the Lions because Scotland have put an awful lot into the shirt over the years and it isn't about one tour, it's about the history. And if it wasn't for us the modern Lions would be very different, Telfer and McGeechan ushered the Lions into the pro era. And if you can't get intoxicated by the romance of it then at the end of the day the Lions just achieved something remarkable and it's always nice for an excuse for one more beer.

this is why your team isn't in the Lions, you've beaten Wales twice since 2003 ffs, all of a sudden we aren't very good? Not sure what that makes Scotland then, much worse I guess.

Not if you look at the last 6 Nations league table.

by Gwlad Sat 08 Jul 2017, 11:01 pm

David-Douglas wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
123456789 wrote:For me it's a fairly simple debate, Wales had the second highest number of players on tour. Are they better than Scotland? No. Are they better than Ireland? No. Why were many of them selected? Because Gatland was the head coach.

But for me the Lions is special, and represents rugby from Britain and Ireland. I loved every minute of the series, and whilst I disagree with most of Gatland's close calls it's hard to argue with them now.

The lions were one point away from a series win. Would we have provided that point? Maybe Nel and Dickinson if they were fit could have held the scrum up better but they weren't so it's academically, the Grays I believe would have done the Lions proud but Itoje played well and Alun Wyn Jones is one of Gatland's favourites. The back row is a point of contention and I do believe Watson could have made a real splash on tour. Russell would have been an all or nothing card at the end. Dunbar has been a bit off since he did his acl, Bennett and Jones were injured as was Maitland and Hogg. As for Seymour, Daly and Watson were better on the tour. So by my reckoning if it weren't for injuries we could have been at around 8-12 Lions but it didn't happen. Our players went and turned over Australia in Australia, the Lions achieved a remarkable result.

The best way to look at it is to embrace the Lions, embrace the fact that we didn't have many players involved but the ones we did played their part in the midweek games and in the background as well I would imagine. But also the shirt makes a difference, players reach a higher level in the shirt. And Scottish players put so much into the shirt, would Jonathan Davies be inspired to reach a level far higher than he does for Wales if it weren't for the achievements in the past of Hastings, Calder, Townsend, Tait etc. We could pull out of the Lions, demand they wear different colour socks and watch them play the same team they would have done anyway or this outstanding generation Scotland have put together can realise their potential and pummel Wales time and time again, because let's face it they aren't very good, and turn England over at Murrayfield to prove THAT game was an anomaly, turn over Ireland in Dublin to prove that the opening game wasn't and give New Zealand a run for their money in November to prove that we are good enough. But in the mean time let's enjoy the Lions because Scotland have put an awful lot into the shirt over the years and it isn't about one tour, it's about the history. And if it wasn't for us the modern Lions would be very different, Telfer and McGeechan ushered the Lions into the pro era. And if you can't get intoxicated by the romance of it then at the end of the day the Lions just achieved something remarkable and it's always nice for an excuse for one more beer.

this is why your team isn't in the Lions, you've beaten Wales twice since 2003 ffs, all of a sudden we aren't very good? Not sure what that makes Scotland then, much worse I guess.

Not if you look at the last 6 Nations league table.

which is what Scots fans do, problem is after years and years and years of being wooden spoon competitors, Scotland should be consolidating on a significant recent improvement, instead they have forgotten that they've been dire, the rest of us haven't and it will take more than 1 win since 2003 to prove things really have changed.

by eirebilly Sun 09 Jul 2017, 7:29 am

123456789 wrote:For me it's a fairly simple debate, Wales had the second highest number of players on tour. Are they better than Scotland? No. Are they better than Ireland? No. Why were many of them selected? Because Gatland was the head coach.

The Lions is not selected on national teams performances, it is selected on individual performances. Some teams may be full of excellent players who are coached poorly and some teams may be full of solid players who are coached brilliantly.

I feel that Scotland lost a couple of 50/50 positions but they were not as questionable as many would think. For me, Scotland had 5-6 players who were well worthy of touring with the squad but outside of Hogg (injured) and perhaps Seymour on the wing, there are not that many players in Scotland that were individually better than the players selected for the test team.

by beshocked Mon 10 Jul 2017, 9:38 am

As I said earlier in the thread, I believe Scotland still need to unearth a top class 8 and 9.

Laidlaw has his qualities but if Scotland want to keep evolving as an exciting attacking team (something which would have been unheard of in the past) then he's got to go.

A top class 8 I think is integral to a team trying to be positive in attack. Scotland I feel must still find this.

If Scotland can bring these 2 things to the table I genuinely think they can challenge for the 6 nations title.

by the-goon Mon 10 Jul 2017, 9:59 am

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
the-goon wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Personally my backrow preferences in order :

6. Robshaw - POM - Barclay
7. Warburton - Watson - Tipuric
8. Billy V - Faletau - Stander

At least that's who I would have picked. Losing Billy V would have meant bringing in SOB.

Well just as well it's Gatland picking the squad and not you. Watson over SOB is laughable. SOB has been the man of the series so far. If you can keep him fit (which they have done), you start him everytime.

Hmmmm I'm guessing you didn't see their head to head in the 6N.

Watson kept him very quiet. He made 32 meters with the ball in hand, and beat 2 defenders. Watson made 19 tackles and missed none. It really depends what you want from your 7. I like a turnover breakdown operator, like Watson or Warburton. SOB for me is a 6 or an 8, or at least that's how he plays

Again, I'm so glad it was Gatland picking the team not you. SOB is a 7 who can play 6 and (less so now) 8. He is great on the deck, great at carrying, defence, huge workrate, quality support lines, and pretty quick as well. A complete 7. Watson has heaps of ability and more potential, but not at SOB's level yet. Look at SOB's performances HC finals, RWCs, game vs the ABs. The bigger the occasion the bigger the performance.

Did Watson make 32 meters off SOB, beat SOB twice, tackle him 19 times? How exactly are those stats relevant in a discussion between individuals? Watson had a great game that day, SOB wasn't great. How well did Watson play against England? SOB had a fine game that day. Why not cherry pick that?

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon 10 Jul 2017, 10:56 am

the-goon wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
the-goon wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Personally my backrow preferences in order :

6. Robshaw - POM - Barclay
7. Warburton - Watson - Tipuric
8. Billy V - Faletau - Stander

At least that's who I would have picked. Losing Billy V would have meant bringing in SOB.

Well just as well it's Gatland picking the squad and not you. Watson over SOB is laughable. SOB has been the man of the series so far. If you can keep him fit (which they have done), you start him everytime.

Hmmmm I'm guessing you didn't see their head to head in the 6N.

Watson kept him very quiet. He made 32 meters with the ball in hand, and beat 2 defenders. Watson made 19 tackles and missed none. It really depends what you want from your 7. I like a turnover breakdown operator, like Watson or Warburton. SOB for me is a 6 or an 8, or at least that's how he plays

Again, I'm so glad it was Gatland picking the team not you. SOB is a 7 who can play 6 and (less so now) 8. He is great on the deck, great at carrying, defence, huge workrate, quality support lines, and pretty quick as well. A complete 7. Watson has heaps of ability and more potential, but not at SOB's level yet. Look at SOB's performances HC finals, RWCs, game vs the ABs. The bigger the occasion the bigger the performance.

