Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:25 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 442 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:33 am
Posts: 2054
Jeff the Bear wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
So Scotland lost their first and second choice FB, lost a center, had to play a SH on wing, lost two backrowers so that a lock had to play 6 and was on the Road at Tickets and still scored over 20 despite losing by 40. Meanwhile Wales is at home to England and can't break 20 points.

But yeah failed to perform in a big game. And the Warriors have done more in the Pro12 and ECC than any Welsh side the last 5 years. But they couldn't beat the reigning ECC and Aviva Champs. So Gats has an excuse to select Moriarty and the like.


Tbf, the Weegies have shitload more cash than any of the regions. They really should be doing a lot better.

And as noted many times previously, Gatland puts a premium on defence. It's OK to lose, but not to capitulate.

Ah but we're stuck picking from our "average" Scottish players as against guys who are "individually better"...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39528
iarmhiman wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
This narrow Irish home win is taking on mythological proportions. I thought Henderson had a good game, but the match was won and lost by the fact that England picked two not-match-fit players and then tried to take Ireland on at the kicking game and lost without having really tried to fire a shot, with the bench impact getting its teeth knocked out.

Anyway, some stats.

Henderson had 9 carries for 4m, 12 tackles, and nicked a lineout. Scored a try. Busy day but it was a tight old match.

Launchbury: 8 for 7, 18 tackles
Lawes: 5 for 12, 20 tackles
Itoje: 6 for 2, 20 tackles


The real reason you lost was because Ireland stopped your ball carriers behind the gainline and kept the ball for long periods themselves. Had Ireland any attacking nous or even a decent backline, it would have been a very comfortable win.

Teams rarely bully Ireland in Lansdowne.


Billy had a poor game as he wasn't fit, Watson had a shocker on the wing, and our tactics were all wrong. Our main problem was we kicked the fucking leather off it. Our outside centre got the ball 4 times all match.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32554
JM2K6 wrote:
iarmhiman wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
This narrow Irish home win is taking on mythological proportions. I thought Henderson had a good game, but the match was won and lost by the fact that England picked two not-match-fit players and then tried to take Ireland on at the kicking game and lost without having really tried to fire a shot, with the bench impact getting its teeth knocked out.

Anyway, some stats.

Henderson had 9 carries for 4m, 12 tackles, and nicked a lineout. Scored a try. Busy day but it was a tight old match.

Launchbury: 8 for 7, 18 tackles
Lawes: 5 for 12, 20 tackles
Itoje: 6 for 2, 20 tackles


The real reason you lost was because Ireland stopped your ball carriers behind the gainline and kept the ball for long periods themselves. Had Ireland any attacking nous or even a decent backline, it would have been a very comfortable win.

Teams rarely bully Ireland in Lansdowne.


Billy had a poor game as he wasn't fit, Watson had a shocker on the wing, and our tactics were all wrong. Our main problem was we kicked the fucking leather off it. Our outside centre got the ball 4 times all match.


You had to kick it as your backs had Irish defenders in their faces immediately due to your forwards not getting over the gainline.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39528
Your ball carriers were less successful than ours and you didn't feel the need to hand back possession, so no, not really.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 32554
JM2K6 wrote:
Your ball carriers were less successful than ours and you didn't feel the need to hand back possession, so no, not really.


Disagree with this statement. We couldn't get our backs to do anything our forwards were getting great joy going up the middle. Your forwards could not get over the gainline. Different experience playing Ireland's forwards than Scotland's.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39528
iarmhiman wrote:
JM2K6 wrote:
Your ball carriers were less successful than ours and you didn't feel the need to hand back possession, so no, not really.


Disagree with this statement. We couldn't get our backs to do anything our forwards were getting great joy going up the middle. Your forwards could not get over the gainline. Different experience playing Ireland's forwards than Scotland's.


Your forwards made less ground than ours did, with vastly more ball. The stats back this up. The only Irish starting forwards to make more metres than carries were Stander (26m from 20) and McGrath (19 from 6) [edit: I actually missed that Ryan made 4m from 3 carries, but...]. Best, Ryan, Henderson, O'Mahony, SOB carried 48 times between them for 26m. The Irish pack clearly found it very, very hard to make yards. The only difference was Ireland kept at it and didn't kick it away (or hand it over). Which tallies with what I watched. I thought we were pretty comfortable in defence all day, but was hugely disappointed that we didn't really try and play any rugby.

