RugbyRebels

Big D wrote:Good win in tricky conditions and given how big a game it was for the Lions.

SBW was an idiot and Gatland should have hooked Vunipola way earlier.

I'm not so sure on the vunopola thing, it all happened very quickly. Surely the vaunted in pitch leaders should have had a word first, or was alun wynn Jones subbed by then, or just too tired to say even his own name....this might be much vaunted because of the win, but it was a terrible terrible performance. But the worse performance of the morning....sky commentary team 'apopectically the most awesomely bad' worst ever.

wanderingjock wrote:

Big D wrote:Good win in tricky conditions and given how big a game it was for the Lions.

SBW was an idiot and Gatland should have hooked Vunipola way earlier.

I'm not so sure on the vunopola thing, it all happened very quickly. Surely the vaunted in pitch leaders should have had a word first, or was alun wynn Jones subbed by then, or just too tired to say even his own name....this might be much vaunted because of the win, but it was a terrible terrible performance. But the worse performance of the morning....sky commentary team 'apopectically the most awesomely bad' worst ever.

Commentary did feature one of the great lines of all time, "He saw the hole and went for glory". I might get it on a t-shirt.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Ha. I missed that

Chuffed with that result. Set up nicely for next week

Donny osmond wrote:Great stuff from our lads, really hung in there despite doing their best to give it away via penalties. Most un-kiwi like performance I've seen in years from the ABs, kicking away possession twice in the last 90 seconds, hardly used possession to gain ground at all, albeit with a nod to conditions and the red card but even so, I think the ABs will be hard on themselves at training next week. Still can't see us winning the series but still, we've a chance, and a result that lets me laugh at Greig for being such a sour-puss, double boom!

Classic Cruden. FFS.

OptimisticJock wrote:Chuffed with that result. Set up nicely for next week

Aye, ropey win, but fuck it, it levels the series.

Happy Canada day Baz. We started in on the Cesar's at about 10 this morning.

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:Chuffed with that result. Set up nicely for next week

Aye, ropey win, but fuck it, it levels the series.

Happy Canada day Baz. We started in on the Cesar's at about 10 this morning.

Haha you too. Nice one. It's just gone 10 here, bit of brunch then on it I think. Loving the craft ale and taster flights they do.

Taster flights?

About a quarter of a pint in each glass, usually get 4 or 5 at a time of different ales.

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:Chuffed with that result. Set up nicely for next week

Aye, ropey win, but fuck it, it levels the series.

Happy Canada day Baz. We started in on the Cesar's at about 10 this morning.

Ropey, but stopping these ABs from scoring a try is a pretty incredible feat. For all of our limitations and for all we were mainly competitive because we spent more than a half with a player advantage that's a massive thing.

I haven't posted here in a while, reading recent posts on the lions I'm thankfully reminded why.

20 years of bias selection picks and still there are plenty of Uncle McToms willing to prostrate themselves before the "aura" of the Lions. Sadly too many within the Scotland setup. Only some quite substantial cognitive dissonance can excuse repeated 50:50 lions calls going to the non Scots player.

I'm not claiming it's an overt bias, tho in some cases it was. An injured Hill over the then Premiership player of the year Jason White is a good example. Let's not focus on Woodward tho. McGeechan was just as bad with his M4 corrider team plus Dublin selections and Henry used the dirt trackers to fluff his Wales team. It's easy to blame the coach. Succesive Lions tours indicate it's institutional rather than individual tho.

It is, IMO, a style bias. Scotland forwards are traditionally lighter, and more mobile, so they don't suit the Lions style. Scotland backs have to be of an order better than their counterparts elsewhere? e.g. People seem to think Hogg was a starter. He was at best 23 in Gatlands eyes.

Still can't understand how AWJ got in the squad ahead of Launchbury never mind starting a test. Don't see what Webb has over Price, and what the hell did JD do over the past year that put him ahead of several good centres, not just the injured Huw Jones

Face it, if your supporting the Lions you're supporting an establishment that encourages Scottish Cringe thinking.

So let's take the money, but don't kid yourself that in supporting "the Lions" you're doing anything other than pandering to an existing bias.

Best comment I heard from an All Black mate was that the Scotland backs were too creative to get into a Lions team.

Hopefully NZ put the cats to the sword in the final test.

Fuck the Lions.

BigAl wrote:I haven't posted here in a while, reading recent posts on the lions I'm thankfully reminded why.

