2025 6N thread

[Tichtheid]

Ramos syndrome. Okay looking great with those sorts of stats when it doesn't really matter but when it come to it really counting...
- Ramos v SA RWC
- Russell v Eng 6N

Hey, he's yours and so knock yourselves out and he's out of France but I really hope he's nowhere near a Lions jersey.

It’s quite funny, when I was pointing to the stats that showed Finn was the top goal kicker in France you did cartwheels trying to dismiss the importance of it.

Russell played two internationals and a league game since the Calcutta Cup, saying those don’t really matter is one of two things, either someone is desperately floundering around trying to justify their dislike of a player, or it’s someone who isn’t actually interested in rugby and doesn’t watch the game, only referees and incidents that can justify their own prejudices.

Either way, I know you’re going to continue to knock yourself out on the Finn and others hate, as well as the referees.

I seriously don't remember any such stats and equally, think them unlikely: unless you were talking % of conversions. And I say that because the combo of
- Russell being an intl. and so would have less club playing game time (although I acknowledge that I can't recall where his fall out with Townsend occurred)
- and the amount of points scored by Racing and hence the opportunities for a kicker to rack up points
means I cannot believe he would have been at the top of points total. Regardless, I find it hard to believe % wise either given how accurate the likes of Ramos are but then, % rates are often skewed by factors like difficulty/range.

Fact remains that throughout his entire career, Russell has gone from one extreme to another. Brilliant when trying some flash stuff to clusterf**k when doing the same. Often in the same game. I can't get stats for this but I'd bet my house no other FH threw more intercept passes in T14 during his tenure there (no-one else would have even been close). Much as I hate to quote PR (but they are no way alone: if I could be arsed, I'd dig up the Midol article on "same old Russell"), this sums him up

Finn Russell: Yet again this Six Nations, he blew incredibly hot and cold. Came up with some truly spectacular flashes, but compounded that with some rookie errors at pivotal times in the match. Frustrating is probably the best way to describe it, and it’s left the head coach wondering what might have been. 4

He really is closer to "just a naughty boy" than he ever has been to "the messiah".

My mistake, I've looked up the post and at that point in the season Finn was overall joint top points scorer and second top goal kicker in the Top 14.

He finished that season in second in both categories https://all.rugby/tournament/top-14-2023/

Watching rugby must be a real exercise in misery for you, you get into such a rage about referees and can't seem to enjoy these creative players without obsessing over mistakes.

[Slick]

Ramos syndrome. Okay looking great with those sorts of stats when it doesn't really matter but when it come to it really counting...
- Ramos v SA RWC
- Russell v Eng 6N

Hey, he's yours and so knock yourselves out and he's out of France but I really hope he's nowhere near a Lions jersey.

It’s quite funny, when I was pointing to the stats that showed Finn was the top goal kicker in France you did cartwheels trying to dismiss the importance of it.

Russell played two internationals and a league game since the Calcutta Cup, saying those don’t really matter is one of two things, either someone is desperately floundering around trying to justify their dislike of a player, or it’s someone who isn’t actually interested in rugby and doesn’t watch the game, only referees and incidents that can justify their own prejudices.

Either way, I know you’re going to continue to knock yourself out on the Finn and others hate, as well as the referees.

I seriously don't remember any such stats and equally, think them unlikely: unless you were talking % of conversions. And I say that because the combo of
- Russell being an intl. and so would have less club playing game time (although I acknowledge that I can't recall where his fall out with Townsend occurred)
- and the amount of points scored by Racing and hence the opportunities for a kicker to rack up points
means I cannot believe he would have been at the top of points total. Regardless, I find it hard to believe % wise either given how accurate the likes of Ramos are but then, % rates are often skewed by factors like difficulty/range.

