The Official Scottish Rugby Thread

[Slick]

Russell is playing the game at another level - a more imaginative Lions coach would have built the team around him.

Understand the loyalty to Watson but think this has pushed peoples assesment of Curry way beyond any hope of objectivity.

Price the best 9 on tour by far...the real disappointment for me out of the Scottish players was Hogg.

This was a shit tour for various reasons mentioned but for me the Lions really needs a strong test representation from all four unions to be true to the concept and it was closer to this this time than for a while.

Decent post, particularly the last paragraph.

But don’t agree re Watson and Curry. Coming into the tour I think I said I might even favour Curry to start the tests, but as we went on he just wasn’t playing well. You expect your 7 to be front and centre and he was never even close to that. For Watson, who dominated Curry in the 6N and was consistently the best 7 in the tournament, not to really get a sniff was a terrible decision.

[dpedin]

Russell is playing the game at another level - a more imaginative Lions coach would have built the team around him.

Understand the loyalty to Watson but think this has pushed peoples assesment of Curry way beyond any hope of objectivity.

Price the best 9 on tour by far...the real disappointment for me out of the Scottish players was Hogg.

This was a shit tour for various reasons mentioned but for me the Lions really needs a strong test representation from all four unions to be true to the concept and it was closer to this this time than for a while.

Decent post, particularly the last paragraph.

But don’t agree re Watson and Curry. Coming into the tour I think I said I might even favour Curry to start the tests, but as we went on he just wasn’t playing well. You expect your 7 to be front and centre and he was never even close to that. For Watson, who dominated Curry in the 6N and was consistently the best 7 in the tournament, not to really get a sniff was a terrible decision.

This! We needed to win the breakdown and with two strong but slow carriers in Conan and Courtney Lawes in back row then we needed Curry to be at every breakdown, he wasn't, in fact he was at very few. He also gave away any number of penalties and doesn't have the best hands in the game. He ended up pretty anonymous in all three tests. The Lions second row and back row were poor in all three tests and it was a crime that the likes of Beirne, Navidi and Watson were left on the bench or not even in the 23. However this is a function of Gatlandball, he wasn't interested in having a back row who could jackle or join up play between forwards and backs.

Watson played Curry off the park in the 6Ns. The Scottish front row conceded the least number of penalties in the 6Ns and bettered the French in Paris in the last game of the 6Ns. Ritchie was in superb form in the 6Ns yet was never even mentioned in despatches. I am not sure how the English pack who were beaten by Scotland, Wales and Ireland in the 6Ns ended up with 7 players on the park at the end of the third Lions test. Big does not equal best, playing in England Premiership or for England doesn't make you the best, being on Sky TV every week doesn't make you the best! The media hype around some of these players shouldn't have been enough to justify them being picked to be on a Lions Tour. Sinkler and Vunipola can't scrummage at the top level, it showed in the last 10 mins of thi 3rd test, Courtney Lawes isn't mobile enough to be a 6, he is a 5, and George is now just a fat big lump. To be fair AWJ is a year or two past his best and Murray is Irelands 3rd/4th best scrum half but we know Gatland likes them.

Best thing for Lions is if Gatland fecks off and we get new blood in, have a better selection process and a more joined up and inclusive approach to selection for the team and coaches and an agreement between the EPL/Pro14 (or whatever its called!) and the host nation that we have a proper Tour with a number of competitive warm up and mid-week games. The ethos of the Lions has been lost, it needs to be found quickly - this Tour has been a miserable, negative and an unenjoyable shitshow! It will drive people away from the game.

[Yr Alban]

I could see Toony coaching the next tour. Which could be interesting.

[Biffer]

Russell is playing the game at another level - a more imaginative Lions coach would have built the team around him.

Understand the loyalty to Watson but think this has pushed peoples assesment of Curry way beyond any hope of objectivity.

Price the best 9 on tour by far...the real disappointment for me out of the Scottish players was Hogg.