(For the record, that puts the Irish starting pack at 74 carries for 71m, compared to England's 37 carries for 65m, and including the bench that's 78 for 81m vs 50 for 87m, so England's forwards made a bit more ground off a lot less ball)

Both sides had to work hard for the ground. Ireland made a huge number of carries for modest reward. This isn't to detract from the effort - it's what they thought would win the game, and they did it - but it does counter the idea that the Irish forwards were having any great joy against our defence.


Last edited by JM2K6 on Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:28 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22209
Pfft, you can prove anything with "stats".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5231
ZappaMan wrote:
Pfft, you can prove anything with "stats".

Prove that 2 = 1 then.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8976
Location: Watson city, MN
There wasn't one thing which was the definitive 'the real reason why' but I'll add that the ability to retain possession in the right part of the pitch was a big part of it. I'd say our ball carriers were happy enough to retain possession in English territory while being ahead on the scoreboard. It's not pretty but when it works it works.

There was also not one second row who was 'clearly the best' on the day. There was good balance in the Irish second row with Henderson able to win contact when carrying and Ryan's hard work in the clear out being key to the big possession stats.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39528
Gwenno wrote:
ZappaMan wrote:
Pfft, you can prove anything with "stats".

Prove that 2 = 1 then.


Spoiler: show
Image


Shit, got my maths wrong, that's 2 < 1 :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:33 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22209
Gwenno wrote:
ZappaMan wrote:
Pfft, you can prove anything with "stats".

Prove that 2 = 1 then.

2 Scottish Lions = 1 Board Meltdown

QED.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13226
ZappaMan wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
ZappaMan wrote:
Pfft, you can prove anything with "stats".

Prove that 2 = 1 then.

2 Scottish Lions = 1 Board Meltdown

QED.

:lol: loving the avatar zappa


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5231
happyhooker wrote:
ZappaMan wrote:
Gwenno wrote:
ZappaMan wrote:
Pfft, you can prove anything with "stats".

Prove that 2 = 1 then.

2 Scottish Lions = 1 Board Meltdown

QED.

:lol: loving the avatar zappa

:lol: :lol:
A hit, a palpable hit!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:03 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm
Posts: 4667
bimboman wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
henry wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
henry wrote:
England and Ireland are clearly a level above. That's why Scotland beat Ireland and why Wales pumped them too after losing in the last minutes to England. But it's clear. And it's just as clear that because Scotland and Wales beat Ireland, they should have more Lions playing for them. And it's even more clear that world rankings should be taken into account, perhaps on a clear quota basis. And it's clear that Gatland hates Scotland, Scottish people, shortbread and kilts. And that he wants to lose this tour as a means of satisfying his homeland whilst developing his own players. Crystal. Clear.


England and Ireland are clearly a level above


Clearly.


Clearly. You could tell that when beat one and lost to the other in the last minute. A few bounces of the ball different and we may be talking about the Scottish gettig robbed by the English/Irish.




5th.


JD2 and Barnes away from 1st.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:13 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm
Posts: 4667
Gwenno wrote:
ZappaMan wrote:
Pfft, you can prove anything with "stats".

Prove that 2 = 1 then.


1 (conversion) = 2 (points). One single action can be considered on balance to be worth more/less/= than another single action. And that is exactly what the subjective reading of stats does. It assigns a false value/importance to things and is easily manipulated.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37404
[/quote]JD2 and Barnes away from 1st.
[/quote]


:lol:, great news that Davis is touring. Wonderful narrative though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:49 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm
Posts: 4667
bimboman wrote:
JD2 and Barnes away from 1st.
[/quote]


:lol:, great news that Davis is touring. Wonderful narrative though.[/quote]

Just showing that how slight changes skew perspective. If those two incidents had gone the other way would it make Wales deserve more places? Would it alter the talent levels in the Welsh squad? No. That being a given, and that it's well established these players often operate at a level far above the Scottish, winning the super-4th-place-championship including a capitulation is not a high enough burden of proof of anything other than an off day for for the Welsh against the Scottish and a few brain farts does not = the baby should be thrown out with the bath water and Scotland get 3 places.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37404
5th is 5th regardless of perspective.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1862
dr dre2 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
JD2 and Barnes away from 1st.