Fact remains that throughout his entire career, Russell has gone from one extreme to another. Brilliant when trying some flash stuff to clusterf**k when doing the same. Often in the same game. I can't get stats for this but I'd bet my house no other FH threw more intercept passes in T14 during his tenure there (no-one else would have even been close). Much as I hate to quote PR (but they are no way alone: if I could be arsed, I'd dig up the Midol article on "same old Russell"), this sums him up

Finn Russell: Yet again this Six Nations, he blew incredibly hot and cold. Came up with some truly spectacular flashes, but compounded that with some rookie errors at pivotal times in the match. Frustrating is probably the best way to describe it, and it’s left the head coach wondering what might have been. 4

He really is closer to "just a naughty boy" than he ever has been to "the messiah".

Fair enough, Planet Rugby is a great site with fantastic journalists.

I'll say it again, I don't know how any serious rugby supporter can look at the way he played in the 6N and come up with shit like that. He was brilliant V England and France, and pulled the Welsh apart until he went off. I'd expect the one off 6N watchers to disagree, but not anyone with an ounce of rugby in them

[Biffer]

Ramos syndrome. Okay looking great with those sorts of stats when it doesn't really matter but when it come to it really counting...
- Ramos v SA RWC
- Russell v Eng 6N

Hey, he's yours and so knock yourselves out and he's out of France but I really hope he's nowhere near a Lions jersey.

It’s quite funny, when I was pointing to the stats that showed Finn was the top goal kicker in France you did cartwheels trying to dismiss the importance of it.

Russell played two internationals and a league game since the Calcutta Cup, saying those don’t really matter is one of two things, either someone is desperately floundering around trying to justify their dislike of a player, or it’s someone who isn’t actually interested in rugby and doesn’t watch the game, only referees and incidents that can justify their own prejudices.

Either way, I know you’re going to continue to knock yourself out on the Finn and others hate, as well as the referees.

I seriously don't remember any such stats and equally, think them unlikely: unless you were talking % of conversions. And I say that because the combo of
- Russell being an intl. and so would have less club playing game time (although I acknowledge that I can't recall where his fall out with Townsend occurred)
- and the amount of points scored by Racing and hence the opportunities for a kicker to rack up points
means I cannot believe he would have been at the top of points total. Regardless, I find it hard to believe % wise either given how accurate the likes of Ramos are but then, % rates are often skewed by factors like difficulty/range.

Fact remains that throughout his entire career, Russell has gone from one extreme to another. Brilliant when trying some flash stuff to clusterf**k when doing the same. Often in the same game. I can't get stats for this but I'd bet my house no other FH threw more intercept passes in T14 during his tenure there (no-one else would have even been close). Much as I hate to quote PR (but they are no way alone: if I could be arsed, I'd dig up the Midol article on "same old Russell"), this sums him up

Finn Russell: Yet again this Six Nations, he blew incredibly hot and cold. Came up with some truly spectacular flashes, but compounded that with some rookie errors at pivotal times in the match. Frustrating is probably the best way to describe it, and it’s left the head coach wondering what might have been. 4

He really is closer to "just a naughty boy" than he ever has been to "the messiah".

Wait, you mean you don't remember stuff that disagrees with your preconception?

Well, I'm shocked.

[Deepsouth]

Wait, this boy hasn't won anything yet has he? No six nations or World Cup?

Walter Mitty lol....

[Tichtheid]

Wait, this boy hasn't won anything yet has he? No six nations or World Cup?

Walter Mitty lol....

Right enough, he only scored a try, two conversions and a penalty when Scotland whupped Australia a few months ago.

[Simian]

But his Fre club was quite happy to off him and given the amount of money sloshing around in T14, no other Fre club picked up his contract?

When he moved to Bath it was reported that he was the highest paid player in Europe.

He's subsequently been overtaken by Farrell, so.....

[Tichtheid]

But his Fre club was quite happy to off him and given the amount of money sloshing around in T14, no other Fre club picked up his contract?

When he moved to Bath it was reported that he was the highest paid player in Europe.

He's subsequently been overtaken by Farrell, so.....

I think that translates as the highest paid player in the world, you never really know for sure about these things, but that was the general consensus.