Did Watson make 32 meters off SOB, beat SOB twice, tackle him 19 times? How exactly are those stats relevant in a discussion between individuals? Watson had a great game that day, SOB wasn't great. How well did Watson play against England? SOB had a fine game that day. Why not cherry pick that?

Pretty well actually,

made 19 tackles and missed one
ran 8 meters and beat 2 defenders
and won 2 turnovers.

next question...

by Exiledinborders Mon 10 Jul 2017, 11:17 am

Gwlad wrote:
David-Douglas wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
123456789 wrote:For me it's a fairly simple debate, Wales had the second highest number of players on tour. Are they better than Scotland? No. Are they better than Ireland? No. Why were many of them selected? Because Gatland was the head coach.

But for me the Lions is special, and represents rugby from Britain and Ireland. I loved every minute of the series, and whilst I disagree with most of Gatland's close calls it's hard to argue with them now.

The lions were one point away from a series win. Would we have provided that point? Maybe Nel and Dickinson if they were fit could have held the scrum up better but they weren't so it's academically, the Grays I believe would have done the Lions proud but Itoje played well and Alun Wyn Jones is one of Gatland's favourites. The back row is a point of contention and I do believe Watson could have made a real splash on tour. Russell would have been an all or nothing card at the end. Dunbar has been a bit off since he did his acl, Bennett and Jones were injured as was Maitland and Hogg. As for Seymour, Daly and Watson were better on the tour. So by my reckoning if it weren't for injuries we could have been at around 8-12 Lions but it didn't happen. Our players went and turned over Australia in Australia, the Lions achieved a remarkable result.

The best way to look at it is to embrace the Lions, embrace the fact that we didn't have many players involved but the ones we did played their part in the midweek games and in the background as well I would imagine. But also the shirt makes a difference, players reach a higher level in the shirt. And Scottish players put so much into the shirt, would Jonathan Davies be inspired to reach a level far higher than he does for Wales if it weren't for the achievements in the past of Hastings, Calder, Townsend, Tait etc. We could pull out of the Lions, demand they wear different colour socks and watch them play the same team they would have done anyway or this outstanding generation Scotland have put together can realise their potential and pummel Wales time and time again, because let's face it they aren't very good, and turn England over at Murrayfield to prove THAT game was an anomaly, turn over Ireland in Dublin to prove that the opening game wasn't and give New Zealand a run for their money in November to prove that we are good enough. But in the mean time let's enjoy the Lions because Scotland have put an awful lot into the shirt over the years and it isn't about one tour, it's about the history. And if it wasn't for us the modern Lions would be very different, Telfer and McGeechan ushered the Lions into the pro era. And if you can't get intoxicated by the romance of it then at the end of the day the Lions just achieved something remarkable and it's always nice for an excuse for one more beer.

this is why your team isn't in the Lions, you've beaten Wales twice since 2003 ffs, all of a sudden we aren't very good? Not sure what that makes Scotland then, much worse I guess.

Not if you look at the last 6 Nations league table.

which is what Scots fans do, problem is after years and years and years of being wooden spoon competitors, Scotland should be consolidating on a significant recent improvement, instead they have forgotten that they've been dire, the rest of us haven't and it will take more than 1 win since 2003 to prove things really have changed.

You are right Gwlad just assuming Scotland are better than Wales because of one game is ridiculous. If only there was an objective way of measuring these things based on results against all teams. Why don't World Rugby organise such a thing as it would prove conclusively that Wales are the best team? Oh hang on!

1 New Zealand 94.78
2 England 90.14
3 Ireland 85.39
4 Australia 84.63
5 South Africa 84.16
6 Scotland 82.47
7 Wales 81.73

by LordDowlais Mon 10 Jul 2017, 12:05 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:1 New Zealand 94.78
2 England 90.14
3 Ireland 85.39
4 Australia 84.63
5 South Africa 84.16
6 Scotland 82.47
7 Wales 81.73

How many times have Scotland faced New Zealand in the last 3 years ?

by No 7&1/2 Mon 10 Jul 2017, 12:15 pm

Once.

by Exiledinborders Mon 10 Jul 2017, 4:54 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:1 New Zealand 94.78
2 England 90.14
3 Ireland 85.39
4 Australia 84.63
5 South Africa 84.16
6 Scotland 82.47
7 Wales 81.73

How many times have Scotland faced New Zealand in the last 3 years ?

How is that relevant?

1) The rankings take into account the strength of the opposition that each team have faced.
2) When Wales play NZ and lose it makes no difference to their ranking as they are so far behind NZ
3) When it comes to Lions selection how does the Welsh players greater experience of losing to NZ make them better picks?

by Guest Mon 10 Jul 2017, 5:44 pm

0.74 of a ranking point ahead of Wales. Phwoar! I'll 'av a bit of that!

But seriously, Scotland are better than Wales due to one fact alone: they beat them last time they played. As has been debated over and over on here, saying one team is better than another team because they did better against team 'x' is ridiculous. Scotland beat Wales last time out. They are therefore currently the better team. Something we aim to put right in the next 6N.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 10 Jul 2017, 6:08 pm

Just because you beat a team once doesn't mean you're the better team. Tbh the world rankings are limited as well. You need a bit if judgment to watch the games and judge tactics players etc.

by fa0019 Mon 10 Jul 2017, 8:04 pm

I think we're going round in circles here but I do see both sides of the problem.

Scotland have not played well enough to demand lots of players on tour, if any. However form and recent victories suggest they have very good players and are a decent team. Much better than 3 players on tour vs. 16, 12 and 12 from the other 3 nations.

Nevertheless lets be frank about Warren; he's a typical kiwi, thick skinned and will do things his way but it brings results... to a point at least. His welsh players are a reflection of his style and some who would have shined under others simply wouldn't have been picked because it doesn't suit Warren's plans. No surprise his welsh players are seen as favoured because they suit his style... else they wouldn't get picked or have evolved so that they do get picked.

If he wanted to stop Wales' rivals from seeing lions honours I can't see why he would go against Scotland only but if you beat a team 9 times out of 9 and then slip up once.. it doesn't mean that they are automatically a better side.... but thats sort like the argument Wales had in 2005, albeit they won a grand slam compared to Scotland 2017 only winning 3 matches.

Its a team game... if Dan Carter had played for Scotland he would have been seen as a decent player, a world class player but would he have won 2 world players of the year awards? Not on your life... a flyhalf behind Scotlands pack from 2003-2015 would have had far less space, far less quality ball and far less decent players to operate with. Would Jonny Wilkinson have been deemed a better player if Carter wore the thistle rather than the fern? IMO yes.

The game is all about setting platforms. Good teams can cap "good" players and they get "massive" reputations after they generate 50 caps, 30 of them from the bench. Ben T'eo is one who whilst he is a good player... his accolades came off his 20 min cameos where he would bash a knackered opposition. Like a boxer getting tagged in in the 10th round to finish off a bludgeoned fighter. Top class player, yes... will he start for England anytime soon... Nah.

by mikey_dragon Mon 10 Jul 2017, 8:23 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
David-Douglas wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
123456789 wrote:For me it's a fairly simple debate, Wales had the second highest number of players on tour. Are they better than Scotland? No. Are they better than Ireland? No. Why were many of them selected? Because Gatland was the head coach.

But for me the Lions is special, and represents rugby from Britain and Ireland. I loved every minute of the series, and whilst I disagree with most of Gatland's close calls it's hard to argue with them now.

