Scrapping the Lions

former total

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Honestly, it's my opinion, however unlikely, it's only a small piece of the argument that you are focusing in on.

The other piece of your argument is that there should be some form of positive discrimination in which inferior players are picked to ensure an even spread of representation from the four unions.

I would absolutely 100% disagree with that as well.

Jump_In_Jack

former total wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Honestly, it's my opinion, however unlikely, it's only a small piece of the argument that you are focusing in on.

The other piece of your argument is that there should be some form of positive discrimination in which inferior players are picked to ensure an even spread of representation from the four unions.

I would absolutely 100% disagree with that as well.

You can continue your strawmanning all you want, the arguments you are suggesting are not what I was talking about at all.
I said if you have a choice between picking 2 players of equal ability then do you choose the 10th player from one country or do you pick the first player from a country that has no other representation?
Deal with that point.

Jump_In_Jack

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Maybe I'm an idealist. It doesn't change the argument. I never said pick worse players to fill a quota.
I said there are players that are equal that are not being picked.

SO if you had the choice of picking from 2 exactly equal players would you not look at the make-up of the team before selecting the 9th or 10th player from the same country before thinking, hey, I've nobody from that other country in there yet!

Equal by who's definition?
Yes coaches will if there is a decision between two relatively equal players often pick the player they are most comfortable with but that doesn't mean it will always be from the same country.
You either cant grasp that or ....

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

If that's the case, surely Scotland would prefer more players on the team, no?
Wouldn't a Welsh coach that picks mostly Welsh players be pocketing more money for his own union, no?
Isn't that a basic conflict of interest?

Of course the scots would like more but the coach of the Lions simply wants to win and will pick the squad they feel is best up to the job. If they pick mainly players from the country they may be from or were/are involved in then so be it.

There are perhaps 3 or 4 players that are definites on any Lions team, the rest are largely equal.
Oh and if you can't grasp that then ...

The Lost Sheep

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

You can continue your strawmanning all you want, the arguments you are suggesting are not what I was talking about at all.
I said if you have a choice between picking 2 players of equal ability then do you choose the 10th player from one country or do you pick the first player from a country that has no other representation?
Deal with that point.

You pick the player who you think will be best for the squad and who may help the squad win in the best fashion.
Whether they are the 10th or 1st from a country

Jump_In_Jack

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

You can continue your strawmanning all you want, the arguments you are suggesting are not what I was talking about at all.
I said if you have a choice between picking 2 players of equal ability then do you choose the 10th player from one country or do you pick the first player from a country that has no other representation?
Deal with that point.

You pick the player who you think will be best for the squad and who may help the squad win in the best fashion.
Whether they are the 10th or 1st from a country

Talk about avoiding a direct question, are you actually a politician by trade?
I guess that was a no then.
I would obviously say yes to more equal representation given the choice.

The Lost Sheep

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Talk about avoiding a direct question, are you actually a politician by trade?

right im outta here.....

But il answer regardless. There has never been a squad with no representation from any of the 4 countries. You pick the player who you best feel will help the squad. Nationality is irrelevant.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

That's a matter of opinion I guess.
You don't see an issue with a biased coach taking the Lions?

I'll give you two reasons,
1) If selections are based on whichever country the head coach is affiliated with, it undermines the quality of the players selected, and reduces the standard of the team and squad.
2) If countries are under-represented they will not support the Lions and future tours may be jeopardised.
For example, if Scotland have 3 or 4 players on the next tour, I could see their Union turning its back on the Lions for the following tour and perhaps will put pressure on their squad to refuse a call-up to the Lions, as they don't get anything out of it except perhaps the danger of picking up an injury.

Then it's not really a proper sporting contest if you have to select players for tokenistic reasons and if that is the case then whats the point of it apart from making money.

The coach should be able to pick whoever he want and if no one is good enough from one of the 4 countries to merit being selected then so be it.

stephen_n

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

You can continue your strawmanning all you want, the arguments you are suggesting are not what I was talking about at all.
I said if you have a choice between picking 2 players of equal ability then do you choose the 10th player from one country or do you pick the first player from a country that has no other representation?
Deal with that point.

10 out 10 coaches would pick the player they are most familiar with in your hypothetical situation. Because that would be the logical and pragmatic choice.

Jump_In_Jack

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

That's a matter of opinion I guess.
You don't see an issue with a biased coach taking the Lions?

I'll give you two reasons,
1) If selections are based on whichever country the head coach is affiliated with, it undermines the quality of the players selected, and reduces the standard of the team and squad.
2) If countries are under-represented they will not support the Lions and future tours may be jeopardised.
For example, if Scotland have 3 or 4 players on the next tour, I could see their Union turning its back on the Lions for the following tour and perhaps will put pressure on their squad to refuse a call-up to the Lions, as they don't get anything out of it except perhaps the danger of picking up an injury.

Then it's not really a proper sporting contest if you have to select players for tokenistic reasons and if that is the case then whats the point of it apart from making money.