This was a shit tour for various reasons mentioned but for me the Lions really needs a strong test representation from all four unions to be true to the concept and it was closer to this this time than for a while.

Decent post, particularly the last paragraph.

But don’t agree re Watson and Curry. Coming into the tour I think I said I might even favour Curry to start the tests, but as we went on he just wasn’t playing well. You expect your 7 to be front and centre and he was never even close to that. For Watson, who dominated Curry in the 6N and was consistently the best 7 in the tournament, not to really get a sniff was a terrible decision.

This! We needed to win the breakdown and with two strong but slow carriers in Conan and Courtney Lawes in back row then we needed Curry to be at every breakdown, he wasn't, in fact he was at very few. He also gave away any number of penalties and doesn't have the best hands in the game. He ended up pretty anonymous in all three tests. The Lions second row and back row were poor in all three tests and it was a crime that the likes of Beirne, Navidi and Watson were left on the bench or not even in the 23. However this is a function of Gatlandball, he wasn't interested in having a back row who could jackle or join up play between forwards and backs.

Watson played Curry off the park in the 6Ns. The Scottish front row conceded the least number of penalties in the 6Ns and bettered the French in Paris in the last game of the 6Ns. Ritchie was in superb form in the 6Ns yet was never even mentioned in despatches. I am not sure how the English pack who were beaten by Scotland, Wales and Ireland in the 6Ns ended up with 7 players on the park at the end of the third Lions test. Big does not equal best, playing in England Premiership or for England doesn't make you the best, being on Sky TV every week doesn't make you the best! The media hype around some of these players shouldn't have been enough to justify them being picked to be on a Lions Tour. Sinkler and Vunipola can't scrummage at the top level, it showed in the last 10 mins of thi 3rd test, Courtney Lawes isn't mobile enough to be a 6, he is a 5, and George is now just a fat big lump. To be fair AWJ is a year or two past his best and Murray is Irelands 3rd/4th best scrum half but we know Gatland likes them.

Best thing for Lions is if Gatland fecks off and we get new blood in, have a better selection process and a more joined up and inclusive approach to selection for the team and coaches and an agreement between the EPL/Pro14 (or whatever its called!) and the host nation that we have a proper Tour with a number of competitive warm up and mid-week games. The ethos of the Lions has been lost, it needs to be found quickly - this Tour has been a miserable, negative and an unenjoyable shitshow! It will drive people away from the game.

For me it’s not even Curry v Watson, it’s the fact that the back row was pretty ineffectual, and the same unit of three was chosen every time, even though there was generally little to choose between the candidates.

[I like neeps]

I could see Toony coaching the next tour. Which could be interesting.

I can't see Scotland doing well enough. I think it'll be Eddie Jones sadly.

[Biffer]

I could see Toony coaching the next tour. Which could be interesting.

I can't see Scotland doing well enough. I think it'll be Eddie Jones sadly.

No chance. Jones will never get it.

[Big D]

Russell is playing the game at another level - a more imaginative Lions coach would have built the team around him.

Understand the loyalty to Watson but think this has pushed peoples assesment of Curry way beyond any hope of objectivity.

Price the best 9 on tour by far...the real disappointment for me out of the Scottish players was Hogg.

This was a shit tour for various reasons mentioned but for me the Lions really needs a strong test representation from all four unions to be true to the concept and it was closer to this this time than for a while.

Decent post, particularly the last paragraph.

But don’t agree re Watson and Curry. Coming into the tour I think I said I might even favour Curry to start the tests, but as we went on he just wasn’t playing well. You expect your 7 to be front and centre and he was never even close to that. For Watson, who dominated Curry in the 6N and was consistently the best 7 in the tournament, not to really get a sniff was a terrible decision.

This! We needed to win the breakdown and with two strong but slow carriers in Conan and Courtney Lawes in back row then we needed Curry to be at every breakdown, he wasn't, in fact he was at very few. He also gave away any number of penalties and doesn't have the best hands in the game. He ended up pretty anonymous in all three tests. The Lions second row and back row were poor in all three tests and it was a crime that the likes of Beirne, Navidi and Watson were left on the bench or not even in the 23. However this is a function of Gatlandball, he wasn't interested in having a back row who could jackle or join up play between forwards and backs.