The lions were one point away from a series win. Would we have provided that point? Maybe Nel and Dickinson if they were fit could have held the scrum up better but they weren't so it's academically, the Grays I believe would have done the Lions proud but Itoje played well and Alun Wyn Jones is one of Gatland's favourites. The back row is a point of contention and I do believe Watson could have made a real splash on tour. Russell would have been an all or nothing card at the end. Dunbar has been a bit off since he did his acl, Bennett and Jones were injured as was Maitland and Hogg. As for Seymour, Daly and Watson were better on the tour. So by my reckoning if it weren't for injuries we could have been at around 8-12 Lions but it didn't happen. Our players went and turned over Australia in Australia, the Lions achieved a remarkable result.

The best way to look at it is to embrace the Lions, embrace the fact that we didn't have many players involved but the ones we did played their part in the midweek games and in the background as well I would imagine. But also the shirt makes a difference, players reach a higher level in the shirt. And Scottish players put so much into the shirt, would Jonathan Davies be inspired to reach a level far higher than he does for Wales if it weren't for the achievements in the past of Hastings, Calder, Townsend, Tait etc. We could pull out of the Lions, demand they wear different colour socks and watch them play the same team they would have done anyway or this outstanding generation Scotland have put together can realise their potential and pummel Wales time and time again, because let's face it they aren't very good, and turn England over at Murrayfield to prove THAT game was an anomaly, turn over Ireland in Dublin to prove that the opening game wasn't and give New Zealand a run for their money in November to prove that we are good enough. But in the mean time let's enjoy the Lions because Scotland have put an awful lot into the shirt over the years and it isn't about one tour, it's about the history. And if it wasn't for us the modern Lions would be very different, Telfer and McGeechan ushered the Lions into the pro era. And if you can't get intoxicated by the romance of it then at the end of the day the Lions just achieved something remarkable and it's always nice for an excuse for one more beer.

this is why your team isn't in the Lions, you've beaten Wales twice since 2003 ffs, all of a sudden we aren't very good? Not sure what that makes Scotland then, much worse I guess.

Not if you look at the last 6 Nations league table.

which is what Scots fans do, problem is after years and years and years of being wooden spoon competitors, Scotland should be consolidating on a significant recent improvement, instead they have forgotten that they've been dire, the rest of us haven't and it will take more than 1 win since 2003 to prove things really have changed.
You are right Gwlad just assuming Scotland are better than Wales because of one game is ridiculous. If only there was an objective way of measuring these things based on results against all teams. Why don't World Rugby organise such a thing as it would prove conclusively that Wales are the best team? Oh hang on!

1 New Zealand 94.78
2 England 90.14
3 Ireland 85.39
4 Australia 84.63
5 South Africa 84.16
6 Scotland 82.47
7 Wales 81.73

I know you don't think highly of Gwlad but he isn't wrong there. Fans of Scotland seem to have always had a bitter resentment towards Wales, and this year more than ever. It's strange. I quite like the Scotland team but don't have the same respect for much of their deluded fan base. And as you brought it up aren't we better than South Africa who are ranked above us? We beat them quite convincingly last time we faced off, by 14 points in fact, which in the up north (beyond the wall) is considered an absolute thrashing right?

I expect Wales will improve when the most successful Lions coach of the pro era returns and puts the house in order. We'll be back to beating England and Scotland in no time Smile

.

by fa0019 Mon 10 Jul 2017, 8:53 pm

Most highly success coach of the pro era?

Gatland - Played 6, won 3, drawn 1, lost 2... won a series in AUS.
McGeechan - Played 6, won 3, lost 3.... won a series in SA.
Henry - Played 3, won 1, lost 2.
Woodward - Played 3, lost 3.

Maybe but only if you looked as each match was equal to each other. McGeechan faced SA twice, both times they were world champions. The lions have only lost 1 series vs. AUS (2001)... they've won 7 other series. AUS had lost to Scotland in 2012, Samoa in 2011 both at home. But in NZ Gatland over achieved certainly.
Against the boks they've won 4, lost 8 (with 2 of the wins coming barely after the game was introduced in the country. Its 10* a bigger achievement to win in SA as it is in AUS. To put it in perspective... NZ have only won 1 series in SA.

Then if we compare the quality he had in 97 and 09.... compared to the quality Gatland had in 13 and 17 I'd have to say both times Gatland had a superior hand.... but less than Henry had in 01... that squad should have smashed it.

Both coaches had luck there is no doubt... 97 2nd test was the freakiest match in memory. Score 3 tries, concede 0. Lions on the cosh for 80 mins. Lions win. Mental. Great times mind.

by lostinwales Mon 10 Jul 2017, 8:58 pm

fa0019 wrote:I think we're going round in circles here but I do see both sides of the problem.

Scotland have not played well enough to demand lots of players on tour, if any. However form and recent victories suggest they have very good players and are a decent team. Much better than 3 players on tour vs. 16, 12 and 12 from the other 3 nations.

Nevertheless lets be frank about Warren; he's a typical kiwi, thick skinned and will do things his way but it brings results... to a point at least. His welsh players are a reflection of his style and some who would have shined under others simply wouldn't have been picked because it doesn't suit Warren's plans. No surprise his welsh players are seen as favoured because they suit his style... else they wouldn't get picked or have evolved so that they do get picked.

If he wanted to stop Wales' rivals from seeing lions honours I can't see why he would go against Scotland only but if you beat a team 9 times out of 9 and then slip up once.. it doesn't mean that they are automatically a better side.... but thats sort like the argument Wales had in 2005, albeit they won a grand slam compared to Scotland 2017 only winning 3 matches.

Its a team game... if Dan Carter had played for Scotland he would have been seen as a decent player, a world class player but would he have won 2 world players of the year awards? Not on your life... a flyhalf behind Scotlands pack from 2003-2015 would have had far less space, far less quality ball and far less decent players to operate with. Would Jonny Wilkinson have been deemed a better player if Carter wore the thistle rather than the fern? IMO yes.

The game is all about setting platforms. Good teams can cap "good" players and they get "massive" reputations after they generate 50 caps, 30 of them from the bench. Ben T'eo is one who whilst he is a good player... his accolades came off his 20 min cameos where he would bash a knackered opposition. Like a boxer getting tagged in in the 10th round to finish off a bludgeoned fighter. Top class player, yes... will he start for England anytime soon... Nah.

Problem with Teo is that he is only a stopgap, albeit a very good one. He isn't going to be around forever.

by fa0019 Mon 10 Jul 2017, 9:28 pm

lostinwales wrote:
fa0019 wrote:I think we're going round in circles here but I do see both sides of the problem.

Scotland have not played well enough to demand lots of players on tour, if any. However form and recent victories suggest they have very good players and are a decent team. Much better than 3 players on tour vs. 16, 12 and 12 from the other 3 nations.

Nevertheless lets be frank about Warren; he's a typical kiwi, thick skinned and will do things his way but it brings results... to a point at least. His welsh players are a reflection of his style and some who would have shined under others simply wouldn't have been picked because it doesn't suit Warren's plans. No surprise his welsh players are seen as favoured because they suit his style... else they wouldn't get picked or have evolved so that they do get picked.