20 years of bias selection picks and still there are plenty of Uncle McToms willing to prostrate themselves before the "aura" of the Lions. Sadly too many within the Scotland setup. Only some quite substantial cognitive dissonance can excuse repeated 50:50 lions calls going to the non Scots player.

I'm not claiming it's an overt bias, tho in some cases it was. An injured Hill over the then Premiership player of the year Jason White is a good example. Let's not focus on Woodward tho. McGeechan was just as bad with his M4 corrider team plus Dublin selections and Henry used the dirt trackers to fluff his Wales team. It's easy to blame the coach. Succesive Lions tours indicate it's institutional rather than individual tho.

It is, IMO, a style bias. Scotland forwards are traditionally lighter, and more mobile, so they don't suit the Lions style. Scotland backs have to be of an order better than their counterparts elsewhere? e.g. People seem to think Hogg was a starter. He was at best 23 in Gatlands eyes.

Still can't understand how AWJ got in the squad ahead of Launchbury never mind starting a test. Don't see what Webb has over Price, and what the hell did JD do over the past year that put him ahead of several good centres, not just the injured Huw Jones

Face it, if your supporting the Lions you're supporting an establishment that encourages Scottish Cringe thinking.

So let's take the money, but don't kid yourself that in supporting "the Lions" you're doing anything other than pandering to an existing bias.

Best comment I heard from an All Black mate was that the Scotland backs were too creative to get into a Lions team.

Hopefully NZ put the cats to the sword in the final test.

Fuck the Lions.

Superb post. I have no idea why a Scot would support something that openly sneers at and denigrates their country. The Ryan Grant article has made it even clearer - the Lions management could not even be bothered to watch & do some analysis on our best LH at the time.

BigAl wrote:I haven't posted here in a while, reading recent posts on the lions I'm thankfully reminded why.

20 years of bias selection picks and still there are plenty of Uncle McToms willing to prostrate themselves before the "aura" of the Lions. Sadly too many within the Scotland setup. Only some quite substantial cognitive dissonance can excuse repeated 50:50 lions calls going to the non Scots player.

I'm not claiming it's an overt bias, tho in some cases it was. An injured Hill over the then Premiership player of the year Jason White is a good example. Let's not focus on Woodward tho. McGeechan was just as bad with his M4 corrider team plus Dublin selections and Henry used the dirt trackers to fluff his Wales team. It's easy to blame the coach. Succesive Lions tours indicate it's institutional rather than individual tho.

It is, IMO, a style bias. Scotland forwards are traditionally lighter, and more mobile, so they don't suit the Lions style. Scotland backs have to be of an order better than their counterparts elsewhere? e.g. People seem to think Hogg was a starter. He was at best 23 in Gatlands eyes.

Still can't understand how AWJ got in the squad ahead of Launchbury never mind starting a test. Don't see what Webb has over Price, and what the hell did JD do over the past year that put him ahead of several good centres, not just the injured Huw Jones

Face it, if your supporting the Lions you're supporting an establishment that encourages Scottish Cringe thinking.

So let's take the money, but don't kid yourself that in supporting "the Lions" you're doing anything other than pandering to an existing bias.

Best comment I heard from an All Black mate was that the Scotland backs were too creative to get into a Lions team.

Hopefully NZ put the cats to the sword in the final test.

Fuck the Lions.

I love rugby because at its best it's played and watched in a spirit of genuine companionship. It's a hard game where you shake hands at the end of it, where you accept what the ref says even if you disagree with it. Supporters aren't segregated and the best matches I've been to were in the company of the opposition, friendly rivalries. For me the lions embodies all of that. It's the ability of fierce competitors and rivals (players and fans) to set that aside and support something new that I love about the game. I'd follow the lions even if the sru decided that they'd had enough and pulled out altogether.

So I disagree with you. For me whining about not enough players being accepted is the embodiment of little scotlanders with a chip on the shoulder and a grudge against the world. The stereotype comes from somewhere but it's not representative of the Scotland I know and I would just prefer it not to become part of rugby culture (though it may be synonymous with growing the game). I don't see a contradiction between respecting the institutions and culture of the game and being a passionate Scottish rugby fan.

If all you pair were saying was that you couldn't bring yourselves to support the lions, I would have a great deal of sympathy for your point of view, indeed agree with much of it.