The coach should be able to pick whoever he want and if no one is good enough from one of the 4 countries to merit being selected then so be it.

Tokenistic would be selecting players of inferior quality.
I have not suggested that for a second.
There are a lot of players from each country that are very similar in ability.
There's no need to ignore one team over another just because of where the head coach is based.

Jump_In_Jack

stephen_n wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

You can continue your strawmanning all you want, the arguments you are suggesting are not what I was talking about at all.
I said if you have a choice between picking 2 players of equal ability then do you choose the 10th player from one country or do you pick the first player from a country that has no other representation?
Deal with that point.

10 out 10 coaches would pick the player they are most familiar with in your hypothetical situation. Because that would be the logical and pragmatic choice.

IF that's the way it is done, then the team is essentially the head coach's team, with only players from other teams included that are absolutely definitely better than the head coach's own team.
In that case make the Scottish head coach the coach for the next tour, and let him pick loads of Scottish players, and only if another player suits his tactics or is absolutely beyond a doubt better at implementing the tactics could he consider selecting that player.

Either way, Gatland should definitely not have another go at it.

Jump_In_Jack

What do people think would be the best tactics to employ against New Zealand for the Lions?

What players and coaches would be best for said tactics?

stephen_n

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

IF that's the way it is done, then the team is essentially the head coach's team, with only players from other teams included that are absolutely definitely better than the head coach's own team.
In that case make the Scottish head coach the coach for the next tour, and let him pick loads of Scottish players, and only if another player suits his tactics or is absolutely beyond a doubt better at implementing the tactics could he consider selecting that player.

Either way, Gatland should definitely not have another go at it.

No, that's not the point you made in your hyopthetical. You are just trying to shift the goal posts to suit the holes in your argument. If Cotter were to be the next coach. Picking loads of Scottish players wouldn't be a case of picking players of the exact same ability. It would be picking weaker players because of familiarity. That is something completely different.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Tokenistic would be selecting players of inferior quality.
I have not suggested that for a second.
There are a lot of players from each country that are very similar in ability.
There's no need to ignore one team over another just because of where the head coach is based.

But if the coach is picking player who are roughly the same level but he knows they understand his coaching and system better then for the team he puts out on the field they are actually are better players and deserve to go.

Coaches in all sports are faced with dilemmas between players of equal talents and usually pick players they can rely on more.

Jump_In_Jack

stephen_n wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

IF that's the way it is done, then the team is essentially the head coach's team, with only players from other teams included that are absolutely definitely better than the head coach's own team.
In that case make the Scottish head coach the coach for the next tour, and let him pick loads of Scottish players, and only if another player suits his tactics or is absolutely beyond a doubt better at implementing the tactics could he consider selecting that player.

Either way, Gatland should definitely not have another go at it.

No, that's not the point you made in your hyopthetical. You are just trying to shift the goal posts to suit the holes in your argument. If Cotter were to be the next coach. Picking loads of Scottish players wouldn't be a case of picking players of the exact same ability. It would be picking weaker players because of familiarity. That is something completely different.

Shifting the goalposts? I never said they were weaker, you did!
He could still pick any other player once he was satisfied they were better. That was my point.

Jump_In_Jack

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Tokenistic would be selecting players of inferior quality.
I have not suggested that for a second.
There are a lot of players from each country that are very similar in ability.
There's no need to ignore one team over another just because of where the head coach is based.

But if the coach is picking player who are roughly the same level but he knows they understand his coaching and system better then for the team he puts out on the field they are actually are better players and deserve to go.

Coaches in all sports are faced with dilemmas between players of equal talents and usually pick players they can rely on more.

OK then, fine, Gatland had his go last time in that system, fair is fair, let another coach/Union have a go the next time.

molloyjh

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

I said there are players that are equal that are not being picked.

I think this is actually the biggest and most basic flaw in your argument. How many players are truly "equal" to one another. For 2 rugby players of the same position to be "equal" they'd need to both do exactly the same things to exactly the same standard with exactly the same fitness levels and exactly the same chance of getting injured with exactly the same consistency and exactly the same experience with both the systems and the other players. Do 2 such rugby players actually exist?

Dirty Dingus McGee

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

OK then, fine, Gatland had his go last time in that system, fair is fair, let another coach/Union have a go the next time.

But if it is about winning the series and is a proper sporting contest an the team wants to win then the best coach should be selected an if the people who select the coach feel Gatland is the best then fair enough.


You're advocating tokenism again there by saying it should be shared around for the sake of it.

molloyjh

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

OK then, fine, Gatland had his go last time in that system, fair is fair, let another coach/Union have a go the next time.

Can I have a go?

Seriously, that's just not how this works. It's not how it should work. And in the real world it's not how it could work. The Lions have to select the best options from those available. Some coaches simply won't be available, others won't be interested and others still won't be good enough.

Jump_In_Jack

molloyjh wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

I said there are players that are equal that are not being picked.