[SaintK]

Wait, this boy hasn't won anything yet has he? No six nations or World Cup?

Walter Mitty lol....

Right enough, he only scored a try, two conversions and a penalty when Scotland whupped Australia a few months ago.

[Torquemada 1420]

My mistake, I've looked up the post and at that point in the season Finn was overall joint top points scorer and second top goal kicker in the Top 14.

He finished that season in second in both categories https://all.rugby/tournament/top-14-2023/

Watching rugby must be a real exercise in misery for you, you get into such a rage about referees and can't seem to enjoy these creative players without obsessing over mistakes.

I'm really bemused why you think it's relevant. My point is that throughout his career he's been repeatedly prone to absolute howlers. Great players do not do that repeatedly.
Ergo, he's not a great. He's a very naturally gifted player who has failed to make the mark his talents could have: by a wide margin.
I'm far from the only person who thinks such. I'd flip this the other way: kinda an extension of the Life of Brian theme. There is a cult of Jesus around Russell that folds under
scrutiny.

You are wrong over creative players. Kerrrist, the game needs them to attract audiences. However, what I am completely anti it giving players a free pass
to now work on errors/be lazy or to do the Penaud (snr) thing of "yeah, whatever" after every f**k up. At that point, given the nature or rugby and how errors are far more
likely to lose you games than flashes of off the cuff stuff will win it (i.e. you have to get the basics right first), yeah, I'll take the safe option.......... but, and I get this,
where you support a side with little chance of success and/or not much credible in the safety stakes either, sure, roll the di and go for the long odds.

Remember, your own national coach threw him out because his attitude was that he was bigger than the team or anyone else.

[Torquemada 1420]

Fair enough, Planet Rugby is a great site with fantastic journalists.

I'll say it again, I don't know how any serious rugby supporter can look at the way he played in the 6N and come up with shit like that. He was brilliant V England and France, and pulled the Welsh apart until he went off. I'd expect the one off 6N watchers to disagree, but not anyone with an ounce of rugby in them

Maybe so but Midi Olympique is the polar opposite and Nick Mallett is the best foreign coach ever to have plied his trade in France. The clear and obvious point being that I am not alone in thinking he is a net liability.

He lost you the game against Eng missing routine kicks. Harsh? It's a team game? Maybe but like goalkeepers in football, you are expected to get the routine bits right because your errors are far more costly than a player in any other position.
V Fra you are now into the delusional. Absolute catalogue of errors.

[Tichtheid]

My mistake, I've looked up the post and at that point in the season Finn was overall joint top points scorer and second top goal kicker in the Top 14.

He finished that season in second in both categories https://all.rugby/tournament/top-14-2023/

Watching rugby must be a real exercise in misery for you, you get into such a rage about referees and can't seem to enjoy these creative players without obsessing over mistakes.

I'm really bemused why you think it's relevant.

Are you? In an exchange about Russell's goal kicking where at one point you refused to believe he was one of the top goal kickers in France, then having been provided with proof of it you are bemused as to its relevance?
I rather think this is a case of goal post shifting on your part.
You've also repeated that he cost Scotland the game against. He missed two from the touchline and one from the around the 15m line, kicks he would normally succeed with, as has been proven with his record since that game.
The reason the last kick was so costly in particular was that he'd led the Scottish attack in getting outside England, Scotland scoring three tries to one in the process. We were in that game at 78 minutes down to our attacking game. Incidentally, Russell was one of the players that held up the ball in the controversial England try

My point is that throughout his career he's been repeatedly prone to absolute howlers. Great players do not do that repeatedly.
Ergo, he's not a great. He's a very naturally gifted player who has failed to make the mark his talents could have: by a wide margin.
I'm far from the only person who thinks such. I'd flip this the other way: kinda an extension of the Life of Brian theme. There is a cult of Jesus around Russell that folds under
scrutiny.

