A place where escape goats go to play
https://notplanetrugby.com/
Slick wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 7:03 pm Don’t recognise the physio but it was the period when Jeremy Richardson was club captain and got his cap
Shows how much it means to the players.
Jeremy's brother was Guy - he did logistics/management for Scotland and then a Lions Tour. He was in army, following in his Dads footsteps. When with Scotland he, when Scotland were playing France at Murrayfield and under pressure on their own line, caught a clearance kick from Scotland which just made it into touch and prevented a quick French throw in - when challenged by the ref claimed he 'didn't know what he did wrong as he had shouted for it'! He was sent to the stand.
Oh man, poor guy.
To me, that's when you have to consider if there was someone else demanding selection. (I have no idea if that was the case there though)JM2K6 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 7:49 am Some of the justifications are really weird. He says no Billy because his form in the six nations wasn't what he was expecting. Fair enough.
Then he defends picking several players whose form in the six nations was terrible, saying it was his job to create an environment for them to regain their form. Just bizarre.
Almost like Eddie Jones was picking the squad.Enzedder wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 1:31 amTo me, that's when you have to consider if there was someone else demanding selection. (I have no idea if that was the case there though)JM2K6 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 7:49 am Some of the justifications are really weird. He says no Billy because his form in the six nations wasn't what he was expecting. Fair enough.
Then he defends picking several players whose form in the six nations was terrible, saying it was his job to create an environment for them to regain their form. Just bizarre.
Almost like Eddie Jones was picking the squad.Enzedder wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 1:31 amTo me, that's when you have to consider if there was someone else demanding selection. (I have no idea if that was the case there though)JM2K6 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 7:49 am Some of the justifications are really weird. He says no Billy because his form in the six nations wasn't what he was expecting. Fair enough.
Then he defends picking several players whose form in the six nations was terrible, saying it was his job to create an environment for them to regain their form. Just bizarre.
That was very well said by him, it's like night & day when you compare him now to the daft kid he was 4 years ago.
In several cases, better players have been left behind in favour of the guys whose form has been bad for a while now. Essentially he's picked people he liked from four years ago despite obvious problems in the last few years.Enzedder wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 1:31 amTo me, that's when you have to consider if there was someone else demanding selection. (I have no idea if that was the case there though)JM2K6 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 7:49 am Some of the justifications are really weird. He says no Billy because his form in the six nations wasn't what he was expecting. Fair enough.
Then he defends picking several players whose form in the six nations was terrible, saying it was his job to create an environment for them to regain their form. Just bizarre.
He is one of the best players in his position in the world, and has been for a few years. But I think you have to say England's problem was that his replacement, Dan Cole, simply was not up to it, and he's not in this squad either.boere wors wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 11:30 pmOh man, poor guy.
His omissions makes me wonder though... didnt the english tell us that his early injury was the reason they didnt have a chance in the final?! Yet the brits dont need him now for the SA tour??
Yeah I would have taken Sinckler and not Vunipola with probably Marler or Healy instead of Vunipola. Sincklers omission was the biggest shock for me. Initially it was Ringrose but I believe some Irish posters are not shocked.JM2K6 wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 9:58 amHe is one of the best players in his position in the world, and has been for a few years. But I think you have to say England's problem was that his replacement, Dan Cole, simply was not up to it, and he's not in this squad either.boere wors wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 11:30 pmOh man, poor guy.
His omissions makes me wonder though... didnt the english tell us that his early injury was the reason they didnt have a chance in the final?! Yet the brits dont need him now for the SA tour??
We also shouldn't forget that Mako was butchered and the scrum improved dramatically when Marler came on. And that Daly was total shite, and hasn't improved since.
Spot onChrysoprase wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 7:35 amThat was very well said by him, it's like night & day when you compare him now to the daft kid he was 4 years ago.
There's still a chance he'll get a call up, like someone alluded to earlier in the thread, the squad that's announced before the tour is never the same squad that ends it.
In all of that, I find myself in agreement with you.JM2K6 wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 9:55 amIn several cases, better players have been left behind in favour of the guys whose form has been bad for a while now. Essentially he's picked people he liked from four years ago despite obvious problems in the last few years.Enzedder wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 1:31 amTo me, that's when you have to consider if there was someone else demanding selection. (I have no idea if that was the case there though)JM2K6 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 7:49 am Some of the justifications are really weird. He says no Billy because his form in the six nations wasn't what he was expecting. Fair enough.