But actively supporting the opposition simply because you dont agree with some of the selections made... going as far as "uncle mctom ... supporting an establishment that encourages scottish cringe"? Give yourselves an uppercut, then another one, then keep doing it until you've grown up. Uncle McTom? Establishment bias? Based on a fucking rugby team selection? Do you have any idea how inappropriate the Uncle McTom thing is? Are you that self-obsessed you think fucking rugby squad selection equates to institutional racism? Are you so obsessed with being a victim that you actually think the Lions have some plan to keep Scottish players away from touring parties?

The world doesn't revolve around Alba kids, keep crying about it all you like but that isn't going to change anything.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

I think the 2 sides to this argument tread a fine line between blue tinted specs and Scottish cringe and I think everyone falls to either side once and a while.

The only 2 players since the 97 tour I think were really hard done to were Paterson and White. There are a few that the toss can be argued about but all nations have that. Although i would add Watson to that list now.

Several of our players who could have had a shot Nel, Dickinson, Taylor and Jones were all injured or only beginning to come back into games when the squad was announced.

Donny osmond wrote:If all you pair were saying was that you couldn't bring yourselves to support the lions, I would have a great deal of sympathy for your point of view, indeed agree with much of it.

But actively supporting the opposition simply because you dont agree with some of the selections made... going as far as "uncle mctom ... supporting an establishment that encourages scottish cringe"? Give yourselves an uppercut, then another one, then keep doing it until you've grown up. Uncle McTom? Establishment bias? Based on a fucking rugby team selection? Do you have any idea how inappropriate the Uncle McTom thing is? Are you that self-obsessed you think fucking rugby squad selection equates to institutional racism? Are you so obsessed with being a victim that you actually think the Lions have some plan to keep Scottish players away from touring parties?

The world doesn't revolve around Alba kids, keep crying about it all you like but that isn't going to change anything.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Uncle Tom wasn't subservient in stowes book. The character was changed by others to suit their racist views/views of those who 'knew better' at the time, in plays etc after because they didn't like that he refused to do the bidding of legree. Odd that the prevailing view at the time stands, rather than the work, and odd when people use it without considering that I think.

Anyway, you don't like the lions, don't watch them, cos viewers is what keeps them alive. Whether you're shouting for the opposition, or lions...It's all coin and marketable...

Big D wrote:I think the 2 sides to this argument tread a fine line between blue tinted specs and Scottish cringe and I think everyone falls to either side once and a while.

The only 2 players since the 97 tour I think were really hard done to were Paterson and White. There are a few that the toss can be argued about but all nations have that. Although i would add Watson to that list now.

Several of our players who could have had a shot Nel, Dickinson, Taylor and Jones were all injured or only beginning to come back into games when the squad was announced.

And you would have had Dan Biggar ahead of Finn Russell?
I certainly wouldn't, and that's the kind of 50/50 call that I think gives the scunner to a lot of folk. I'm not so vehemently opposed to the Lions as some people, I just see it as an irrelevant concept in an era when national teams are evolving into franchises made up of a combination of local talent and international mercenaries.

Stones of granite wrote:

Big D wrote:I think the 2 sides to this argument tread a fine line between blue tinted specs and Scottish cringe and I think everyone falls to either side once and a while.

The only 2 players since the 97 tour I think were really hard done to were Paterson and White. There are a few that the toss can be argued about but all nations have that. Although i would add Watson to that list now.

Several of our players who could have had a shot Nel, Dickinson, Taylor and Jones were all injured or only beginning to come back into games when the squad was announced.

And you would have had Dan Biggar ahead of Finn Russell?
I certainly wouldn't, and that's the kind of 50/50 call that I think gives the scunner to a lot of folk. I'm not so vehemently opposed to the Lions as some people, I just see it as an irrelevant concept in an era when national teams are evolving into franchises made up of a combination of local talent and international mercenaries.

I wouldn't have had Biggar over Russell but I would have had a far more attacking game plan than the Lions do.

Big D wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Big D wrote:I think the 2 sides to this argument tread a fine line between blue tinted specs and Scottish cringe and I think everyone falls to either side once and a while.

The only 2 players since the 97 tour I think were really hard done to were Paterson and White. There are a few that the toss can be argued about but all nations have that. Although i would add Watson to that list now.

Several of our players who could have had a shot Nel, Dickinson, Taylor and Jones were all injured or only beginning to come back into games when the squad was announced.