Watson played Curry off the park in the 6Ns. The Scottish front row conceded the least number of penalties in the 6Ns and bettered the French in Paris in the last game of the 6Ns. Ritchie was in superb form in the 6Ns......

Sinkler and Vunipola can't scrummage at the top level,

Ritchie wasn't on form during the 6N. He had a good game v France but was below his best for a lot of it.

Point on props in the France game is fair however Fagerson was the worst performing prop on tour by a distance prior to the tests and Sutherland gave away scrum penalties and poor open field penalties.

We can criticise other nations players above ours but some of our players were well below their best too.

[Big D]

This was a shit tour for various reasons mentioned but for me the Lions really needs a strong test representation from all four unions to be true to the concept and it was closer to this this time than for a while.

I think that is up to the players though. It is supposed to be the best of the 4 nations so it needs players to be playing well consistently.

[Yr Alban]

Decent post, particularly the last paragraph.

But don’t agree re Watson and Curry. Coming into the tour I think I said I might even favour Curry to start the tests, but as we went on he just wasn’t playing well. You expect your 7 to be front and centre and he was never even close to that. For Watson, who dominated Curry in the 6N and was consistently the best 7 in the tournament, not to really get a sniff was a terrible decision.

This! We needed to win the breakdown and with two strong but slow carriers in Conan and Courtney Lawes in back row then we needed Curry to be at every breakdown, he wasn't, in fact he was at very few. He also gave away any number of penalties and doesn't have the best hands in the game. He ended up pretty anonymous in all three tests. The Lions second row and back row were poor in all three tests and it was a crime that the likes of Beirne, Navidi and Watson were left on the bench or not even in the 23. However this is a function of Gatlandball, he wasn't interested in having a back row who could jackle or join up play between forwards and backs.

Watson played Curry off the park in the 6Ns. The Scottish front row conceded the least number of penalties in the 6Ns and bettered the French in Paris in the last game of the 6Ns. Ritchie was in superb form in the 6Ns......

Sinkler and Vunipola can't scrummage at the top level,

Ritchie wasn't on form during the 6N. He had a good game v France but was below his best for a lot of it.

Point on props in the France game is fair however Fagerson was the worst performing prop on tour by a distance prior to the tests and Sutherland gave away scrum penalties and poor open field penalties.

We can criticise other nations players above ours but some of our players were well below their best too.

Wouldn’t disagree that not all our players did themselves justice, though TBH all of the looseheads got their shot and I wouldn’t say there was much to choose between them.

Price and Russell were our star performers. VdM, Sutherland and Hogg a mixed bag. Fagerson underwhelming. Harris and particularly Watson didn’t get enough game time to judge, and I really thought Watson should have played yesterday.

I’m pleased that on a tour where we had 8 players selected, all but one came home with Test caps. You wouldn’t have predicted that before the tour.

Scotland have form for doing well after Lions tours. I think it’s that our players usually under-rate themselves (OK, maybe not Russell!) and a lengthy exposure to other countries’ players makes them realise they aren’t superhuman after all. Actually looking forward to the 6N now.

[Begbie]

[Yr Alban]

Oh, my word… I hope all his strength doesn’t go with it!

As I said above: we have the core of a squad who can make a real impact. Hopefully this tour will have given them the confidence to do it.

[I like neeps]

Calling Sutherland a mixed bag is generous. He was poor, couldn't compete with the Boks physically and his penalty in the second test was pathetic discipline.

[Yr Alban]

Calling Sutherland a mixed bag is generous. He was poor, couldn't compete with the Boks physically and his penalty in the second test was pathetic discipline.

I thought he did OK in the first Test. Less so in the second. The main point I was making, though, was that I don’t think either of the other LHPs was strikingly better. All three of them were leaking scrum penalties.