Then he defends picking several players whose form in the six nations was terrible, saying it was his job to create an environment for them to regain their form. Just bizarre.
Almost all of the players I'm complaining about are English, so it's not a partisan thing for me. IMO two English players missed out who deserved to go, and several are going who probably shouldn't be.
One of my bigger issues in selection outside of Eddie's favourites, Johnny Hill, is going because Gatland wants his brutality available. I can understand that, at least. But he's not shown it for England, just a pile of penalties and dumb errors. Johnny Gray should've traveled for sure.
Daly, Mako, Farrell - guys like that are going on faith, essentially. If Gatland had the nerve to drop the "banker" Farrell in favour of the coming man in Redpath, I'd have been seriously impressed.
JM2K6 wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 9:55 amIn several cases, better players have been left behind in favour of the guys whose form has been bad for a while now. Essentially he's picked people he liked from four years ago despite obvious problems in the last few years.Enzedder wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 1:31 amTo me, that's when you have to consider if there was someone else demanding selection. (I have no idea if that was the case there though)JM2K6 wrote: Fri May 07, 2021 7:49 am Some of the justifications are really weird. He says no Billy because his form in the six nations wasn't what he was expecting. Fair enough.
Then he defends picking several players whose form in the six nations was terrible, saying it was his job to create an environment for them to regain their form. Just bizarre.
Almost all of the players I'm complaining about are English, so it's not a partisan thing for me. IMO two English players missed out who deserved to go, and several are going who probably shouldn't be.
One of my bigger issues in selection outside of Eddie's favourites, Johnny Hill, is going because Gatland wants his brutality available. I can understand that, at least. But he's not shown it for England, just a pile of penalties and dumb errors. Johnny Gray should've traveled for sure.
Daly, Mako, Farrell - guys like that are going on faith, essentially. If Gatland had the nerve to drop the "banker" Farrell in favour of the coming man in Redpath, I'd have been seriously impressed.
Are they? I was thinking that it was quite nice that not only did we get fair representation, they were all there on merit (possible exception for Price) and people weren’t actually grumbling that much. Well, apart from Stephen Jones and some Irish journalists who think rugby began in 2000 and clearly don’t remember it used to be Ireland who got shafted in the selections.Big D wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 10:30 amYeah I would have taken Sinckler and not Vunipola with probably Marler or Healy instead of Vunipola. Sincklers omission was the biggest shock for me. Initially it was Ringrose but I believe some Irish posters are not shocked.JM2K6 wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 9:58 amHe is one of the best players in his position in the world, and has been for a few years. But I think you have to say England's problem was that his replacement, Dan Cole, simply was not up to it, and he's not in this squad either.boere wors wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 11:30 pm
Oh man, poor guy.
His omissions makes me wonder though... didnt the english tell us that his early injury was the reason they didnt have a chance in the final?! Yet the brits dont need him now for the SA tour??
We also shouldn't forget that Mako was butchered and the scrum improved dramatically when Marler came on. And that Daly was total shite, and hasn't improved since.
It is a bit unfortunate that Sutherland and Fagerson seem to be catching the heat for others being left behind in the media/Sunday Times (so I hear). The Scottish scrum is unfussy and rarely goes backwards with those two at prop, particularly since De Villiers has come in and Gatland has explicitly said it was Porter over Sinckler. Perhaps in a non covid environment it would have been the other way around.
Perfect video for squidge to make really, he's making a living out of post hoc ergo propter hoc.Sinkers wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 12:38 pm Squidge breaks it down quite nicely here. Seems Gatland hasn’t picked the best he’s picked the players that suit a game plan he already has in mind.
https://youtu.be/K9RAX2z0WXQ
I can't exactly pin why, but I'd nominate him if we have a "things that make you irrationally angry" thread.JM2K6 wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 7:20 pmPerfect video for squidge to make really, he's making a living out of post hoc ergo propter hoc.Sinkers wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 12:38 pm Squidge breaks it down quite nicely here. Seems Gatland hasn’t picked the best he’s picked the players that suit a game plan he already has in mind.