And you would have had Dan Biggar ahead of Finn Russell?
I certainly wouldn't, and that's the kind of 50/50 call that I think gives the scunner to a lot of folk. I'm not so vehemently opposed to the Lions as some people, I just see it as an irrelevant concept in an era when national teams are evolving into franchises made up of a combination of local talent and international mercenaries.

I wouldn't have had Biggar over Russell but I would have had a far more attacking game plan than the Lions do.

This is the point. I agree with your picks as outlined, and I agree with Stones that Finn is a better 10 than Biggar, but picking Biggar isn't therefore a sign of being anti-Scottish players. Is Finn ever going to fit into a Gatland gameplan? No, never, he's far and away too creative for Gatland to ever consider playing him in any situation.

Feeling meh about the Lions is understandable, but extrapolating coaches picks into institutional racism is just weird.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Big D wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: And you would have had Dan Biggar ahead of Finn Russell?
I certainly wouldn't, and that's the kind of 50/50 call that I think gives the scunner to a lot of folk. I'm not so vehemently opposed to the Lions as some people, I just see it as an irrelevant concept in an era when national teams are evolving into franchises made up of a combination of local talent and international mercenaries.

I wouldn't have had Biggar over Russell but I would have had a far more attacking game plan than the Lions do.

This is the point. I agree with your picks as outlined, and I agree with Stones that Finn is a better 10 than Biggar, but picking Biggar isn't therefore a sign of being anti-Scottish players. Is Finn ever going to fit into a Gatland gameplan? No, never, he's far and away too creative for Gatland to ever consider playing him in any situation.

Feeling meh about the Lions is understandable, but extrapolating coaches picks into institutional racism is just weird.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

If we're just going to accept that a coach is going with a fixed gameplan, and will only select players to fit that gameplan, then, again, I think the future is bleak for the Lions concept. Instead of taking the best, most exciting players from the home nations, and developing a gameplan around their talents and abilities, we are asked to get behind, invest in, and support a concept based on a fixed gameplan and a set of players selected to match that plan. I'm sorry, that isn't going to fly.

There is speculation in the press that the Lions ideal has been saved by yesterday's win, giving the series some meaning. If that is true, then all that has happened in my views that a combination of Barratt's poor kicking form combined with William's rush of blood to the head has effectively papered over the cracks of what is now an obsolete concept.

Stones of granite wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Big D wrote: I wouldn't have had Biggar over Russell but I would have had a far more attacking game plan than the Lions do.

This is the point. I agree with your picks as outlined, and I agree with Stones that Finn is a better 10 than Biggar, but picking Biggar isn't therefore a sign of being anti-Scottish players. Is Finn ever going to fit into a Gatland gameplan? No, never, he's far and away too creative for Gatland to ever consider playing him in any situation.

Feeling meh about the Lions is understandable, but extrapolating coaches picks into institutional racism is just weird.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

If we're just going to accept that a coach is going with a fixed gameplan, and will only select players to fit that gameplan, then, again, I think the future is bleak for the Lions concept. Instead of taking the best, most exciting players from the home nations, and developing a gameplan around their talents and abilities, we are asked to get behind, invest in, and support a concept based on a fixed gameplan and a set of players selected to match that plan. I'm sorry, that isn't going to fly.

There is speculation in the press that the Lions ideal has been saved by yesterday's win, giving the series some meaning. If that is true, then all that has happened in my views that a combination of Barratt's poor kicking form combined with William's rush of blood to the head has effectively papered over the cracks of what is now an obsolete concept.

Your first para makes a good point, but is it anything new to make the lions obsolete now as opposed to a couple of decades ago? Hasn't this always happened, or were Lions squads originally an even split of players from the 4 home unions so as to avoid accusations of favouritism?

I also agree that the result is in danger of overshadowing the performance, but in a lions test series surely results are the only thing that matters.

If the squad had 12 scots in it and won the most boring test series in history, each game score being 3-0, how would we feel about it?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: This is the point. I agree with your picks as outlined, and I agree with Stones that Finn is a better 10 than Biggar, but picking Biggar isn't therefore a sign of being anti-Scottish players. Is Finn ever going to fit into a Gatland gameplan? No, never, he's far and away too creative for Gatland to ever consider playing him in any situation.

Feeling meh about the Lions is understandable, but extrapolating coaches picks into institutional racism is just weird.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

If we're just going to accept that a coach is going with a fixed gameplan, and will only select players to fit that gameplan, then, again, I think the future is bleak for the Lions concept. Instead of taking the best, most exciting players from the home nations, and developing a gameplan around their talents and abilities, we are asked to get behind, invest in, and support a concept based on a fixed gameplan and a set of players selected to match that plan. I'm sorry, that isn't going to fly.