If he wanted to stop Wales' rivals from seeing lions honours I can't see why he would go against Scotland only but if you beat a team 9 times out of 9 and then slip up once.. it doesn't mean that they are automatically a better side.... but thats sort like the argument Wales had in 2005, albeit they won a grand slam compared to Scotland 2017 only winning 3 matches.

Its a team game... if Dan Carter had played for Scotland he would have been seen as a decent player, a world class player but would he have won 2 world players of the year awards? Not on your life... a flyhalf behind Scotlands pack from 2003-2015 would have had far less space, far less quality ball and far less decent players to operate with. Would Jonny Wilkinson have been deemed a better player if Carter wore the thistle rather than the fern? IMO yes.

The game is all about setting platforms. Good teams can cap "good" players and they get "massive" reputations after they generate 50 caps, 30 of them from the bench. Ben T'eo is one who whilst he is a good player... his accolades came off his 20 min cameos where he would bash a knackered opposition. Like a boxer getting tagged in in the 10th round to finish off a bludgeoned fighter. Top class player, yes... will he start for England anytime soon... Nah.

Problem with Teo is that he is only a stopgap, albeit a very good one. He isn't going to be around forever.

I imagine he won't get more than 10 test starts further if that.

Was this tours' Bentos albeit never hit the heights of the legend.

by Exiledinborders Mon 10 Jul 2017, 10:35 pm

mikey_dragon wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
David-Douglas wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
123456789 wrote:For me it's a fairly simple debate, Wales had the second highest number of players on tour. Are they better than Scotland? No. Are they better than Ireland? No. Why were many of them selected? Because Gatland was the head coach.

But for me the Lions is special, and represents rugby from Britain and Ireland. I loved every minute of the series, and whilst I disagree with most of Gatland's close calls it's hard to argue with them now.

The lions were one point away from a series win. Would we have provided that point? Maybe Nel and Dickinson if they were fit could have held the scrum up better but they weren't so it's academically, the Grays I believe would have done the Lions proud but Itoje played well and Alun Wyn Jones is one of Gatland's favourites. The back row is a point of contention and I do believe Watson could have made a real splash on tour. Russell would have been an all or nothing card at the end. Dunbar has been a bit off since he did his acl, Bennett and Jones were injured as was Maitland and Hogg. As for Seymour, Daly and Watson were better on the tour. So by my reckoning if it weren't for injuries we could have been at around 8-12 Lions but it didn't happen. Our players went and turned over Australia in Australia, the Lions achieved a remarkable result.

The best way to look at it is to embrace the Lions, embrace the fact that we didn't have many players involved but the ones we did played their part in the midweek games and in the background as well I would imagine. But also the shirt makes a difference, players reach a higher level in the shirt. And Scottish players put so much into the shirt, would Jonathan Davies be inspired to reach a level far higher than he does for Wales if it weren't for the achievements in the past of Hastings, Calder, Townsend, Tait etc. We could pull out of the Lions, demand they wear different colour socks and watch them play the same team they would have done anyway or this outstanding generation Scotland have put together can realise their potential and pummel Wales time and time again, because let's face it they aren't very good, and turn England over at Murrayfield to prove THAT game was an anomaly, turn over Ireland in Dublin to prove that the opening game wasn't and give New Zealand a run for their money in November to prove that we are good enough. But in the mean time let's enjoy the Lions because Scotland have put an awful lot into the shirt over the years and it isn't about one tour, it's about the history. And if it wasn't for us the modern Lions would be very different, Telfer and McGeechan ushered the Lions into the pro era. And if you can't get intoxicated by the romance of it then at the end of the day the Lions just achieved something remarkable and it's always nice for an excuse for one more beer.

this is why your team isn't in the Lions, you've beaten Wales twice since 2003 ffs, all of a sudden we aren't very good? Not sure what that makes Scotland then, much worse I guess.

Not if you look at the last 6 Nations league table.

which is what Scots fans do, problem is after years and years and years of being wooden spoon competitors, Scotland should be consolidating on a significant recent improvement, instead they have forgotten that they've been dire, the rest of us haven't and it will take more than 1 win since 2003 to prove things really have changed.
You are right Gwlad just assuming Scotland are better than Wales because of one game is ridiculous. If only there was an objective way of measuring these things based on results against all teams. Why don't World Rugby organise such a thing as it would prove conclusively that Wales are the best team? Oh hang on!

1 New Zealand 94.78
2 England 90.14
3 Ireland 85.39
4 Australia 84.63
5 South Africa 84.16
6 Scotland 82.47
7 Wales 81.73

I know you don't think highly of Gwlad but he isn't wrong there. Fans of Scotland seem to have always had a bitter resentment towards Wales, and this year more than ever. It's strange. I quite like the Scotland team but don't have the same respect for much of their deluded fan base. And as you brought it up aren't we better than South Africa who are ranked above us? We beat them quite convincingly last time we faced off, by 14 points in fact, which in the up north (beyond the wall) is considered an absolute thrashing right?

I expect Wales will improve when the most successful Lions coach of the pro era returns and puts the house in order. We'll be back to beating England and Scotland in no time .

The trouble with your logic of assessing who is best on just one match it produces nonsensical results.

Scotland beat Ireland so are better than Ireland.
England beat Scotland so are better than Scotland
Ireland beat England so are better than England

So Ireland are better than England who are better than Scotland who are better than Ireland who are..... And so on in an ever decreasing loop of nonsense.

I am not a Scotland fan but Scotland's overall results are empirically better than Wales' in the last year. Will it last? Who knows? As neither team has any strength in depth, either could be blown off course by a few injuries so anything could happen.

Incidentally, although Scotland are better than Wales that does not mean that they should have more Lions. Lions selection is not about having a generally good team it is about having the best players in their positions. Hogg excepted Scotland don't.

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon 10 Jul 2017, 10:43 pm

mikey_dragon wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
David-Douglas wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
123456789 wrote:For me it's a fairly simple debate, Wales had the second highest number of players on tour. Are they better than Scotland? No. Are they better than Ireland? No. Why were many of them selected? Because Gatland was the head coach.

But for me the Lions is special, and represents rugby from Britain and Ireland. I loved every minute of the series, and whilst I disagree with most of Gatland's close calls it's hard to argue with them now.

The lions were one point away from a series win. Would we have provided that point? Maybe Nel and Dickinson if they were fit could have held the scrum up better but they weren't so it's academically, the Grays I believe would have done the Lions proud but Itoje played well and Alun Wyn Jones is one of Gatland's favourites. The back row is a point of contention and I do believe Watson could have made a real splash on tour. Russell would have been an all or nothing card at the end. Dunbar has been a bit off since he did his acl, Bennett and Jones were injured as was Maitland and Hogg. As for Seymour, Daly and Watson were better on the tour. So by my reckoning if it weren't for injuries we could have been at around 8-12 Lions but it didn't happen. Our players went and turned over Australia in Australia, the Lions achieved a remarkable result.

