RugbyRebels

I don't see how Gatball will be an effective tactic against NZ at all. But then that goes back to the original decision to choose Gatland in the first place, everyone knows exactly what they will try and do and how blunt it is as a tool.
In some ways Scotland is better off out of it.

This is the Accenture statistical team of the 2017 6Ns, which would suggest that Launchbury, Russell, Zebo and Earls have the clearest shout for being hard done by. Of these, I think only Launchbury has a cast iron case that he's missed out to lads who are not quite as good.

And sorry, but those of you questioning the Oranje ballix Henderson's selection need to get your heads out of your hands and take an honest look at the lad.

Having said that, I am entirely selfish and wish that Connor, CJ and POM had lost out too.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

This is the Accenture statistical team of the 2017 6Ns, which would suggest that Launchbury, Russell, Zebo and Earls have the clearest shout for being hard done by. Of these, I think only Launchbury has a cast iron case that he's missed out to lads who are not quite as good.

And sorry, but those of you questioning the Oranje ballix Henderson's selection need to get your heads out of your hands and take an honest look at the lad.

Having said that, I am entirely selfish and wish that Connor, CJ and POM had lost out too.

Surely that's not JD2 at 13, the worst centre actively playing rugby according to some?!

BBD wrote:As we have seen previously, a few of those selected will be unlucky enough to pick up injuries before the season ends and during the tour that will mean replacements flying out to join the squad. Who knows we may even have a Hartleyesque ban before the tour. The 41 selected so far certainly won't be unscathed

Probably best that George North doesn't do anything more robust with his head than have his haircut.

I think if there's an injury at lock (J Gray), backrow (Watson), SH (Laidlaw), FH (Russell) or back 3 (Maitland) a Scot could well be next in line.

Lock - Launchbury (J Grey started well, but was AWOL in the last 2 rounds of 6Ns)
Back Row - Agreed, Hamish has been hard done by but to be honest I've watched a lot of Tim Swinson this season and thought he would be a bolter.
SH - er, balls! Laidlaw is a steady kicker off the tee, but I'd take Care or Marmion ahead of him.
FH - Agreed, but only because there's no one else and even then he needs to grow the balls to take a drop goal to win a game. let's be honest if Sexton gets knackered, the Lions are fecked.
Back 3 - Maitland! My arse!

Digby wrote:

ARM wrote:

Meanwhile the SRU picks up somewhere in the region of £2m as its financial dividend from Lions Tour profits. As an equal shareholder, there is a straight split four ways between the home unions, irrespective of player representation. And we wont have the same impact on our clubs and national side in the first half of next year.

True, but they also get paid per player, and so the WRU who release Gats for such service will pick up £840k compared to the SRU who'll get just £140k. In a lot of organisations that'd be considered a conflict of interest, not here it seems

Thanks. I'd seen the 70,000 figure quoted in a number of places in relation to player payments.

Having now researched further I see there is an equivalent amount paid to unions to compensate for lack of availability for summer tours. Can see the logic. How do the RFU sort this - do they collect and reimburse to the clubs or is it all tied up in the with PRL agreement?

There will also be compensation to clubs for any injuries incurred on tour - presumably backed off with insurance.

If you really want to feel good about how our players are viewed Wales Online have an interesting take on it, basically as we have had poor lions representations we needed to play above and beyond to deserve any shots,

Gatland already talking about goalkicking so that's goodbye to Hogg's chances of starting the first test.

switchskier wrote:Gatland already talking about goalkicking so that's goodbye to Hogg's chances of starting the first test.

Sexton/Farrell have that covered.

Tries might also be quite important. 1/2p has scored one Test try in the last five years.

hugh_woatmeigh wrote: most people will be wondering how Moriarty got there


No they won't.

He is a surprising pick but Flatman was touting his inclusion back in October,.....which made me start to watch him.
He's no slouch.

ARM wrote:

switchskier wrote:Gatland already talking about goalkicking so that's goodbye to Hogg's chances of starting the first test.

Sexton/Farrell have that covered.

Tries might also be quite important. 1/2p has scored one Test try in the last five years.

Having casually compared him to Girvan Dempsey I looked him up and he doesn't score much even in club rugby.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

ARM wrote:

switchskier wrote:Gatland already talking about goalkicking so that's goodbye to Hogg's chances of starting the first test.

Sexton/Farrell have that covered.

Tries might also be quite important. 1/2p has scored one Test try in the last five years.

Having casually compared him to Girvan Dempsey I looked him up and he doesn't score much even in club rugby.

He's a 15. His try scoring record is secondary to his defence.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

This is the Accenture statistical team of the 2017 6Ns, which would suggest that Launchbury, Russell, Zebo and Earls have the clearest shout for being hard done by. Of these, I think only Launchbury has a cast iron case that he's missed out to lads who are not quite as good.

And sorry, but those of you questioning the Oranje ballix Henderson's selection need to get your heads out of your hands and take an honest look at the lad.

Having said that, I am entirely selfish and wish that Connor, CJ and POM had lost out too.