I think this is actually the biggest and most basic flaw in your argument. How many players are truly "equal" to one another. For 2 rugby players of the same position to be "equal" they'd need to both do exactly the same things to exactly the same standard with exactly the same fitness levels and exactly the same chance of getting injured with exactly the same consistency and exactly the same experience with both the systems and the other players. Do 2 such rugby players actually exist?

That's not the only way to be equal, a player might be better in one aspect and weaker in another aspect but overall balance out.
By your logic it would be impossible to say a player were better than another then unless a player is better in every aspect to another player.
That's clearly a fallacious argument.

Jump_In_Jack

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

OK then, fine, Gatland had his go last time in that system, fair is fair, let another coach/Union have a go the next time.

But if it is about winning the series and is a proper sporting contest an the team wants to win then the best coach should be selected an if the people who select the coach feel Gatland is the best then fair enough.


You're advocating tokenism again there by saying it should be shared around for the sake of it.

I'm saying Gatland is not so much better than the other coaches that he would be an obvious choice, therefore the fact he has already done the last tour he shouldn't do the next one.
Tokenism would be saying Gatland is without doubt the best coach, but picking another coach regardless.
I thought it was obvious without my saying it, that Gatland doesn't meet the above statement.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

I'm saying Gatland is not so much better than the other coaches that he would be an obvious choice, therefore the fact he has already done the last tour he shouldn't do the next one.
Tokenism would be saying Gatland is without doubt the best coach, but picking another coach regardless.
I thought it was obvious without my saying it, that Gatland doesn't meet the above statement.

But if the committee who choose the coach still believe he is the best coach then he should be the coach.

If he's considered to be only 1% better (impossible to measure) than the other options then he is the best coach for the job.

molloyjh

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

That's not the only way to be equal, a player might be better in one aspect and weaker in another aspect but overall balance out.
By your logic it would be impossible to say a player were better than another then unless a player is better in every aspect to another player.
That's clearly a fallacious argument.

Except that certain skills are more important for certain game plans and/or selections. So if there are 2 players whose total ability combined is equal, one might suit the set-up more than the other.

And since when has a rugby coach ever selected a player simply based on his total "ability score"? A player is selected based on exactly what he'll bring to the game in question dependent on all the other factors involved in that game. Therefore from a simplistic measure of an overall "ability score" you might have 2 guys who are equal, but their impact on a particular game could be hugely different.

Take Reddan and Boss for example, and assume they were equal overall. Boss brought a totally different game that Schmidt utilised in a totally different way to Reddan at Leinster. So in some cases Boss got the call up, in others Reddan.

former total

One question; who decides on whether player A is equally good as player B and therefore should be picked on the basis of nationality?

This whole line of argument is just arguing for the sake of it. No logic to any of it.

Jump_In_Jack

former total wrote: »

One question; who decides on whether player A is equally good as player B and therefore should be picked on the basis of nationality?

This whole line of argument is just arguing for the sake of it. No logic to any of it.

The coach decides for the selection obviously, everyone else decides for themselves.

No logic? To what?

athtrasna

Lions coach surely should not be chosen more than 12 months before the tour? Teams and coaches can lose a lot of form in 4 years?

pickarooney

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

What do people think would be the best tactics to employ against New Zealand for the Lions?

What players and coaches would be best for said tactics?

Pick the Scotland team with a handful from the other countries and use that as an excuse for the three whippings. Fax the results to the SARU.

lucky_luke

I think the idea of a quota is bad, even if I didn't like how many Welsh players Gatts picked last time around. I do think they should pick a different coach for 2017 even if only for variety. Joe Schmitt, Vern Cotter or Eddie Jones are all accomplished coaches. It it is Gatland again I fear it will be very Welsh leaning again.

There are a number of reasons why a coach might pick a player who outsider might see as equal or worse than one from an under represented union

His player knows his plays and systems better. - A valid reason

His player knows the other players in the team better. This more relevant in some positions than others.

Availability bias - Not such a good reason

If one looks at teams made up of a mix of good-very good players who have not played much together one sees that it doesn't necessarily work out well. Barbarians, Toulon the first few years

Mr Tickle

It would probably be more interesting to see the Lions play an equivalent southern hemisphere side. The best of SA, NZ & AUS.

They'd be in the same boat rather than a well-oiled international side.

in terms of using a quota the only way i could see that working is it was very low. Like a minimum of two from each team in the starting line up.

molloyjh

My only concern with Gatland would be that I'm not sure that he's good enough. Wales have an absolutely horrific record against SH opposition and Gatland only just about managed to beat the worst Aussie team I can ever remember seeing. And but for a slip at the death in the first Test it may well have been a series loss. A series against NZ is a big enough ask as it is, having Gatland in charge doesn't make it any easier IMO.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

Can I have a go?

Seriously, that's just not how this works. It's not how it should work. And in the real world it's not how it could work. The Lions have to select the best options from those available. Some coaches simply won't be available, others won't be interested and others still won't be good enough.

#molloyjh4LionsCoach2017