The best way to look at it is to embrace the Lions, embrace the fact that we didn't have many players involved but the ones we did played their part in the midweek games and in the background as well I would imagine. But also the shirt makes a difference, players reach a higher level in the shirt. And Scottish players put so much into the shirt, would Jonathan Davies be inspired to reach a level far higher than he does for Wales if it weren't for the achievements in the past of Hastings, Calder, Townsend, Tait etc. We could pull out of the Lions, demand they wear different colour socks and watch them play the same team they would have done anyway or this outstanding generation Scotland have put together can realise their potential and pummel Wales time and time again, because let's face it they aren't very good, and turn England over at Murrayfield to prove THAT game was an anomaly, turn over Ireland in Dublin to prove that the opening game wasn't and give New Zealand a run for their money in November to prove that we are good enough. But in the mean time let's enjoy the Lions because Scotland have put an awful lot into the shirt over the years and it isn't about one tour, it's about the history. And if it wasn't for us the modern Lions would be very different, Telfer and McGeechan ushered the Lions into the pro era. And if you can't get intoxicated by the romance of it then at the end of the day the Lions just achieved something remarkable and it's always nice for an excuse for one more beer.

this is why your team isn't in the Lions, you've beaten Wales twice since 2003 ffs, all of a sudden we aren't very good? Not sure what that makes Scotland then, much worse I guess.

Not if you look at the last 6 Nations league table.

which is what Scots fans do, problem is after years and years and years of being wooden spoon competitors, Scotland should be consolidating on a significant recent improvement, instead they have forgotten that they've been dire, the rest of us haven't and it will take more than 1 win since 2003 to prove things really have changed.
You are right Gwlad just assuming Scotland are better than Wales because of one game is ridiculous. If only there was an objective way of measuring these things based on results against all teams. Why don't World Rugby organise such a thing as it would prove conclusively that Wales are the best team? Oh hang on!

1 New Zealand 94.78
2 England 90.14
3 Ireland 85.39
4 Australia 84.63
5 South Africa 84.16
6 Scotland 82.47
7 Wales 81.73

I know you don't think highly of Gwlad but he isn't wrong there. Fans of Scotland seem to have always had a bitter resentment towards Wales, and this year more than ever. It's strange. I quite like the Scotland team but don't have the same respect for much of their deluded fan base. And as you brought it up aren't we better than South Africa who are ranked above us? We beat them quite convincingly last time we faced off, by 14 points in fact, which in the up north (beyond the wall) is considered an absolute thrashing right?

I expect Wales will improve when the most successful Lions coach of the pro era returns and puts the house in order. We'll be back to beating England and Scotland in no time .

I dare to you post a poll on here asking about who the most reasonable and rational posters on this forum are... I double dare you as Samuel L Jackson would say...

by mikey_dragon Mon 10 Jul 2017, 10:44 pm

The answer would be the Japanese.

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon 10 Jul 2017, 10:45 pm

I've seen a lot of them on here.

by mikey_dragon Mon 10 Jul 2017, 11:13 pm

Exiledinborders wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
David-Douglas wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
123456789 wrote:For me it's a fairly simple debate, Wales had the second highest number of players on tour. Are they better than Scotland? No. Are they better than Ireland? No. Why were many of them selected? Because Gatland was the head coach.

But for me the Lions is special, and represents rugby from Britain and Ireland. I loved every minute of the series, and whilst I disagree with most of Gatland's close calls it's hard to argue with them now.

The lions were one point away from a series win. Would we have provided that point? Maybe Nel and Dickinson if they were fit could have held the scrum up better but they weren't so it's academically, the Grays I believe would have done the Lions proud but Itoje played well and Alun Wyn Jones is one of Gatland's favourites. The back row is a point of contention and I do believe Watson could have made a real splash on tour. Russell would have been an all or nothing card at the end. Dunbar has been a bit off since he did his acl, Bennett and Jones were injured as was Maitland and Hogg. As for Seymour, Daly and Watson were better on the tour. So by my reckoning if it weren't for injuries we could have been at around 8-12 Lions but it didn't happen. Our players went and turned over Australia in Australia, the Lions achieved a remarkable result.

The best way to look at it is to embrace the Lions, embrace the fact that we didn't have many players involved but the ones we did played their part in the midweek games and in the background as well I would imagine. But also the shirt makes a difference, players reach a higher level in the shirt. And Scottish players put so much into the shirt, would Jonathan Davies be inspired to reach a level far higher than he does for Wales if it weren't for the achievements in the past of Hastings, Calder, Townsend, Tait etc. We could pull out of the Lions, demand they wear different colour socks and watch them play the same team they would have done anyway or this outstanding generation Scotland have put together can realise their potential and pummel Wales time and time again, because let's face it they aren't very good, and turn England over at Murrayfield to prove THAT game was an anomaly, turn over Ireland in Dublin to prove that the opening game wasn't and give New Zealand a run for their money in November to prove that we are good enough. But in the mean time let's enjoy the Lions because Scotland have put an awful lot into the shirt over the years and it isn't about one tour, it's about the history. And if it wasn't for us the modern Lions would be very different, Telfer and McGeechan ushered the Lions into the pro era. And if you can't get intoxicated by the romance of it then at the end of the day the Lions just achieved something remarkable and it's always nice for an excuse for one more beer.

this is why your team isn't in the Lions, you've beaten Wales twice since 2003 ffs, all of a sudden we aren't very good? Not sure what that makes Scotland then, much worse I guess.

Not if you look at the last 6 Nations league table.

which is what Scots fans do, problem is after years and years and years of being wooden spoon competitors, Scotland should be consolidating on a significant recent improvement, instead they have forgotten that they've been dire, the rest of us haven't and it will take more than 1 win since 2003 to prove things really have changed.
You are right Gwlad just assuming Scotland are better than Wales because of one game is ridiculous. If only there was an objective way of measuring these things based on results against all teams. Why don't World Rugby organise such a thing as it would prove conclusively that Wales are the best team? Oh hang on!

1 New Zealand 94.78
2 England 90.14
3 Ireland 85.39
4 Australia 84.63
5 South Africa 84.16
6 Scotland 82.47
7 Wales 81.73

I know you don't think highly of Gwlad but he isn't wrong there. Fans of Scotland seem to have always had a bitter resentment towards Wales, and this year more than ever. It's strange. I quite like the Scotland team but don't have the same respect for much of their deluded fan base. And as you brought it up aren't we better than South Africa who are ranked above us? We beat them quite convincingly last time we faced off, by 14 points in fact, which in the up north (beyond the wall) is considered an absolute thrashing right?

I expect Wales will improve when the most successful Lions coach of the pro era returns and puts the house in order. We'll be back to beating England and Scotland in no time .
The trouble with your logic of assessing who is best on just one match it produces nonsensical results.

Scotland beat Ireland so are better than Ireland.
England beat Scotland so are better than Scotland
Ireland beat England so are better than England

So Ireland are better than England who are better than Scotland who are better than Ireland who are..... And so on in an ever decreasing loop of nonsense.

I am not a Scotland fan but Scotland's overall results are empirically better than Wales' in the last year. Will it last? Who knows? As neither team has any strength in depth, either could be blown off course by a few injuries so anything could happen.

Incidentally, although Scotland are better than Wales that does not mean that they should have more Lions. Lions selection is not about having a generally good team it is about having the best players in their positions. Hogg excepted Scotland don't.

It was actually someone else's logic and I agree it will produce nonsensical results. I prefer to look at all matches across a few seasons. Here you could argue the logic for the rankings but until there's a global season, and until there's no 'third strings' being put out then they aren't that good a measure. As it stands I don't think many would disagree with them; but IMO France were ranked too high before their series-drubbing against SA, and SA are still officially gash unless they come up north next season and beat everybody. Ireland third best in world rugby? Not a chance, but that's the rankings for you.