:lol:, great news that Davis is touring. Wonderful narrative though.


Just showing that how slight changes skew perspective. If those two incidents had gone the other way would it make Wales deserve more places? Would it alter the talent levels in the Welsh squad? No. That being a given, and that it's well established these players often operate at a level far above the Scottish, winning the super-4th-place-championship including a capitulation is not a high enough burden of proof of anything other than an off day for for the Welsh against the Scottish and a few brain farts does not = the baby should be thrown out with the bath water and Scotland get 3 places.


JD2's off day is into its 2nd year at this stage. And Halfpenny isn't that much further behind him. I'd say its been quite a while since either of them operated at a level above their Scottish counterparts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:10 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm
Posts: 4667
PornDog wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
JD2 and Barnes away from 1st.



:lol:, great news that Davis is touring. Wonderful narrative though.


Just showing that how slight changes skew perspective. If those two incidents had gone the other way would it make Wales deserve more places? Would it alter the talent levels in the Welsh squad? No. That being a given, and that it's well established these players often operate at a level far above the Scottish, winning the super-4th-place-championship including a capitulation is not a high enough burden of proof of anything other than an off day for for the Welsh against the Scottish and a few brain farts does not = the baby should be thrown out with the bath water and Scotland get 3 places.


JD2's off day is into its 2nd year at this stage. And Halfpenny isn't that much further behind him. I'd say its been quite a while since either of them operated at a level above their Scottish counterparts.


Hogg is going.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:13 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm
Posts: 4667
bimboman wrote:
5th is 5th regardless of perspective.


5th is indeed 5th, but an evaluation of performance and potential to perform has to be a little more nuanced. Which is what the lion's coaches of done. They've seen Scotland over perform in to 4th place, which seems to be the limit of their potential. They saw Wales underperform after years of proving they can do better.


Last edited by dr dre2 on Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37404
dr dre2 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
5th is 5th regardless of perspective.


5th is indeed 5th, but an evaluation of performance and potential to perform has to be a little more nuanced.



It certainly seems that way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1862
dr dre2 wrote:
PornDog wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
JD2 and Barnes away from 1st.



:lol:, great news that Davis is touring. Wonderful narrative though.


Just showing that how slight changes skew perspective. If those two incidents had gone the other way would it make Wales deserve more places? Would it alter the talent levels in the Welsh squad? No. That being a given, and that it's well established these players often operate at a level far above the Scottish, winning the super-4th-place-championship including a capitulation is not a high enough burden of proof of anything other than an off day for for the Welsh against the Scottish and a few brain farts does not = the baby should be thrown out with the bath water and Scotland get 3 places.


JD2's off day is into its 2nd year at this stage. And Halfpenny isn't that much further behind him. I'd say its been quite a while since either of them operated at a level above their Scottish counterparts.


Hogg is going.


I know, I was just taking you up on your sweeping statement that "these players often operate at a level far above the Scottish", which as sweeping statements go is complete bollox. On top of that, if one or two incidents had gone Scotland's way then they would have a French scalp on their belt too and be clear 2nd place.

Basically your entire point is bullshit!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 11:48 pm
Posts: 4667
bimboman wrote:
dr dre2 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
5th is 5th regardless of perspective.


5th is indeed 5th, but an evaluation of performance and potential to perform has to be a little more nuanced.



It certainly seems that way.


So you get it. Scotland peaked at 4th. Wales' peak is higher. Let's hope Wales had an off day. If they did we gain. If they didn't then it's only Scotland we missed out on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 41363
Location: Fighting political correctness with "banter"
“And probably the greatest strength that Scotland have had is probably their collective performance. They’ve been well coached by Vern (Cotter) who’s done an exceptional job."

WARREN GATLAND


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm
Posts: 11410
Location: Westerlands
This has made it to 11 pages without even hearing from LN yet.

:twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 179
Location: Newport, Gwent
bimboman wrote:
5th is 5th regardless of perspective.