https://youtu.be/K9RAX2z0WXQ
But he'd make a video pointing out how your anger was rational and in fact the result of a carefully considered gameplan featuring multiple improbable bits of foresight and preparation for this exact situationNiegs wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 10:05 pmI can't exactly pin why, but I'd nominate him if we have a "things that make you irrationally angry" thread.JM2K6 wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 7:20 pmPerfect video for squidge to make really, he's making a living out of post hoc ergo propter hoc.Sinkers wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 12:38 pm Squidge breaks it down quite nicely here. Seems Gatland hasn’t picked the best he’s picked the players that suit a game plan he already has in mind.
https://youtu.be/K9RAX2z0WXQ
Ha, ha ... and get thousands of likes and rugby media praise! (Dog knows why...)JM2K6 wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 10:18 pmBut he'd make a video pointing out how your anger was rational and in fact the result of a carefully considered gameplan featuring multiple improbable bits of foresight and preparation for this exact situation
JM2K6 wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 12:29 pm Didn't you also admit Farrell should have been dropped for England and is very lucky to be touring?
Should also remember he's had some high profile meltdowns on the pitch for the Lions. He's not exactly a sure thing.
He had some pretty poor tour performances, missed several kicks in the first Test (playing at 10 and not getting much going - not coincidentally the worst Test performance by the Lions), and had a meltdown in the third where he kept shelling ball and missed a huge number of tackles.Kawazaki wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 8:09 amFarrell was excellent in 2017. You'd have to be really one-eyed not to admit that.JM2K6 wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 12:29 pm Didn't you also admit Farrell should have been dropped for England and is very lucky to be touring?
Should also remember he's had some high profile meltdowns on the pitch for the Lions. He's not exactly a sure thing.
JM2K6 wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 9:24 amHe had some pretty poor tour performances, missed several kicks in the first Test (playing at 10 and not getting much going - not coincidentally the worst Test performance by the Lions), and had a meltdown in the third where he kept shelling ball and missed a huge number of tackles.Kawazaki wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 8:09 amFarrell was excellent in 2017. You'd have to be really one-eyed not to admit that.JM2K6 wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 12:29 pm Didn't you also admit Farrell should have been dropped for England and is very lucky to be touring?
Should also remember he's had some high profile meltdowns on the pitch for the Lions. He's not exactly a sure thing.
Lots of one-eyed Farrell haters supporting the Lions in 2017, I guess.Kawazaki wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 11:20 amAs I said you'd have to be a pretty one-eyed Farrell hater to say he had a poor Lions tour in 2017.JM2K6 wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 9:24 amHe had some pretty poor tour performances, missed several kicks in the first Test (playing at 10 and not getting much going - not coincidentally the worst Test performance by the Lions), and had a meltdown in the third where he kept shelling ball and missed a huge number of tackles.Kawazaki wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 8:09 am Farrell was excellent in 2017. You'd have to be really one-eyed not to admit that.
Surprised Farrell got 8. Wonderful place kicking but quite nervy in general play.
That quick tap to Watson was a great idea... Until he threw the pass two yards behind him.... The fluffed defensive kick early on... The butchered off load to Davies... Being stood up by Savea.
He's had, and will have, much better games.
8/10 for farrells kicking, 4/10 for his all round play. He had a dreadful first half, and he doesn't impress me that he is particularly creative. Itoje was fantastic, and so was Warburton. I like Sexton as well even if he can be a little inconsistent.
Farrell's first 20 mins was a 2/10. Knocked on, terrible kick, butchered a try chance by throwing an intercept (which led to an NZ try) and had a huge missed tackle on Savea. Liam Williams had to end himself multiple times cleaning up after his mistakes. After that he was maybe a 6/10, and his kicking was spotless, so I don't know where that leaves him. Certainly not 8!
I could give Farrell 7 or 8 if I was awarding half of the marks for place-kicking - so 5/5 plus 2 or 3/5.
Man, what is it with you guys and the permanent Farrell wankathon. The sooner slade gets a run or Daley gets picked in position the better. Poor delivery, defensive liability and myopic in game vision.
100% agree mate , Farrell was rubbish first test average 2nd and pathetic 3rd , yet he gets 9 every game in some rags sharpboy 1977 , no Itoje is not thought that great in some SH corners , ,he gives away far too many penalties. but as justin cman says , Farrell was weak link
What England do with him is their affair, but I agree he was dreadful today. Some have claimed he played well in the second half but it was only in comparison to his horror show in the first; one of the worst spells I've seen from anyone in a Lions shirt.