I don't disagree that Scotland had better recent results and are therefore a better team right now, it also happened to take place during the year we have a fool in charge of the team; the one win in ten happens to be that year. Coincidence?
What most of us dislike is the abuse directed at Wales daily. I would get it if the Kiwi's started ribbing us but Scotland aren't that great so there isn't much of a leg to stand on. I've acknowledged they're better right now but they've been a bottom half/bottom 2 team in the 6N for a number of years, and Wales a top 3 team with a realistic chance at the title. Personally I just see Scotlands improvement in the 6N down to Wales regressing badly under Howley, and even then Wales were one Cuthbert tackle attempt and one cheating Frenchman away from finishing higher than Scotland and France. Now with Townsend I see Scotland continuing to improve but that's more down to a good coach and a good group of player performing well under said coach.

You're not a Scotland fan? You're always on the match threads commenting like you are one.

by RuggerRadge2611 Mon 10 Jul 2017, 11:40 pm

mikey_dragon wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
David-Douglas wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
123456789 wrote:For me it's a fairly simple debate, Wales had the second highest number of players on tour. Are they better than Scotland? No. Are they better than Ireland? No. Why were many of them selected? Because Gatland was the head coach.

But for me the Lions is special, and represents rugby from Britain and Ireland. I loved every minute of the series, and whilst I disagree with most of Gatland's close calls it's hard to argue with them now.

The lions were one point away from a series win. Would we have provided that point? Maybe Nel and Dickinson if they were fit could have held the scrum up better but they weren't so it's academically, the Grays I believe would have done the Lions proud but Itoje played well and Alun Wyn Jones is one of Gatland's favourites. The back row is a point of contention and I do believe Watson could have made a real splash on tour. Russell would have been an all or nothing card at the end. Dunbar has been a bit off since he did his acl, Bennett and Jones were injured as was Maitland and Hogg. As for Seymour, Daly and Watson were better on the tour. So by my reckoning if it weren't for injuries we could have been at around 8-12 Lions but it didn't happen. Our players went and turned over Australia in Australia, the Lions achieved a remarkable result.

The best way to look at it is to embrace the Lions, embrace the fact that we didn't have many players involved but the ones we did played their part in the midweek games and in the background as well I would imagine. But also the shirt makes a difference, players reach a higher level in the shirt. And Scottish players put so much into the shirt, would Jonathan Davies be inspired to reach a level far higher than he does for Wales if it weren't for the achievements in the past of Hastings, Calder, Townsend, Tait etc. We could pull out of the Lions, demand they wear different colour socks and watch them play the same team they would have done anyway or this outstanding generation Scotland have put together can realise their potential and pummel Wales time and time again, because let's face it they aren't very good, and turn England over at Murrayfield to prove THAT game was an anomaly, turn over Ireland in Dublin to prove that the opening game wasn't and give New Zealand a run for their money in November to prove that we are good enough. But in the mean time let's enjoy the Lions because Scotland have put an awful lot into the shirt over the years and it isn't about one tour, it's about the history. And if it wasn't for us the modern Lions would be very different, Telfer and McGeechan ushered the Lions into the pro era. And if you can't get intoxicated by the romance of it then at the end of the day the Lions just achieved something remarkable and it's always nice for an excuse for one more beer.

this is why your team isn't in the Lions, you've beaten Wales twice since 2003 ffs, all of a sudden we aren't very good? Not sure what that makes Scotland then, much worse I guess.

Not if you look at the last 6 Nations league table.

which is what Scots fans do, problem is after years and years and years of being wooden spoon competitors, Scotland should be consolidating on a significant recent improvement, instead they have forgotten that they've been dire, the rest of us haven't and it will take more than 1 win since 2003 to prove things really have changed.
You are right Gwlad just assuming Scotland are better than Wales because of one game is ridiculous. If only there was an objective way of measuring these things based on results against all teams. Why don't World Rugby organise such a thing as it would prove conclusively that Wales are the best team? Oh hang on!

1 New Zealand 94.78
2 England 90.14
3 Ireland 85.39
4 Australia 84.63
5 South Africa 84.16
6 Scotland 82.47
7 Wales 81.73

I know you don't think highly of Gwlad but he isn't wrong there. Fans of Scotland seem to have always had a bitter resentment towards Wales, and this year more than ever. It's strange. I quite like the Scotland team but don't have the same respect for much of their deluded fan base. And as you brought it up aren't we better than South Africa who are ranked above us? We beat them quite convincingly last time we faced off, by 14 points in fact, which in the up north (beyond the wall) is considered an absolute thrashing right?

I expect Wales will improve when the most successful Lions coach of the pro era returns and puts the house in order. We'll be back to beating England and Scotland in no time .
The trouble with your logic of assessing who is best on just one match it produces nonsensical results.

Scotland beat Ireland so are better than Ireland.
England beat Scotland so are better than Scotland
Ireland beat England so are better than England

So Ireland are better than England who are better than Scotland who are better than Ireland who are..... And so on in an ever decreasing loop of nonsense.

I am not a Scotland fan but Scotland's overall results are empirically better than Wales' in the last year. Will it last? Who knows? As neither team has any strength in depth, either could be blown off course by a few injuries so anything could happen.

Incidentally, although Scotland are better than Wales that does not mean that they should have more Lions. Lions selection is not about having a generally good team it is about having the best players in their positions. Hogg excepted Scotland don't.

It was actually someone else's logic and I agree it will produce nonsensical results. I prefer to look at all matches across a few seasons. Here you could argue the logic for the rankings but until there's a global season, and until there's no 'third strings' being put out then they aren't that good a measure. As it stands I don't think many would disagree with them; but IMO France were ranked too high before their series-drubbing against SA, and SA are still officially gash unless they come up north next season and beat everybody. Ireland third best in world rugby? Not a chance, but that's the rankings for you.

I don't disagree that Scotland had better recent results and are therefore a better team right now, it also happened to take place during the year we have a fool in charge of the team; the one win in ten happens to be that year. Coincidence?
What most of us dislike is the abuse directed at Wales daily. I would get it if the Kiwi's started ribbing us but Scotland aren't that great so there isn't much of a leg to stand on. I've acknowledged they're better right now but they've been a bottom half/bottom 2 team in the 6N for a number of years, and Wales a top 3 team with a realistic chance at the title. Personally I just see Scotlands improvement in the 6N down to Wales regressing badly under Howley, and even then Wales were one Cuthbert tackle attempt and one cheating Frenchman away from finishing higher than Scotland and France. Now with Townsend I see Scotland continuing to improve but that's more down to a good coach and a good group of player performing well under said coach.

You're not a Scotland fan? You're always on the match threads commenting like you are one.

Mikey, I'll tell you something about me, something you probably don't know. My dad is Welsh. He's one of those more Welsh than the native Welsh types. He still comes out with Bore Da and all of that nonsense.

I love him dearly and I love my Welsh heritage dearly too. I support Wales against any other team apart from Scotland, that doesn't fundamentally change the fact I think Warren Gatland is a giant floppy walloper.

His stubbornness and pride have cost Wales games in the past and his stubbornness and pride robbed the Lions of a key win against the Hurricanes. I'm not going to trawl through that nonsense again, but his steadfast refusal to use the bench lost us that game. Rewind 4 years and his refusal to take Mako off in the second test arguably cost us that game too.