Actually if you use Roman numerals then Wales came Vth and V is the first letter in Victory.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 333
Rugby2023 wrote:
Truth is, Wales have benefited from having the Lions head coach who prefers their players. Italy saved their blushes but Wales are actually the wooden spooners of the Home Nations in this 6N and would have finished bottom in the 5N. Objectively, it's a bit of a bad joke that they have the second highest number of players. Let's be honest, if Gatland was England coach he'd have picked about 6 Welsh tops which is about what they were due.


As much as I love having a dig at the Welsh, this part isn't actually true I don't think. By my (admittedly back of a fag packet calculations), a Home Nations table this year would have looked like this:

England - 10pts / +41pd
Scotland - 8pts / -19pd
Wales - 5pts / -6pd
Ireland - 5pts / -14pd

If the France and Italy matches saved anyone, it was us!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:14 am
Posts: 2640
diarm wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote:
Truth is, Wales have benefited from having the Lions head coach who prefers their players. Italy saved their blushes but Wales are actually the wooden spooners of the Home Nations in this 6N and would have finished bottom in the 5N. Objectively, it's a bit of a bad joke that they have the second highest number of players. Let's be honest, if Gatland was England coach he'd have picked about 6 Welsh tops which is about what they were due.


As much as I love having a dig at the Welsh, this part isn't actually true I don't think. By my (admittedly back of a fag packet calculations), a Home Nations table this year would have looked like this:

England - 10pts / +41pd
Scotland - 8pts / -19pd
Wales - 5pts / -6pd
Ireland - 5pts / -14pd

If the France and Italy matches saved anyone, it was us!

Yeah, but you also have to judge, at least to some degree, on the Champions Cup. The Welsh have been stinking up the joint for about a decade.

The thing about the Scots is it wasn't just one decent 6N season; it was also Glasgow winning the Pro-12 and being extremely competitive in the Champions Cup.

Reality is, if the Lions coach wasn't also the Wales coach, the Taffs would have 8 max, and probably 6.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1869
diarm wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote:
Truth is, Wales have benefited from having the Lions head coach who prefers their players. Italy saved their blushes but Wales are actually the wooden spooners of the Home Nations in this 6N and would have finished bottom in the 5N. Objectively, it's a bit of a bad joke that they have the second highest number of players. Let's be honest, if Gatland was England coach he'd have picked about 6 Welsh tops which is about what they were due.


As much as I love having a dig at the Welsh, this part isn't actually true I don't think. By my (admittedly back of a fag packet calculations), a Home Nations table this year would have looked like this:

England - 10pts / +41pd
Scotland - 8pts / -19pd
Wales - 5pts / -6pd
Ireland - 5pts / -14pd

If the France and Italy matches saved anyone, it was us!


I remember in my schooldays the matches amongst the 4 houses - if you finished second it was usually because you had a decent number of players in the first XV squad.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3885
Hawk97 wrote:
This has made it to 11 pages without even hearing from LN yet.

:twisted:


He's missed. But I'm sure posted that he'd be away for a while a month or two back. For sure he'd be pissed but I suspect circumspect given he saw it coming. And not squealing like some of the new-precious on here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 7047
diarm wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote:
Truth is, Wales have benefited from having the Lions head coach who prefers their players. Italy saved their blushes but Wales are actually the wooden spooners of the Home Nations in this 6N and would have finished bottom in the 5N. Objectively, it's a bit of a bad joke that they have the second highest number of players. Let's be honest, if Gatland was England coach he'd have picked about 6 Welsh tops which is about what they were due.


As much as I love having a dig at the Welsh, this part isn't actually true I don't think. By my (admittedly back of a fag packet calculations), a Home Nations table this year would have looked like this:

England - 10pts / +41pd
Scotland - 8pts / -19pd
Wales - 5pts / -6pd
Ireland - 5pts / -14pd

If the France and Italy matches saved anyone, it was us!