Farrell was having an absolute nightmare - a weaker temperament would have crumbled completely. His ability to reset for the kicks at goal was very impressive. Less so was his 'airball' after Mako's turnover, his kick straight to into touch, the intercept, numerous passes to the floor or behind players, forgetting that he was supposed to tackle Savea, missing JD2 with an offload after a rare line break... Difficult to mark him. Needed his kicking.
Sorry but I need a good night's sleep:
FARREL WAS GASH! 4/10
Catharsis.
if only the Lions had the guts tio drop their weak link , Owen Farrell , ,too weak in the tackle ..cost the lions points in every test ,he honestly believes his own press , today if you were to give him marks h/t he would be lucky to get a 3 ..,between kicking straight into touch ., weak tacklin and going for the miracle pass when Lions camped on AB line , which led to the ABs getting 5 points instead of the lions , ,as in first test when missing simple penalty and to compound his arrogance he went for the try himself at start of 2nd half instead of easy 3 points
Owen Farrell was an utter liability for the majority of the first half.
Hating all Lions equally, I was happy Farrell was playing in 2017... he let us off the hook a few times...Kawazaki wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 11:20 amJM2K6 wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 9:24 amHe had some pretty poor tour performances, missed several kicks in the first Test (playing at 10 and not getting much going - not coincidentally the worst Test performance by the Lions), and had a meltdown in the third where he kept shelling ball and missed a huge number of tackles.Kawazaki wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 8:09 am
Farrell was excellent in 2017. You'd have to be really one-eyed not to admit that.
As I said you'd have to be a pretty one-eyed Farrell hater to say he had a poor Lions tour in 2017.
JM2K6 wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 11:43 am Just a few comments on the first match report for the final Test that I could find
Surprised Farrell got 8. Wonderful place kicking but quite nervy in general play.
That quick tap to Watson was a great idea... Until he threw the pass two yards behind him.... The fluffed defensive kick early on... The butchered off load to Davies... Being stood up by Savea.
He's had, and will have, much better games.8/10 for farrells kicking, 4/10 for his all round play. He had a dreadful first half, and he doesn't impress me that he is particularly creative. Itoje was fantastic, and so was Warburton. I like Sexton as well even if he can be a little inconsistent.Farrell's first 20 mins was a 2/10. Knocked on, terrible kick, butchered a try chance by throwing an intercept (which led to an NZ try) and had a huge missed tackle on Savea. Liam Williams had to end himself multiple times cleaning up after his mistakes. After that he was maybe a 6/10, and his kicking was spotless, so I don't know where that leaves him. Certainly not 8!I could give Farrell 7 or 8 if I was awarding half of the marks for place-kicking - so 5/5 plus 2 or 3/5.Man, what is it with you guys and the permanent Farrell wankathon. The sooner slade gets a run or Daley gets picked in position the better. Poor delivery, defensive liability and myopic in game vision.100% agree mate , Farrell was rubbish first test average 2nd and pathetic 3rd , yet he gets 9 every game in some rags sharpboy 1977 , no Itoje is not thought that great in some SH corners , ,he gives away far too many penalties. but as justin cman says , Farrell was weak linkWhat England do with him is their affair, but I agree he was dreadful today. Some have claimed he played well in the second half but it was only in comparison to his horror show in the first; one of the worst spells I've seen from anyone in a Lions shirt.Farrell was having an absolute nightmare - a weaker temperament would have crumbled completely. His ability to reset for the kicks at goal was very impressive. Less so was his 'airball' after Mako's turnover, his kick straight to into touch, the intercept, numerous passes to the floor or behind players, forgetting that he was supposed to tackle Savea, missing JD2 with an offload after a rare line break... Difficult to mark him. Needed his kicking.Sorry but I need a good night's sleep:
FARREL WAS GASH! 4/10
Catharsis.if only the Lions had the guts tio drop their weak link , Owen Farrell , ,too weak in the tackle ..cost the lions points in every test ,he honestly believes his own press , today if you were to give him marks h/t he would be lucky to get a 3 ..,between kicking straight into touch ., weak tacklin and going for the miracle pass when Lions camped on AB line , which led to the ABs getting 5 points instead of the lions , ,as in first test when missing simple penalty and to compound his arrogance he went for the try himself at start of 2nd half instead of easy 3 pointsOwen Farrell was an utter liability for the majority of the first half.
OK stopping now, as I'm tired of copy and paste - but it's hundreds more comments largely along the same vein. Lots and lots of criticism of how bad Farrell was.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, I suppose.