[Big D]

Calling Sutherland a mixed bag is generous. He was poor, couldn't compete with the Boks physically and his penalty in the second test was pathetic discipline.

He was way off his best. Although going from no rugby since March into a Lions environment is a huge step change. He'll be fine come the November internationals.

[I like neeps]

Calling Sutherland a mixed bag is generous. He was poor, couldn't compete with the Boks physically and his penalty in the second test was pathetic discipline.

I thought he did OK in the first Test. Less so in the second. The main point I was making, though, was that I don’t think either of the other LHPs was strikingly better. All three of them were leaking scrum penalties.

Vunipola was noticeably better when subbed on for him. Agree none of the looseheads were great but the tests passed Sutherland by who was Scotland's worst performer.

Looking forward to seeing how he goes playing weekly in the prem. It was clear he didn't like Cockers who much preferred Schoeman no matter how well (or in this season's case poorly) Schoeman played.

[JM2K6]

Saying Sinckler can't scrum at international level after a match in which he uh conceded one penalty and won one penalty is just silly. Particularly coming from a poster who singled him out the other day while also ignoring Sutherland giving away repeat penalties and getting butchered in the scrum in the game he was being criticised for.

Curry was bad. I think there's some revisionism about him and Watson on tour, though - there really wasn't much between them going into selection for the first Test, both had had some excellent displays and some quieter ones. I would've preferred changes in the back row for the final test and sticking with the status quo definitely did not work. Six Nations form gets you on the plane and in with a shout of a Test shirt, it shouldn't override tour form and matchday squad balance, though.

Pleased for Russell, fine performance and one in the eye for people who hate flair players.

[Yr Alban]

Hadn’t realised that Gatland chose to highlight Finn’s two errors in the post-match presser. What an absolute weapon he is.

[Big D]

Hadn’t realised that Gatland chose to highlight Finn’s two errors in the post-match presser. What an absolute weapon he is.

Finn gave some back too though.

Both probably better served being quiet.

[Blackmac]

Hadn’t realised that Gatland chose to highlight Finn’s two errors in the post-match presser. What an absolute weapon he is.

Yeah it was an absolute disgrace. "Yeah he played well, but then he knocked one on".
You could see the praise of Finn sticking in his throat, minutes after taking credit for the more adventurous tactics Finn introduced.

Total twat of a man.

[I like neeps]

Hadn’t realised that Gatland chose to highlight Finn’s two errors in the post-match presser. What an absolute weapon he is.

I'm glad he's gone. Hope to God that's the last time he's seen in the NH.

[Yr Alban]

Hadn’t realised that Gatland chose to highlight Finn’s two errors in the post-match presser. What an absolute weapon he is.

Yeah it was an absolute disgrace. "Yeah he played well, but then he knocked one on".
You could see the praise of Finn sticking in his throat, minutes after taking credit for the more adventurous tactics Finn introduced.

Total twat of a man.

Call me paranoid, but I bet you could hear the knives being sharpened in the press box when Biggar went off yesterday. Look what happened with Hogg when he dropped a couple of high balls last week - it was exactly what the critics wanted to see, and he was duly slaughtered. (I won’t hold my breath for the articles about Williams butchering a try and missing vital tackles). Russell has the ‘unreliable maverick’ label, and if he had made even one major error then the boot would have been put in with gusto. The fact that all I’ve read is fulsome praise is testament to how impressive he actually was.

[SaintK]

Hadn’t realised that Gatland chose to highlight Finn’s two errors in the post-match presser. What an absolute weapon he is.

Yeah it was an absolute disgrace. "Yeah he played well, but then he knocked one on".
You could see the praise of Finn sticking in his throat, minutes after taking credit for the more adventurous tactics Finn introduced.

Total twat of a man.

Call me paranoid, but I bet you could hear the knives being sharpened in the press box when Biggar went off yesterday. Look what happened with Hogg when he dropped a couple of high balls last week - it was exactly what the critics wanted to see, and he was duly slaughtered. (I won’t hold my breath for the articles about Williams butchering a try and missing vital tackles). Russell has the ‘unreliable maverick’ label, and if he had made even one major error then the boot would have been put in with gusto. The fact that all I’ve read is fulsome praise is testament to how impressive he actually was.