I'm sure I remember JMK explaining this to you, Russell plays right on the edge, that is where brilliance and howlers are a cigarette paper width apart. I'll take his moments of brilliance over successful touch finds and shuffling the ball on from deep every day of the week.
However this exchange was based on your erroneous opinion that Russell cost Scotland the Calcutta Cup, that was nothing to do with how he played, again, this is about goal kicking.

You are wrong over creative players. Kerrrist, the game needs them to attract audiences. However, what I am completely anti it giving players a free pass
to now work on errors/be lazy or to do the Penaud (snr) thing of "yeah, whatever" after every f**k up. At that point, given the nature or rugby and how errors are far more
likely to lose you games than flashes of off the cuff stuff will win it (i.e. you have to get the basics right first), yeah, I'll take the safe option.......... but, and I get this,
where you support a side with little chance of success and/or not much credible in the safety stakes either, sure, roll the di and go for the long odds.

This last sentence makes me think you watch Russell with arms folded, waiting for any mistake so you can have your prejudices confirmed. Russell is much better defender than you seem to think - he's never hidden out on the wing like many 10s are, as for the dig at Scotland, the discussion is about Russell, not Scotland. Parisse played in a weak Italy side. Gorgodze for Georgia? Caucaunibuca, even with the weight? These players were box office, even when their teams weren't winning World Cups

Remember, your own national coach threw him out because his attitude was that he was bigger than the team or anyone else.

Now you're really floundering, lashing out at everything you can think of. Townsend happily took him back in to the squad.

[C T]

My mistake, I've looked up the post and at that point in the season Finn was overall joint top points scorer and second top goal kicker in the Top 14.

He finished that season in second in both categories https://all.rugby/tournament/top-14-2023/

Watching rugby must be a real exercise in misery for you, you get into such a rage about referees and can't seem to enjoy these creative players without obsessing over mistakes.

I'm really bemused why you think it's relevant.

Are you? In an exchange about Russell's goal kicking where at one point you refused to believe he was one of the top goal kickers in France, then having been provided with proof of it you are bemused as to its relevance?
I rather think this is a case of goal post shifting on your part.
You've also repeated that he cost Scotland the game against. He missed two from the touchline and one from the around the 15m line, kicks he would normally succeed with, as has been proven with his record since that game.
The reason the last kick was so costly in particular was that he'd led the Scottish attack in getting outside England, Scotland scoring three tries to one in the process. We were in that game at 78 minutes down to our attacking game. Incidentally, Russell was one of the players that held up the ball in the controversial England try

My point is that throughout his career he's been repeatedly prone to absolute howlers. Great players do not do that repeatedly.
Ergo, he's not a great. He's a very naturally gifted player who has failed to make the mark his talents could have: by a wide margin.
I'm far from the only person who thinks such. I'd flip this the other way: kinda an extension of the Life of Brian theme. There is a cult of Jesus around Russell that folds under
scrutiny.

I'm sure I remember JMK explaining this to you, Russell plays right on the edge, that is where brilliance and howlers are a cigarette paper width apart. I'll take his moments of brilliance over successful touch finds and shuffling the ball on from deep every day of the week.
However this exchange was based on your erroneous opinion that Russell cost Scotland the Calcutta Cup, that was nothing to do with how he played, again, this is about goal kicking.

You are wrong over creative players. Kerrrist, the game needs them to attract audiences. However, what I am completely anti it giving players a free pass
to now work on errors/be lazy or to do the Penaud (snr) thing of "yeah, whatever" after every f**k up. At that point, given the nature or rugby and how errors are far more
likely to lose you games than flashes of off the cuff stuff will win it (i.e. you have to get the basics right first), yeah, I'll take the safe option.......... but, and I get this,
where you support a side with little chance of success and/or not much credible in the safety stakes either, sure, roll the di and go for the long odds.

This last sentence makes me think you watch Russell with arms folded, waiting for any mistake so you can have your prejudices confirmed. Russell is much better defender than you seem to think - he's never hidden out on the wing like many 10s are, as for the dig at Scotland, the discussion is about Russell, not Scotland. Parisse played in a weak Italy side. Gorgodze for Georgia? Caucaunibuca, even with the weight? These players were box office, even when their teams weren't winning World Cups

Remember, your own national coach threw him out because his attitude was that he was bigger than the team or anyone else.