You have to differentiate between Wales bashing, which I never do, unlike others who seem hell bent on trolling, and Gatland bashing. As far as Gatland bashing I'm a card carrying member because I dispise his coaching methods.

My dad raved about him for the first few seasons and your amazing run in the 2011 RWC, but he was the first to admit that the tactics have been widely figured out now and he never seems to be able to move beyond a physically imposing game plan. It worked before with the crop of players Wales had at the time, Roberts, Phillips, Hook, Steven Jones, Leigh Halfpenny, Ryan Jones etc. The team you have now are different. Faletau, Webb, Sam Davies, Scott Williams, Liam Williams etc all play a different sort of game, Gatland's tactics of the past don't work as well because the size and power simply aren't there anymore. Granted you still have guys like North and Cuthbert but to be honest Steff Evans looks like a great talent.

I want to see Wales improve. Hug

However getting one over you boys in the 6N felt so good because it meant my dad finally stopped trolling me!

by Gwlad Tue 11 Jul 2017, 2:32 am

Exiledinborders wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
David-Douglas wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
123456789 wrote:For me it's a fairly simple debate, Wales had the second highest number of players on tour. Are they better than Scotland? No. Are they better than Ireland? No. Why were many of them selected? Because Gatland was the head coach.

But for me the Lions is special, and represents rugby from Britain and Ireland. I loved every minute of the series, and whilst I disagree with most of Gatland's close calls it's hard to argue with them now.

The lions were one point away from a series win. Would we have provided that point? Maybe Nel and Dickinson if they were fit could have held the scrum up better but they weren't so it's academically, the Grays I believe would have done the Lions proud but Itoje played well and Alun Wyn Jones is one of Gatland's favourites. The back row is a point of contention and I do believe Watson could have made a real splash on tour. Russell would have been an all or nothing card at the end. Dunbar has been a bit off since he did his acl, Bennett and Jones were injured as was Maitland and Hogg. As for Seymour, Daly and Watson were better on the tour. So by my reckoning if it weren't for injuries we could have been at around 8-12 Lions but it didn't happen. Our players went and turned over Australia in Australia, the Lions achieved a remarkable result.

The best way to look at it is to embrace the Lions, embrace the fact that we didn't have many players involved but the ones we did played their part in the midweek games and in the background as well I would imagine. But also the shirt makes a difference, players reach a higher level in the shirt. And Scottish players put so much into the shirt, would Jonathan Davies be inspired to reach a level far higher than he does for Wales if it weren't for the achievements in the past of Hastings, Calder, Townsend, Tait etc. We could pull out of the Lions, demand they wear different colour socks and watch them play the same team they would have done anyway or this outstanding generation Scotland have put together can realise their potential and pummel Wales time and time again, because let's face it they aren't very good, and turn England over at Murrayfield to prove THAT game was an anomaly, turn over Ireland in Dublin to prove that the opening game wasn't and give New Zealand a run for their money in November to prove that we are good enough. But in the mean time let's enjoy the Lions because Scotland have put an awful lot into the shirt over the years and it isn't about one tour, it's about the history. And if it wasn't for us the modern Lions would be very different, Telfer and McGeechan ushered the Lions into the pro era. And if you can't get intoxicated by the romance of it then at the end of the day the Lions just achieved something remarkable and it's always nice for an excuse for one more beer.

this is why your team isn't in the Lions, you've beaten Wales twice since 2003 ffs, all of a sudden we aren't very good? Not sure what that makes Scotland then, much worse I guess.

Not if you look at the last 6 Nations league table.

which is what Scots fans do, problem is after years and years and years of being wooden spoon competitors, Scotland should be consolidating on a significant recent improvement, instead they have forgotten that they've been dire, the rest of us haven't and it will take more than 1 win since 2003 to prove things really have changed.
You are right Gwlad just assuming Scotland are better than Wales because of one game is ridiculous. If only there was an objective way of measuring these things based on results against all teams. Why don't World Rugby organise such a thing as it would prove conclusively that Wales are the best team? Oh hang on!

1 New Zealand 94.78
2 England 90.14
3 Ireland 85.39
4 Australia 84.63
5 South Africa 84.16
6 Scotland 82.47
7 Wales 81.73

chuffed to bits for you that it make sit all feel better, but it doesnt change a thing. Wales have been hammering Scotland for years and yet you guys think one win means all that is forgotten, it aint.

by beshocked Tue 11 Jul 2017, 8:50 am

mikey dragon why don't you think Ireland are 3rd best in world? They've beaten the top 2 in the last year. They might have lost to Scotland and Wales but neither are bad.

I think the current rankings are pretty accurate.

Scotland have shown their potential with some big notable wins vs Australia,Wales and Ireland but then again they still aren't on balance as good as the top 3.

The ranking table looks a bit strange because of stronger home nations performances and SA/Australia underperforming. Also France and Argentina aren't doing great.

by the-goon Tue 11 Jul 2017, 9:55 am

mikey_dragon wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Exiledinborders wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
David-Douglas wrote:
Gwlad wrote:
123456789 wrote:For me it's a fairly simple debate, Wales had the second highest number of players on tour. Are they better than Scotland? No. Are they better than Ireland? No. Why were many of them selected? Because Gatland was the head coach.

But for me the Lions is special, and represents rugby from Britain and Ireland. I loved every minute of the series, and whilst I disagree with most of Gatland's close calls it's hard to argue with them now.

The lions were one point away from a series win. Would we have provided that point? Maybe Nel and Dickinson if they were fit could have held the scrum up better but they weren't so it's academically, the Grays I believe would have done the Lions proud but Itoje played well and Alun Wyn Jones is one of Gatland's favourites. The back row is a point of contention and I do believe Watson could have made a real splash on tour. Russell would have been an all or nothing card at the end. Dunbar has been a bit off since he did his acl, Bennett and Jones were injured as was Maitland and Hogg. As for Seymour, Daly and Watson were better on the tour. So by my reckoning if it weren't for injuries we could have been at around 8-12 Lions but it didn't happen. Our players went and turned over Australia in Australia, the Lions achieved a remarkable result.

The best way to look at it is to embrace the Lions, embrace the fact that we didn't have many players involved but the ones we did played their part in the midweek games and in the background as well I would imagine. But also the shirt makes a difference, players reach a higher level in the shirt. And Scottish players put so much into the shirt, would Jonathan Davies be inspired to reach a level far higher than he does for Wales if it weren't for the achievements in the past of Hastings, Calder, Townsend, Tait etc. We could pull out of the Lions, demand they wear different colour socks and watch them play the same team they would have done anyway or this outstanding generation Scotland have put together can realise their potential and pummel Wales time and time again, because let's face it they aren't very good, and turn England over at Murrayfield to prove THAT game was an anomaly, turn over Ireland in Dublin to prove that the opening game wasn't and give New Zealand a run for their money in November to prove that we are good enough. But in the mean time let's enjoy the Lions because Scotland have put an awful lot into the shirt over the years and it isn't about one tour, it's about the history. And if it wasn't for us the modern Lions would be very different, Telfer and McGeechan ushered the Lions into the pro era. And if you can't get intoxicated by the romance of it then at the end of the day the Lions just achieved something remarkable and it's always nice for an excuse for one more beer.

this is why your team isn't in the Lions, you've beaten Wales twice since 2003 ffs, all of a sudden we aren't very good? Not sure what that makes Scotland then, much worse I guess.