You're paranoid!

[Yr Alban]

Yeah it was an absolute disgrace. "Yeah he played well, but then he knocked one on".
You could see the praise of Finn sticking in his throat, minutes after taking credit for the more adventurous tactics Finn introduced.

Total twat of a man.

Call me paranoid, but I bet you could hear the knives being sharpened in the press box when Biggar went off yesterday. Look what happened with Hogg when he dropped a couple of high balls last week - it was exactly what the critics wanted to see, and he was duly slaughtered. (I won’t hold my breath for the articles about Williams butchering a try and missing vital tackles). Russell has the ‘unreliable maverick’ label, and if he had made even one major error then the boot would have been put in with gusto. The fact that all I’ve read is fulsome praise is testament to how impressive he actually was.

You're paranoid!

Well, possibly. But not necessarily wrong!

I’ve just seen Russell’s post-match comments. Although I think they were framed as more contentious than they actually were, there was obviously some barb there. I assume they came after Gatland’s?

[Yr Alban]

Graham Love on Twitter yesterday: ‘Was Stuart Hogg even playing today? Totally anonymous.’

Quality.

[dpedin]

Saying Sinckler can't scrum at international level after a match in which he uh conceded one penalty and won one penalty is just silly. Particularly coming from a poster who singled him out the other day while also ignoring Sutherland giving away repeat penalties and getting butchered in the scrum in the game he was being criticised for.

Curry was bad. I think there's some revisionism about him and Watson on tour, though - there really wasn't much between them going into selection for the first Test, both had had some excellent displays and some quieter ones. I would've preferred changes in the back row for the final test and sticking with the status quo definitely did not work. Six Nations form gets you on the plane and in with a shout of a Test shirt, it shouldn't override tour form and matchday squad balance, though.

Pleased for Russell, fine performance and one in the eye for people who hate flair players.

In all seriousness I think Gatland got his front row combinations wrong and got out thought by Rassie in selection. In the first test our front row - Sutherland, LCD and Furlong - did well against what I think was a strong SA scrummaging front row - Nyakane, Mbonambi and Nche. The subs benches when they came on were equally matched, scrums were about even and Lions did well to win game. However there is an argument that SA were a bit undercooked?

In the second test SA change their starting props and bring Koch onto the bench in place of injured Nche. I think Rassie is hoping to keep it tight and then attack set piece in 2nd half. Lions change prop combination and bring in Vunipola for his game around the park. SA probably edge the scrums and when subs are made both Sutherland and Sinkler struggle against the new SA front row. Sinkler struggles with low scrummaging height of Nyakane, scrums become unstable and Sutherland isn't able to do anything about it against a strong Koch either. Lions lose set piece, lose momentum and lose game.

For third test SA keep same combination knowing that Kitshoff, Mbonambi and Malherbe can hold their own in the scrum against Lions starting front row but unlikely to dominate. Lions make third change at LH in three games and bring in Jones as well as Owens at hooker, hoping both will bring more stability in the front row. SA have a front row on the bench they know will dominate the Lions bench in second half, they have done it before. Nyakane and Koch are more powerful scrummagers than Vunipola and Sinkler and they will target them in last quarter of the game and hope to win penalties and field position, as they have done in previous games. It worked.

Furlong at TH proved to be the rock that the Lions scrum was based on and all three of the LHs scrummaged well when he was on the pitch. Yes, Jones struggled yesterday and lost a couple of scrums even when Furlong was at TH but he should have gone off injured. Rassie knew he couldn't attack the Lions scrum whilst Furlong was on the pitch so picked a front row who could hold their own, not concede penalties and do their work around the park. Once Furlong went off they attacked the Lions scrums, Sinkler couldn't maintain the solidity that Furlong provided at TH and the LH, whoever it was, came under pressure as a result. SA worked out how best and when to attack the Lions scrums and it worked. Gatland made the mistake of changing the front row after the first test, it had actually gone ok in the first Test despite late change, and failed to respond to SA changes in selections in future games.