Now you're really floundering, lashing out at everything you can think of. Townsend happily took him back in to the squad.

I suspect you are quite right here, what a way to watch rugby!

[Torquemada 1420]

Are you? In an exchange about Russell's goal kicking where at one point you refused to believe he was one of the top goal kickers in France, then having been provided with proof of it you are bemused as to its relevance?
I rather think this is a case of goal post shifting on your part.
You've also repeated that he cost Scotland the game against. He missed two from the touchline and one from the around the 15m line, kicks he would normally succeed with, as has been proven with his record since that game.
The reason the last kick was so costly in particular was that he'd led the Scottish attack in getting outside England, Scotland scoring three tries to one in the process. We were in that game at 78 minutes down to our attacking game. Incidentally, Russell was one of the players that held up the ball in the controversial England try


I'm sure I remember JMK explaining this to you, Russell plays right on the edge, that is where brilliance and howlers are a cigarette paper width apart. I'll take his moments of brilliance over successful touch finds and shuffling the ball on from deep every day of the week.
However this exchange was based on your erroneous opinion that Russell cost Scotland the Calcutta Cup, that was nothing to do with how he played, again, this is about goal kicking.


This last sentence makes me think you watch Russell with arms folded, waiting for any mistake so you can have your prejudices confirmed. Russell is much better defender than you seem to think - he's never hidden out on the wing like many 10s are, as for the dig at Scotland, the discussion is about Russell, not Scotland. Parisse played in a weak Italy side. Gorgodze for Georgia? Caucaunibuca, even with the weight? These players were box office, even when their teams weren't winning World Cups


Now you're really floundering, lashing out at everything you can think of. Townsend happily took him back in to the squad.

Too hard to go between the quotes.
1) I still don't believe it but entirely irrelevant to him being flaky, doing crazy stuff and throwing more intercept passes than any FH I have living memory of (a point which you appear to have sidestepped).

2) JMK And one of your fellows considered quoting a PR journo a reach for authority. And, for the 100th time, you are welcome to welcome the risk versus the fails. For me, he's well over the line into the red on the risk v reward. The one thing where we would agree is that the game is poorer for that: you might want to read my post match analysis of the Fra game. But fact remains that rugby is
a) about winning
b) a team game
and because Russell does too much maverick, he ignores b) which results in failure as a). Change the game.

3) I really haven't brought Russell's defending into the centre of the discussion. I don't think he's great. But certainly not Michalak or Jalibert poor. Again, irrelevant. There is a level of expectation of tackles at FH but they are not connected to doing dumb stuff with the ball in hand.

4) Errrr........ I don't think so. IIRC, Townsend threw him out because Russell decided he was above the team and could go out on the lash? Tell me I'm wrong. And he was taken back because Townsend was under massive pressure because Sco performances were not improving without him. Can't be arsed to check (I'm sure you know OTTOYH) but would be interesting to see what Sco win rate is with and without Russell (and before you point it out, I know that is tricky to compare because of things like opponents and player availability).

To sum up. He's yours. You've got him back/he's out of France. We are both happy. And as long as he's nowhere near the Lions, I'll remain so.

[Tichtheid]

Are you? In an exchange about Russell's goal kicking where at one point you refused to believe he was one of the top goal kickers in France, then having been provided with proof of it you are bemused as to its relevance?
I rather think this is a case of goal post shifting on your part.
You've also repeated that he cost Scotland the game against. He missed two from the touchline and one from the around the 15m line, kicks he would normally succeed with, as has been proven with his record since that game.
The reason the last kick was so costly in particular was that he'd led the Scottish attack in getting outside England, Scotland scoring three tries to one in the process. We were in that game at 78 minutes down to our attacking game. Incidentally, Russell was one of the players that held up the ball in the controversial England try


I'm sure I remember JMK explaining this to you, Russell plays right on the edge, that is where brilliance and howlers are a cigarette paper width apart. I'll take his moments of brilliance over successful touch finds and shuffling the ball on from deep every day of the week.
However this exchange was based on your erroneous opinion that Russell cost Scotland the Calcutta Cup, that was nothing to do with how he played, again, this is about goal kicking.