Yup! Was a pretty poor series. Will be interesting to see how he goes in SA given his dreadful form for England. Regardless of my opinion on his current form and on how he played vs NZ in 2017, I would not put it past him to produce something in SA, as his attitude and competitive nature gives him a real chance. I just don't think he should've been picked in the first place.Grandpa wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 12:07 pmHating all Lions equally, I was happy Farrell was playing in 2017... he let us off the hook a few times...Kawazaki wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 11:20 amJM2K6 wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 9:24 am
He had some pretty poor tour performances, missed several kicks in the first Test (playing at 10 and not getting much going - not coincidentally the worst Test performance by the Lions), and had a meltdown in the third where he kept shelling ball and missed a huge number of tackles.
As I said you'd have to be a pretty one-eyed Farrell hater to say he had a poor Lions tour in 2017.
As long as he is played at 12 and not 10, the Lions have a chance.JM2K6 wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 12:16 pmYup! Was a pretty poor series. Will be interesting to see how he goes in SA given his dreadful form for England. Regardless of my opinion on his current form and on how he played vs NZ in 2017, I would not put it past him to produce something in SA, as his attitude and competitive nature gives him a real chance. I just don't think he should've been picked in the first place.
Bodyline Part 2 about to start?Sinkers wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 12:38 pm Squidge breaks it down quite nicely here. Seems Gatland hasn’t picked the best he’s picked the players that suit a game plan he already has in mind.
https://youtu.be/K9RAX2z0WXQ
Form trumps everything as that is your meaure on the pitch, leadership and experience are differentiators if there is a close choice to be made. I dont think you will find anyone who thinks Farrell deserves to be on that tour given his recent form, indeed his leadership has been pretty questionable too.Kawazaki wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 11:24 amJM2K6 wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 9:55 amIn several cases, better players have been left behind in favour of the guys whose form has been bad for a while now. Essentially he's picked people he liked from four years ago despite obvious problems in the last few years.Enzedder wrote: Sun May 09, 2021 1:31 am
To me, that's when you have to consider if there was someone else demanding selection. (I have no idea if that was the case there though)
Almost all of the players I'm complaining about are English, so it's not a partisan thing for me. IMO two English players missed out who deserved to go, and several are going who probably shouldn't be.
One of my bigger issues in selection outside of Eddie's favourites, Johnny Hill, is going because Gatland wants his brutality available. I can understand that, at least. But he's not shown it for England, just a pile of penalties and dumb errors. Johnny Gray should've traveled for sure.
Daly, Mako, Farrell - guys like that are going on faith, essentially. If Gatland had the nerve to drop the "banker" Farrell in favour of the coming man in Redpath, I'd have been seriously impressed.
If you place zero importance on concepts such as experience, leadership and presence then I can see how it's easy to dismiss Farrell based on some of his recent England form.
Not sure if I’m being whooshed here (quite possible) but the SNP have been in power at Holyrood since 2007, and that didn’t seem to get us a lot of representation in 2009, 2013 or 2017?Line6 HXFX wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 7:06 am I am not saying that the Union would end next year, if they didn't... but if you think that Gatland wasn't forced to pick lots of Scots in an attempt to save the Union, then you're av'in a laugh.
The Sky sports lions and team GB the Olympics are just too political. They are all about supporting the notion of the UK.
Bout promoting the establishment, about pretending we are better as one.
The lions were cited by James O'Brien in his defence of the Union just a few days ago.
No proud Englishman, Scotsman or Welshman can ever support this.
Now Gareth Edwards has his knighthood, we should call it day.
Where is Gareth Edward's btw...he was all over these lions tours like a rash, promoting them etc before he was awarded it.
Funny that.
Quite barking!!!Line6 HXFX wrote: Wed May 12, 2021 7:06 am I am not saying that the Union would end next year, if they didn't... but if you think that Gatland wasn't forced to pick lots of Scots in an attempt to save the Union, then you're av'in a laugh.
The Sky sports lions and team GB the Olympics are just too political. They are all about supporting the notion of the UK.
Bout promoting the establishment, about pretending we are better as one.
The lions were cited by James O'Brien in his defence of the Union just a few days ago.
No proud Englishman, Scotsman or Welshman can ever support this.
Now Gareth Edwards has his knighthood, we should call it day.
Where is Gareth Edward's btw...he was all over these lions tours like a rash, promoting them etc before he was awarded it.
Funny that.