[I like neeps]

Saying Sinckler can't scrum at international level after a match in which he uh conceded one penalty and won one penalty is just silly. Particularly coming from a poster who singled him out the other day while also ignoring Sutherland giving away repeat penalties and getting butchered in the scrum in the game he was being criticised for.

Curry was bad. I think there's some revisionism about him and Watson on tour, though - there really wasn't much between them going into selection for the first Test, both had had some excellent displays and some quieter ones. I would've preferred changes in the back row for the final test and sticking with the status quo definitely did not work. Six Nations form gets you on the plane and in with a shout of a Test shirt, it shouldn't override tour form and matchday squad balance, though.

Pleased for Russell, fine performance and one in the eye for people who hate flair players.

Also the penalty against him was err bizarre as Nyakane's elbow clearly went to ground early.

Whilst Hogg and Sutherland's performances were disappointing I was most disappointed by Tom Curry. A phenomenal player for England and Sale but did very little positive, quite a bit negative and a whole lot of ineffective stuff Vs the Boks.

[Yr Alban]

Saying Sinckler can't scrum at international level after a match in which he uh conceded one penalty and won one penalty is just silly. Particularly coming from a poster who singled him out the other day while also ignoring Sutherland giving away repeat penalties and getting butchered in the scrum in the game he was being criticised for.

Curry was bad. I think there's some revisionism about him and Watson on tour, though - there really wasn't much between them going into selection for the first Test, both had had some excellent displays and some quieter ones. I would've preferred changes in the back row for the final test and sticking with the status quo definitely did not work. Six Nations form gets you on the plane and in with a shout of a Test shirt, it shouldn't override tour form and matchday squad balance, though.

Pleased for Russell, fine performance and one in the eye for people who hate flair players.

Also the penalty against him was err bizarre as Nyakane's elbow clearly went to ground early.

Whilst Hogg and Sutherland's performances were disappointing I was most disappointed by Tom Curry. A phenomenal player for England and Sale but did very little positive, quite a bit negative and a whole lot of ineffective stuff Vs the Boks.

Curry wasn’t alone. What Lions player actually enhanced their reputation based on the Test matches? Russell for certain, and probably Price, but the bar wasn’t high for either of them. Itoje and Furlong were already rated among the best in the world in their position. Henshaw? Conan maybe? It’s not a long list.

[Yr Alban]

This is such a fantastic picture. All the feels.

[Slick]

Saying Sinckler can't scrum at international level after a match in which he uh conceded one penalty and won one penalty is just silly. Particularly coming from a poster who singled him out the other day while also ignoring Sutherland giving away repeat penalties and getting butchered in the scrum in the game he was being criticised for.

Curry was bad. I think there's some revisionism about him and Watson on tour, though - there really wasn't much between them going into selection for the first Test, both had had some excellent displays and some quieter ones. I would've preferred changes in the back row for the final test and sticking with the status quo definitely did not work. Six Nations form gets you on the plane and in with a shout of a Test shirt, it shouldn't override tour form and matchday squad balance, though.

Pleased for Russell, fine performance and one in the eye for people who hate flair players.

I don’t think there was any revisionism. I don’t think anyone was saying he should definitely have been picked ahead of Curry for the first test. As you say it was pretty even and I don’t remember anyone criticising that decision much.

But it became obvious that Curry wasn’t on top form pretty quickly, but Hamish didn’t get a look in. That’s wrong and I think cost us a bit

[Big D]

This tour has done nothing to change my mind that the SA sides should not be in the pro whatever number it is.

Didn't expect it to and nor should it really but not particularly looking forward to them being in it.

[Slick]

This tour has done nothing to change my mind that the SA sides should not be in the pro whatever number it is.

Didn't expect it to and nor should it really but not particularly looking forward to them being in it.

Agree.