This last sentence makes me think you watch Russell with arms folded, waiting for any mistake so you can have your prejudices confirmed. Russell is much better defender than you seem to think - he's never hidden out on the wing like many 10s are, as for the dig at Scotland, the discussion is about Russell, not Scotland. Parisse played in a weak Italy side. Gorgodze for Georgia? Caucaunibuca, even with the weight? These players were box office, even when their teams weren't winning World Cups


Now you're really floundering, lashing out at everything you can think of. Townsend happily took him back in to the squad.

Too hard to go between the quotes.
1) I still don't believe it but entirely irrelevant to him being flaky, doing crazy stuff and throwing more intercept passes than any FH I have living memory of (a point which you appear to have sidestepped).

Like the rest of this exchange, it's not difficult at all. If you dispute the ALL RUGBY site, how about the official Top 14 site? It lists Finn as the overall top points scorer for the season in question https://top14.lnr.fr/statistiques/joueurs/2022-2023

The discussion wasn't kicked off about flakiness or otherwise, it was about goal kicking and you saying he lost Scotland the match against England. I'm going to keep you on topic here rather than indulge in another goal post shift.

2) JMK And one of your fellows considered quoting a PR journo a reach for authority. And, for the 100th time, you are welcome to welcome the risk versus the fails. For me, he's well over the line into the red on the risk v reward. The one thing where we would agree is that the game is poorer for that: you might want to read my post match analysis of the Fra game. But fact remains that rugby is
a) about winning
b) a team game
and because Russell does too much maverick, he ignores b) which results in failure as a). Change the game.

There are times when an appeal to authority can be a fallacy and there are times when it isn't, in this case it was a nod to a time when risk v reward had been explained to you. Your use of the word "maverick" shows you have no understanding of Russell at all, it's a common mistake - do you know how many hours he spends analysing opponents in team and individual form? He doesn't make this stuff up on the fly when he's playing, it's all very well planned and thought out, the fact it happens right on the line is where the risk v reward comes in

3) I really haven't brought Russell's defending into the centre of the discussion. I don't think he's great. But certainly not Michalak or Jalibert poor. Again, irrelevant. There is a level of expectation of tackles at FH but they are not connected to doing dumb stuff with the ball in hand.

I think you were referring to defence when you mentioned "safety" in teams and players, that was why I mentioned it.

4) Errrr........ I don't think so. IIRC, Townsend threw him out because Russell decided he was above the team and could go out on the lash? Tell me I'm wrong. And he was taken back because Townsend was under massive pressure because Sco performances were not improving without him. Can't be arsed to check (I'm sure you know OTTOYH) but would be interesting to see what Sco win rate is with and without Russell (and before you point it out, I know that is tricky to compare because of things like opponents and player availability).

To sum up. He's yours. You've got him back/he's out of France. We are both happy. And as long as he's nowhere near the Lions, I'll remain so.

Again you're floundering and lashing out, you say I'm talking about irrelevancies when I'm directly addressing the point in hand, ie goal kicking, and then you introduce his exclusion for off-field behaviour.


edit, and whilst I'm at it, you mocked him for teams not picking up his contract whilst all the money was sloshing around in France, yet he became the highest paid player in the sport with his move to Bath, now this is another irrelevance, but it's worth pointing out where your aim was way off yet again.

[Tichtheid]

This last sentence makes me think you watch Russell with arms folded, waiting for any mistake so you can have your prejudices confirmed.

I suspect you are quite right here, what a way to watch rugby!

and from a supporter of French rugby too?