I meant they finished bottom of the Home Nations as per the 6N table. It wasn't about removing France or Italy, especially not France. :) Interesting calculations nonetheless.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1869
MrDominator wrote:
diarm wrote:
Rugby2023 wrote:
Truth is, Wales have benefited from having the Lions head coach who prefers their players. Italy saved their blushes but Wales are actually the wooden spooners of the Home Nations in this 6N and would have finished bottom in the 5N. Objectively, it's a bit of a bad joke that they have the second highest number of players. Let's be honest, if Gatland was England coach he'd have picked about 6 Welsh tops which is about what they were due.


As much as I love having a dig at the Welsh, this part isn't actually true I don't think. By my (admittedly back of a fag packet calculations), a Home Nations table this year would have looked like this:

England - 10pts / +41pd
Scotland - 8pts / -19pd
Wales - 5pts / -6pd
Ireland - 5pts / -14pd

If the France and Italy matches saved anyone, it was us!

Yeah, but you also have to judge, at least to some degree, on the Champions Cup. The Welsh have been stinking up the joint for about a decade.

The thing about the Scots is it wasn't just one decent 6N season; it was also Glasgow winning the Pro-12 and being extremely competitive in the Champions Cup.

Reality is, if the Lions coach wasn't also the Wales coach, the Taffs would have 8 max, and probably 6.


Good point and relevant given Gatland's comments on away 'form'
If it is true that Glasgow's defeat to Sarries has apparently played a part in the selection policy then surely the fact that in the last 2 seasons the Welsh 'Champions Cup' representatives are 9 losses out of 9 away matches should be considered - Glasgow in the same period have beaten Leicester, Racing 92 and Scarlets away.
Another inconvenient fact for the hypocrite Gatland - on top of Wales recent away record which is comfortably the worst of the 4 nations


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:33 am
Posts: 2054
bessantj wrote:
bimboman wrote:
5th is 5th regardless of perspective.


Actually if you use Roman numerals then Wales came Vth and V is the first letter in Victory.

Also the first letter in vaginal discharge... :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10092
Location: I. S. Of The Bronx
JM2K, So it is not that Lawes is a bad scrummager he just rates 3rd out of two locks. Hmm! Our the other guys are better scrummagers and he is not good enough to actually complete one of the essential functions of a lock as well as the other two guys. But yeah he calls a great line-out so scrumming is overrated. If he would not be picked for a 5 meter scrum when needed then he is not good enough to lock. Johnny Gray( heck even Richie Gray) do it for club and country but yeah.

Also, I apologize for being incorrect on the number of J Gray's tackles, I hadn't checked the final stats and was remembering his tally at a point when he was leading the tournament.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5231
topofthemoon wrote:
bessantj wrote:
bimboman wrote:
5th is 5th regardless of perspective.


Actually if you use Roman numerals then Wales came Vth and V is the first letter in Victory.

Also the first letter in vaginal discharge... :P

And the seventh letter in irrelevant.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 179
Location: Newport, Gwent
topofthemoon wrote:
bessantj wrote:
bimboman wrote:
5th is 5th regardless of perspective.


Actually if you use Roman numerals then Wales came Vth and V is the first letter in Victory.

Also the first letter in vaginal discharge... :P


Ha! But enough about your personal problems...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 39528
Deadtigers wrote:
JM2K, So it is not that Lawes is a bad scrummager he just rates 3rd out of two locks. Hmm! Our the other guys are better scrummagers and he is not good enough to actually complete one of the essential functions of a lock as well as the other two guys. But yeah he calls a great line-out so scrumming is overrated. If he would not be picked for a 5 meter scrum when needed then he is not good enough to lock. Johnny Gray( heck even Richie Gray) do it for club and country but yeah.

Also, I apologize for being incorrect on the number of J Gray's tackles, I hadn't checked the final stats and was remembering his tally at a point when he was leading the tournament.


OK, one final time

Courtney Lawes is trusted to do it for club and country. He's done it countless times for Saints, who for a long time with him in the engine room had a feared scrum, and he's done it in the vast majority of his 58 England caps under 3 different head coaches.

Jonny Gray would also be told to gtfo if he was English and was up against Itoje/Launch/Kruis in the pushing stakes.

If you're playing 3 locks, which we did, one of them is going to have to make way in the scrum. All that means is the other two are the better options. It doesn't mean the third is not good enough. If Itoje had been the one to make way, would you be saying the same about him?