Not if you look at the last 6 Nations league table.

which is what Scots fans do, problem is after years and years and years of being wooden spoon competitors, Scotland should be consolidating on a significant recent improvement, instead they have forgotten that they've been dire, the rest of us haven't and it will take more than 1 win since 2003 to prove things really have changed.
You are right Gwlad just assuming Scotland are better than Wales because of one game is ridiculous. If only there was an objective way of measuring these things based on results against all teams. Why don't World Rugby organise such a thing as it would prove conclusively that Wales are the best team? Oh hang on!

1 New Zealand 94.78
2 England 90.14
3 Ireland 85.39
4 Australia 84.63
5 South Africa 84.16
6 Scotland 82.47
7 Wales 81.73

I know you don't think highly of Gwlad but he isn't wrong there. Fans of Scotland seem to have always had a bitter resentment towards Wales, and this year more than ever. It's strange. I quite like the Scotland team but don't have the same respect for much of their deluded fan base. And as you brought it up aren't we better than South Africa who are ranked above us? We beat them quite convincingly last time we faced off, by 14 points in fact, which in the up north (beyond the wall) is considered an absolute thrashing right?

I expect Wales will improve when the most successful Lions coach of the pro era returns and puts the house in order. We'll be back to beating England and Scotland in no time .
The trouble with your logic of assessing who is best on just one match it produces nonsensical results.

Scotland beat Ireland so are better than Ireland.
England beat Scotland so are better than Scotland
Ireland beat England so are better than England

So Ireland are better than England who are better than Scotland who are better than Ireland who are..... And so on in an ever decreasing loop of nonsense.

I am not a Scotland fan but Scotland's overall results are empirically better than Wales' in the last year. Will it last? Who knows? As neither team has any strength in depth, either could be blown off course by a few injuries so anything could happen.

Incidentally, although Scotland are better than Wales that does not mean that they should have more Lions. Lions selection is not about having a generally good team it is about having the best players in their positions. Hogg excepted Scotland don't.

It was actually someone else's logic and I agree it will produce nonsensical results. I prefer to look at all matches across a few seasons. Here you could argue the logic for the rankings but until there's a global season, and until there's no 'third strings' being put out then they aren't that good a measure. As it stands I don't think many would disagree with them; but IMO France were ranked too high before their series-drubbing against SA, and SA are still officially gash unless they come up north next season and beat everybody. Ireland third best in world rugby? Not a chance, but that's the rankings for you.

I don't disagree that Scotland had better recent results and are therefore a better team right now, it also happened to take place during the year we have a fool in charge of the team; the one win in ten happens to be that year. Coincidence?
What most of us dislike is the abuse directed at Wales daily. I would get it if the Kiwi's started ribbing us but Scotland aren't that great so there isn't much of a leg to stand on. I've acknowledged they're better right now but they've been a bottom half/bottom 2 team in the 6N for a number of years, and Wales a top 3 team with a realistic chance at the title. Personally I just see Scotlands improvement in the 6N down to Wales regressing badly under Howley, and even then Wales were one Cuthbert tackle attempt and one cheating Frenchman away from finishing higher than Scotland and France. Now with Townsend I see Scotland continuing to improve but that's more down to a good coach and a good group of player performing well under said coach.

You're not a Scotland fan? You're always on the match threads commenting like you are one.

Who are more deserving? 2nd in the 6N, beat NZ, AUS and ENG this season, who bar NZ and ENG are more deserving to be above us?

by LordDowlais Tue 11 Jul 2017, 10:07 am

If we are going by the Scottish algorithms on here, then Fiji are a better team than Scotland, as they just beat them. Rolling Eyes

by Gooseberry Tue 11 Jul 2017, 11:02 am

LordDowlais wrote:If we are going by the Scottish algorithms on here, then Fiji are a better team than Scotland, as they just beat them.

Not a fair comparisson, Scotland were missing all their Lions test players Whistle

by RuggerRadge2611 Tue 11 Jul 2017, 11:08 am

LordDowlais wrote:If we are going by the Scottish algorithms on here, then Fiji are a better team than Scotland, as they just beat them.

Exiledinborders wrote:
Just assuming ~~Scotland~~ Fiji are better than ~~Wales~~ Scotland because of one game is ridiculous. If only there was an objective way of measuring these things based on results against all teams. Why don't World Rugby organise such a thing? Oh hang on!

One win does not make a team better. Consistently winning and moving up the world rankings does. I don't think many on here can really dispute that the world rankings are pretty representative of where international teams are...

by LordDowlais Tue 11 Jul 2017, 11:18 am

OK, perhaps we can have this conversation after the AI's this year and the 6N next year.

by BamBam Tue 11 Jul 2017, 11:24 am

Or perhaps people can have the conversation when they choose to, rather than when "Lord" Dowlais says they can

by LordDowlais Tue 11 Jul 2017, 11:35 am

I was just saying this because Wales have been at a much bigger disadvantage than any other 6N sides have over the last 18 months.

by beshocked Tue 11 Jul 2017, 11:45 am

LordDowlais wrote:I was just saying this because Wales have been at a much bigger disadvantage than any other 6N sides have over the last 18 months.

How exactly?

by LordDowlais Tue 11 Jul 2017, 12:00 pm

beshocked wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:I was just saying this because Wales have been at a much bigger disadvantage than any other 6N sides have over the last 18 months.

How exactly?

Warren Gatland has been away with the Lions for a start, and we had the Howler in charge. Then, we have over dozen players taken to represent the Lions.

Wales have not had a full complement of coaches and players for the best part of two years.

by beshocked Tue 11 Jul 2017, 12:21 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
beshocked wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:I was just saying this because Wales have been at a much bigger disadvantage than any other 6N sides have over the last 18 months.

How exactly?

Warren Gatland has been away with the Lions for a start, and we had the Howler in charge. Then, we have over dozen players taken to represent the Lions.

Wales have not had a full complement of coaches and players for the best part of two years.

I know Gatland is highly rated in Wales but his winning ratio is not that impressive and Wales have gradually stagnated since 2012.

Every country has absentees. Not only Wales.

by LordDowlais Tue 11 Jul 2017, 12:27 pm

beshocked wrote:Every country has absentees. Not only Wales

Not every country had the same absentees as Wales though over the last 18 months.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 11 Jul 2017, 12:31 pm

So you're agreeing that scotland are a shade better but you think wales will improve.

by Cyril Tue 11 Jul 2017, 12:33 pm

I don't tend to look at the rankings below 2nd. Everyone from 3rd-10th are much of a muchness and could probably beat each other 'on their day'.

by munkian Tue 11 Jul 2017, 12:34 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you're agreeing that scotland are a shade better but you think wales will improve.

I agree with this but normal service will be resumed come the 6 Nations and Scotland will be fighting Italy for a wooden stirring implement.

by LordDowlais Tue 11 Jul 2017, 12:35 pm

Cyril wrote:I don't tend to look at the rankings below 2nd. Everyone from 3rd-10th are much of a muchness and could probably beat each other 'on their day'.

This.

New Zealand are stand out alone, worlds ahead of everyone else, all the others are fighting it out for 2nd at the minute. Which makes the Lions tour a lot more impressive.

by Sponsored content