There is speculation in the press that the Lions ideal has been saved by yesterday's win, giving the series some meaning. If that is true, then all that has happened in my views that a combination of Barratt's poor kicking form combined with William's rush of blood to the head has effectively papered over the cracks of what is now an obsolete concept.

Your first para makes a good point, but is it anything new to make the lions obsolete now as opposed to a couple of decades ago? Hasn't this always happened, or were Lions squads originally an even split of players from the 4 home unions so as to avoid accusations of favouritism?

It can't be taken in isolation. We are 20 years into the professional era, where we now are, as I previously wrote, evolving our national teams into international franchises. What exactly is the purpose of the Lions? It was previously to test the best of British against our colonial cousins. What is it now? If we can't see the BEST players playing the BEST Rugby rather than the players and their play only reaching the limitations of their coach, then what is it for?

I also agree that the result is in danger of overshadowing the performance, but in a lions test series surely results are the only thing that matters.

Then we have different aspirations.

If the squad had 12 scots in it and won the most boring test series in history, each game score being 3-0, how would we feel about it?

Reductio ad absurdum can only take one so far.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk[/quote]

Stones of granite wrote: It can't be taken in isolation. We are 20 years into the professional era, where we now are, as I previously wrote, evolving our national teams into international franchises. What exactly is the purpose of the Lions? It was previously to test the best of British against our colonial cousins. What is it now? If we can't see the BEST players playing the BEST Rugby rather than the players and their play only reaching the limitations of their coach, then what is it for?

Surely any team can only reach the limitations of its coach, esp a scratch team thrown together for only a few weeks at a time? If you only want the best players to come together for a little while aren't you talking about the Barbarians rather than the Lions? Who the best players are is always going to be subjective so how is the lions ever going to be anything other than meaningless if there's no objective measure of the best players? In what way has any of this changed since professionalism?

Its an interesting point tho about franchises, which the lions has certainly become along with the intl teams. I suspect many lions fans would say the point of the lions being something about putting rivalries aside and coming together to be part of something bigger, etc, but that does rather undermine the notion of players not being involved as they dont fit a preconceived game plan.

Stones of granite wrote:

I also agree that the result is in danger of overshadowing the performance, but in a lions test series surely results are the only thing that matters.

Then we have different aspirations.

Stones of granite wrote:

If the squad had 12 scots in it and won the most boring test series in history, each game score being 3-0, how would we feel about it?

Reductio ad absurdum can only take one so far.

I suspect you're evading my point. It might be an extreme example but its used to illustrate the question of what would make you actively support the lions?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: It can't be taken in isolation. We are 20 years into the professional era, where we now are, as I previously wrote, evolving our national teams into international franchises. What exactly is the purpose of the Lions? It was previously to test the best of British against our colonial cousins. What is it now? If we can't see the BEST players playing the BEST Rugby rather than the players and their play only reaching the limitations of their coach, then what is it for?

Surely any team can only reach the limitations of its coach, esp a scratch team thrown together for only a few weeks at a time? If you only want the best players to come together for a little while aren't you talking about the Barbarians rather than the Lions? Who the best players are is always going to be subjective so how is the lions ever going to be anything other than meaningless if there's no objective measure of the best players? In what way has any of this changed since professionalism?

Its an interesting point tho about franchises, which the lions has certainly become along with the intl teams. I suspect many lions fans would say the point of the lions being something about putting rivalries aside and coming together to be part of something bigger, etc, but that does rather undermine the notion of players not being involved as they dont fit a preconceived game plan.

Stones of granite wrote:

I also agree that the result is in danger of overshadowing the performance, but in a lions test series surely results are the only thing that matters.

Then we have different aspirations.

Stones of granite wrote:

If the squad had 12 scots in it and won the most boring test series in history, each game score being 3-0, how would we feel about it?

Reductio ad absurdum can only take one so far.

I suspect you're evading my point. It might be an extreme example but its used to illustrate the question of what would make you actively support the lions?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

It's certainly true that a coach can limit a team, I don't believe that it is true that a team is by necessity limited by it's coach.

I quite firmly believe that hypothetical questions like yours represent a false dichotomy. You're asking me to make a bipolar judgement based on a limited set of hypothetical "facts" without context.

Donny - are you a descendant of John Menteith by any chance?