I find it baffling, that team as much as any represent the sheer joy of the unpredictability in rugby.

[Biffer]

Are you? In an exchange about Russell's goal kicking where at one point you refused to believe he was one of the top goal kickers in France, then having been provided with proof of it you are bemused as to its relevance?
I rather think this is a case of goal post shifting on your part.
You've also repeated that he cost Scotland the game against. He missed two from the touchline and one from the around the 15m line, kicks he would normally succeed with, as has been proven with his record since that game.
The reason the last kick was so costly in particular was that he'd led the Scottish attack in getting outside England, Scotland scoring three tries to one in the process. We were in that game at 78 minutes down to our attacking game. Incidentally, Russell was one of the players that held up the ball in the controversial England try


I'm sure I remember JMK explaining this to you, Russell plays right on the edge, that is where brilliance and howlers are a cigarette paper width apart. I'll take his moments of brilliance over successful touch finds and shuffling the ball on from deep every day of the week.
However this exchange was based on your erroneous opinion that Russell cost Scotland the Calcutta Cup, that was nothing to do with how he played, again, this is about goal kicking.


This last sentence makes me think you watch Russell with arms folded, waiting for any mistake so you can have your prejudices confirmed. Russell is much better defender than you seem to think - he's never hidden out on the wing like many 10s are, as for the dig at Scotland, the discussion is about Russell, not Scotland. Parisse played in a weak Italy side. Gorgodze for Georgia? Caucaunibuca, even with the weight? These players were box office, even when their teams weren't winning World Cups


Now you're really floundering, lashing out at everything you can think of. Townsend happily took him back in to the squad.

Too hard to go between the quotes.
1) I still don't believe it but entirely irrelevant to him being flaky, doing crazy stuff and throwing more intercept passes than any FH I have living memory of (a point which you appear to have sidestepped).

2) JMK And one of your fellows considered quoting a PR journo a reach for authority. And, for the 100th time, you are welcome to welcome the risk versus the fails. For me, he's well over the line into the red on the risk v reward. The one thing where we would agree is that the game is poorer for that: you might want to read my post match analysis of the Fra game. But fact remains that rugby is
a) about winning
b) a team game
and because Russell does too much maverick, he ignores b) which results in failure as a). Change the game.

3) I really haven't brought Russell's defending into the centre of the discussion. I don't think he's great. But certainly not Michalak or Jalibert poor. Again, irrelevant. There is a level of expectation of tackles at FH but they are not connected to doing dumb stuff with the ball in hand.

4) Errrr........ I don't think so. IIRC, Townsend threw him out because Russell decided he was above the team and could go out on the lash? Tell me I'm wrong. And he was taken back because Townsend was under massive pressure because Sco performances were not improving without him. Can't be arsed to check (I'm sure you know OTTOYH) but would be interesting to see what Sco win rate is with and without Russell (and before you point it out, I know that is tricky to compare because of things like opponents and player availability).

To sum up. He's yours. You've got him back/he's out of France. We are both happy. And as long as he's nowhere near the Lions, I'll remain so.

You're French. The Lions is nowt to do with you

[SaintK]

edit, and whilst I'm at it, you mocked him for teams not picking up his contract whilst all the money was sloshing around in France, yet he became the highest paid player in the sport with his move to Bath, now this is another irrelevance, but it's worth pointing out where your aim was way off yet again.

I think you'll find that Torqu's other favourite British player Owen Farrell is currently the highest paid player by at least £200,000

[Tichtheid]

edit, and whilst I'm at it, you mocked him for teams not picking up his contract whilst all the money was sloshing around in France, yet he became the highest paid player in the sport with his move to Bath, now this is another irrelevance, but it's worth pointing out where your aim was way off yet again.

I think you'll find that Torqu's other favourite British player Owen Farrell is currently the highest paid player by at least £200,000

or "down the back of the sofa" money for the equivalent level footballers

You can see why the top players from all over spend a few years in France or in Japan, they put a lot on the line for a short career.