I'm looking at the other inclusions in the second row and when compared to Launchbury and Gray, I can understand the call but I cannot see what he offers over Gray and Launchbury, hence my castigation of his selection.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

BBD wrote:Who knows we may even have a Hartleyesque ban before the tour.

... or a Quinny-esque?

Is anyone opening the book?

My money would be on anyone from the Ospreys or Scarlets who will be having to kick lumps off each other in 3 weeks to secure a Pro12 play-off slot.

Now, now....we don't wish injury on players in this game. It's not like any of them are Jack Wilshere.

kk67 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

ARM wrote:
Sexton/Farrell have that covered.

Tries might also be quite important. 1/2p has scored one Test try in the last five years.

Having casually compared him to Girvan Dempsey I looked him up and he doesn't score much even in club rugby.

He's a 15. His try scoring record is secondary to his defence.

His defence isn't all that - although it used to be better -
and 15s are rather required to be an attacking threat nowadays.

Not wishing injury on anyone but launchbury has to be next in line in the second row. I wouldn't be surprised if Gray Snr was ahead of junior based on the 6N either.

I'm a fan of Ulster, married into it. I do think Henderson is a grand player. Just not IMO as good an out and out 2nd row as others who missed out. The fact he can play 6 is negated the other players in the squad who can play 6 every bit as well as him.

I have wondered whether Russell's continued embarrassing attempts at an international drop goal and tactical kicking* from hand have been held against him too much. There is talk about the defence of Farrell, Sexton and Biggar but I'm not buying Russell is any worse than Sexton or Biggar.

*Hogg, Laidlaw and Price seem to take a lot of the kicking responsibilities.

Big D wrote:Not wishing injury on anyone but launchbury has to be next in line in the second row. I wouldn't be surprised if Gray Snr was ahead of junior based on the 6N either.

I'm a fan of Ulster, married into it. I do think Henderson is a grand player. Just not IMO as good an out and out 2nd row as others who missed out. The fact he can play 6 is negated the other players in the squad who can play 6 every bit as well as him.

I have wondered whether Russell's continued embarrassing attempts at an international drop goal and tactical kicking* from hand have been held against him too much. There is talk about the defence of Farrell, Sexton and Biggar but I'm not buying Russell is any worse than Sexton or Biggar.

*Hogg, Laidlaw and Price seem to take a lot of the kicking responsibilities.

It does seem odd that Launchbury is missing out precisely because he's a loosish 2nd row all rounder with good vision and hands.

<ironyairplanecrash>


3rd edit.

That a quote from Gatland is it? Missing out because he's an all rounder with good vision and hands?

I'm not sure I'd put it past him to be honest.

It gets disappointing when your favoured players get knocked back...but this is taking the piss.
That 2nd row selection is wrong..

Stern verns tweet demonstrates the nonsense of warburton over Watson and bigger over russel.

It doesn't matter if I was picking there would be 8 scots and 0 welsh more Irish and more English.

whatisthejava wrote:Stern verns tweet demonstrates the nonsense of warburton over Watson and bigger over russel.

It doesn't matter if I was picking there would be 8 scots and 0 welsh more Irish and more English.

Does anyone know what website/app those stats are from?

Would like to see if it does averages/game Bigger played 600minutes less so would be interested in the per game differences between the 3 10 options (Finn, Ford and Biggar) to see of Biggar is as far in 3rd as we'd all suspect.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Russell

To be honest, he was utterly awful against England, in a game where he really needed to put on a big performance. I mean, he did, but not in a good way.

Yeah, it's unfair to judge a guy by 1 bad game where the entire team was shit, but the way he was shit-the-bed-like-Spud levels of bad, it probably would've been enough to place that doubt about his temperament for the big occasion for Gatland. If he needed an excuse to not pick Russel, he got one.

cashead wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Russell

To be honest, he was utterly awful against England, in a game where he really needed to put on a big performance. I mean, he did, but not in a good way.

Yeah, it's unfair to judge a guy by 1 bad game where the entire team was shit, but the way he was shit-the-bed-like-Spud levels of bad, it probably would've been enough to place that doubt about his temperament for the big occasion for Gatland. If he needed an excuse to not pick Russel, he got one.

Can't disagree but it's the same guy who outclassed dan carter , twice in 2weeks.

whatisthejava wrote:

cashead wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Russell

To be honest, he was utterly awful against England, in a game where he really needed to put on a big performance. I mean, he did, but not in a good way.

Yeah, it's unfair to judge a guy by 1 bad game where the entire team was shit, but the way he was shit-the-bed-like-Spud levels of bad, it probably would've been enough to place that doubt about his temperament for the big occasion for Gatland. If he needed an excuse to not pick Russel, he got one.

Can't disagree but it's the same guy who outclassed dan carter , twice in 2weeks.

Outclassed Dan Carter? Or was on a team that outclassed Dan Carter's team?

Henderson is (or can be) a better carrier than either Gray or Launchbury. That's presumably Gatland's reasoning. Givenhe currently seems to mainly stop when he reaches contact in order to set up a maul/ruck it seems an odd attribute to pick him on but at his best he's head and shoulders about the other lock options in that respect, if not any other.