It’s bad enough with the Irish

[Yr Alban]

This tour has done nothing to change my mind that the SA sides should not be in the pro whatever number it is.

Didn't expect it to and nor should it really but not particularly looking forward to them being in it.

Agree.

It’s bad enough with the Irish

I’m willing to give it a try. The real SR teams will
add a different challenge.

[JM2K6]

Saying Sinckler can't scrum at international level after a match in which he uh conceded one penalty and won one penalty is just silly. Particularly coming from a poster who singled him out the other day while also ignoring Sutherland giving away repeat penalties and getting butchered in the scrum in the game he was being criticised for.

Curry was bad. I think there's some revisionism about him and Watson on tour, though - there really wasn't much between them going into selection for the first Test, both had had some excellent displays and some quieter ones. I would've preferred changes in the back row for the final test and sticking with the status quo definitely did not work. Six Nations form gets you on the plane and in with a shout of a Test shirt, it shouldn't override tour form and matchday squad balance, though.

Pleased for Russell, fine performance and one in the eye for people who hate flair players.

I don’t think there was any revisionism. I don’t think anyone was saying he should definitely have been picked ahead of Curry for the first test. As you say it was pretty even and I don’t remember anyone criticising that decision much.

But it became obvious that Curry wasn’t on top form pretty quickly, but Hamish didn’t get a look in. That’s wrong and I think cost us a bit

Sorry slick but that's quite at odds with what you said post match about Curry: "He has been absolutely average pre tests"

[charltom]

How the f can anything be "quite at odds" with "average" as an assessment?

Not great, not sh1te, but average!

[charltom]

The only way the Lions win the last test is with the extra range (including variety of kicking) of Finn Russell. Ideally his introduction would come as a late surprise to the Boks; and any decent coach would have prepared for that eventuality. Price and Russell are the changes needed amongst the backs, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Adams in for VdM even though the half-backs would suit Duhan. I'm less bothered about the possibility of Hogg missing out than either of the half-backs.

Wyn Jones will be in for Sutherland if fit, and Hamish Watson should also be starting, with Curry or Beirne at 6 and the other on the bench. It's a shame there's no great eight though.

Just highlighting this post from last Tuesday, because a deliberate injury in the early stages of the game is exactly how I would have sneakily achieved the bolded bit. I doubt that Gatland really briefed Biggar to go off at the first slight knock in order that the team could switch to the Finntastic gameplan, but it's not completely out of the question, so I'll give him credit for that.

If only he'd also brought Mish in (for Curry,) or kept Hogg, we might now be celebrating a big win!

[Begbie]

The only way the Lions win the last test is with the extra range (including variety of kicking) of Finn Russell. Ideally his introduction would come as a late surprise to the Boks; and any decent coach would have prepared for that eventuality. Price and Russell are the changes needed amongst the backs, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Adams in for VdM even though the half-backs would suit Duhan. I'm less bothered about the possibility of Hogg missing out than either of the half-backs.

Wyn Jones will be in for Sutherland if fit, and Hamish Watson should also be starting, with Curry or Beirne at 6 and the other on the bench. It's a shame there's no great eight though.

Just highlighting this post from last Tuesday, because a deliberate injury in the early stages of the game is exactly how I would have sneakily achieved the bolded bit. I doubt that Gatland really briefed Biggar to go off at the first slight knock in order that the team could switch to the Finntastic gameplan, but it's not completely out of the question, so I'll give him credit for that.

If only he'd also brought Mish in (for Curry,) or kept Hogg, we might now be celebrating a big win!

Williams had a stinker, but Hogg deserved to be dropped.

[charltom]

The only way the Lions win the last test is with the extra range (including variety of kicking) of Finn Russell. Ideally his introduction would come as a late surprise to the Boks; and any decent coach would have prepared for that eventuality. Price and Russell are the changes needed amongst the backs, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Adams in for VdM even though the half-backs would suit Duhan. I'm less bothered about the possibility of Hogg missing out than either of the half-backs.