FFS, this is properly stupid. If this is your defence of Launchbury, then you're barking up the wrong tree, particularly as it took injuries for Launchbury to get back in the England side and when both he and Lawes were on the bench in England's historical whitewashing of the Aussies, Lawes reliably came on ahead of him. And scrummaged.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:14 am
Posts: 2640
JM2K6 wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
JM2K, So it is not that Lawes is a bad scrummager he just rates 3rd out of two locks. Hmm! Our the other guys are better scrummagers and he is not good enough to actually complete one of the essential functions of a lock as well as the other two guys. But yeah he calls a great line-out so scrumming is overrated. If he would not be picked for a 5 meter scrum when needed then he is not good enough to lock. Johnny Gray( heck even Richie Gray) do it for club and country but yeah.

Also, I apologize for being incorrect on the number of J Gray's tackles, I hadn't checked the final stats and was remembering his tally at a point when he was leading the tournament.


OK, one final time

Courtney Lawes is trusted to do it for club and country. He's done it countless times for Saints, who for a long time with him in the engine room had a feared scrum, and he's done it in the vast majority of his 58 England caps under 3 different head coaches.

Jonny Gray would also be told to gtfo if he was English and was up against Itoje/Launch/Kruis in the pushing stakes.

If you're playing 3 locks, which we did, one of them is going to have to make way in the scrum. All that means is the other two are the better options. It doesn't mean the third is not good enough. If Itoje had been the one to make way, would you be saying the same about him?

FFS, this is properly stupid. If this is your defence of Launchbury, then you're barking up the wrong tree, particularly as it took injuries for Launchbury to get back in the England side and when both he and Lawes were on the bench in England's historical whitewashing of the Aussies, Lawes reliably came on ahead of him. And scrummaged.

Rubbish.

Lawes has been reliably shit for club and country for years; it's literally only this season that he's been half-decent for England.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2 Scots
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Posts: 41363
Location: Fighting political correctness with "banter"
JM2K6 wrote:
Deadtigers wrote:
JM2K, So it is not that Lawes is a bad scrummager he just rates 3rd out of two locks. Hmm! Our the other guys are better scrummagers and he is not good enough to actually complete one of the essential functions of a lock as well as the other two guys. But yeah he calls a great line-out so scrumming is overrated. If he would not be picked for a 5 meter scrum when needed then he is not good enough to lock. Johnny Gray( heck even Richie Gray) do it for club and country but yeah.

Also, I apologize for being incorrect on the number of J Gray's tackles, I hadn't checked the final stats and was remembering his tally at a point when he was leading the tournament.


OK, one final time

Courtney Lawes is trusted to do it for club and country. He's done it countless times for Saints, who for a long time with him in the engine room had a feared scrum, and he's done it in the vast majority of his 58 England caps under 3 different head coaches.

Jonny Gray would also be told to gtfo if he was English and was up against Itoje/Launch/Kruis in the pushing stakes.

If you're playing 3 locks, which we did, one of them is going to have to make way in the scrum. All that means is the other two are the better options. It doesn't mean the third is not good enough. If Itoje had been the one to make way, would you be saying the same about him?

FFS, this is properly stupid. If this is your defence of Launchbury, then you're barking up the wrong tree, particularly as it took injuries for Launchbury to get back in the England side and when both he and Lawes were on the bench in England's historical whitewashing of the Aussies, Lawes reliably came on ahead of him. And scrummaged.

Oh FFs JMK every thread is a not a personal slight to be wronged it's peoples opinions. May I suggest you stop being so fixated and aggressive and just let thing go.
Hopefully this will be the last post on the page and JMK will respond with a childish smiley :thumbup:


Last edited by c69 on Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 442 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Achahoish, backrow, Brumby_in_Vic, Chuckles1188, Clive Simms, crouchy, DOB, dr dre2, eldanielfire, FravBront, handyman, Idle_Wild, KenSkehan, KnuckleDragger, Man In Black, Mr Mike, Mullet 2, Newby1, paneer, P in VG, Plato'sCave, Red Revolution, Risteard, saffer13, Sandstorm, Stevus55, The Man Without Fear, unseenwork, Wilson's Toffee, Yourmother, ZappaMan and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group