Wyn Jones will be in for Sutherland if fit, and Hamish Watson should also be starting, with Curry or Beirne at 6 and the other on the bench. It's a shame there's no great eight though.

Just highlighting this post from last Tuesday, because a deliberate injury in the early stages of the game is exactly how I would have sneakily achieved the bolded bit. I doubt that Gatland really briefed Biggar to go off at the first slight knock in order that the team could switch to the Finntastic gameplan, but it's not completely out of the question, so I'll give him credit for that.

If only he'd also brought Mish in (for Curry,) or kept Hogg, we might now be celebrating a big win!

Williams had a stinker, but Hogg deserved to be dropped.

He did, but he would only have needed to do one thing (pass or tackle, once) better than Williams to win the test.

[JM2K6]

How the f can anything be "quite at odds" with "average" as an assessment?

Not great, not sh1te, but average!

Because "absolutely average" is not intended to be anything other that a withering assessment of someone's form in the Australian sense, and it's supposed to be from someone who thought it was neck-and-neck between him and Watson - and I'm willing to bet neither he nor you considered Watson's pre-Test form to be "absolutely average" either.

Both players put in fine performances and one quieter one before the Tests.

[Slick]

Saying Sinckler can't scrum at international level after a match in which he uh conceded one penalty and won one penalty is just silly. Particularly coming from a poster who singled him out the other day while also ignoring Sutherland giving away repeat penalties and getting butchered in the scrum in the game he was being criticised for.

Curry was bad. I think there's some revisionism about him and Watson on tour, though - there really wasn't much between them going into selection for the first Test, both had had some excellent displays and some quieter ones. I would've preferred changes in the back row for the final test and sticking with the status quo definitely did not work. Six Nations form gets you on the plane and in with a shout of a Test shirt, it shouldn't override tour form and matchday squad balance, though.

Pleased for Russell, fine performance and one in the eye for people who hate flair players.

I don’t think there was any revisionism. I don’t think anyone was saying he should definitely have been picked ahead of Curry for the first test. As you say it was pretty even and I don’t remember anyone criticising that decision much.

But it became obvious that Curry wasn’t on top form pretty quickly, but Hamish didn’t get a look in. That’s wrong and I think cost us a bit

Sorry slick but that's quite at odds with what you said post match about Curry: "He has been absolutely average pre tests"

I'm not getting into one of your dances, and your post was about pre test then you quoted me from post test, but here are some other quotes

we have 2 outstanding 7’s

Mish I haven't got too many complaints about, although I still think he deserves to start instead of Curry

I don’t think I’ve ever said anything bad about Curry, just think Watson deserves a start.

As I said, I don't think many people on this thread were saying pre 1st test that Watson should be the nailed on starting 7. But as we went on and Curry wasn't on top form then my thoughts were that Watson should at least be getting a chance.

[JM2K6]

I don’t think there was any revisionism. I don’t think anyone was saying he should definitely have been picked ahead of Curry for the first test. As you say it was pretty even and I don’t remember anyone criticising that decision much.

But it became obvious that Curry wasn’t on top form pretty quickly, but Hamish didn’t get a look in. That’s wrong and I think cost us a bit

Sorry slick but that's quite at odds with what you said post match about Curry: "He has been absolutely average pre tests"

I'm not getting into one of your dances, and your post was about pre test then you quoted me from post test, but here are some other quotes

we have 2 outstanding 7’s

Mish I haven't got too many complaints about, although I still think he deserves to start instead of Curry

I don’t think I’ve ever said anything bad about Curry, just think Watson deserves a start.

As I said, I don't think many people on this thread were saying pre 1st test that Watson should be the nailed on starting 7. But as we went on and Curry wasn't on top form then my thoughts were that Watson should at least be getting a chance.

I agree with all of that, Slick, and have repeatedly said pretty much the same. But you did say, after the final Test, that Curry had been absolutely average pre-Tests, which is the bit I'm highlighting as revisionism. Did you not mean to say pre-Tests? Did you mean to say during the Tests?