'Drop Shane!' or is Big Colin an Idiot*

Paul Nolan wrote...

Being an Osprey, I don't suppose that he has much choice!

wilbach asks though, should he be in?

Posted by: Paul Nolan  | February 6, 2008 5:42 PM

Andrew D wrote...

The essence of a player like Shane Williams is he is gifted, is not afraid of trying things, sometimes resulting in total disaster, sometimes creating utter brilliance, lifting the team and crowds in a way no other player can do. So if he stays in the team you will always get that. So nothing has changed there from Day One. If you want a team of "Safe Hands" and you only think in terms of reducing errors, being efficient etc - then by all means leave him out. If however, you think sport should be about beauty, artistry, excitement, yes - and drama too, then he will be first on the team sheet. Would I have him in - yes, and yes and yes again. Rugby needs his sort - it is in far too much danger of becoming a clone of rugby league without the 6 tackle rule (or is it 5 ?) where team tactic is based on grinding, strangling and winning by brute strength. Campese, Barry John, Shane Williams - these for me are the players (imperfect though they be) that light up the game and elevate it to something special.

wilbach bows his head in silent prayer that he is not alone in this dark austere world. hideth not your light under a ruckell, oh, shane the bold - burn bright, burn bright.

Posted by: Andrew D  | February 7, 2008 4:31 AM

Julian wrote...

If not Shane who else? wayne procter?

wilbach gasps in horror - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! i remember him trying to tackle an irish number 8 with his jaw. blimey he was ungainly.

Posted by: Julian  | February 7, 2008 10:00 PM

lucie nolan wrote...

after yesterday, shane williams should be already on the printed selection sheet until he is drawing his pension!!!

wilbach says - oh much yes!

Posted by: lucie nolan  | February 10, 2008 3:54 PM

welshbob wrote...

Well! After Saturday's performance - Big Col is definably (sic) a bludi idiot! Two sweetly taken tries, not too many turnovers and only one dodgy kick, by my reckoning. AND my girlfriend thinks he's "cute" - drop him? NO WAY! He's still a brilliant alternative to the 17 stone monsters even we now seem to be fielding - arguably Mark Jones would have scored at least one of the two clear chances our very own "big banger" had. We still need some variety and surprise in our play - Shane epitomises that, keep the oppo guessing, that's what I say! What about you? or your other reader wb?

wilbach nods in agreement Oh, yes. But Big Col made me chuckle by sending me a 'shane williams is f###in great - can't believe there was any doubt' self affacing text on saturday as i was stood by the 22, front row, nodding in an embarrassingly accurate impression of rupert moon, post try.

Posted by: welshbob  | February 11, 2008 11:16 PM

Big Col wrote...

Bloody liability. Any decent winger would have plowed through straight to the line instead of running right into touch.

Just as well the TMO was his mum!

Wilbach is (pretendingly) outraged - you are a bloody idiot with little or no knowledge of the role of the TMO, the brief and the role's pressure - it was his NAN - his Mum was running the line.

Posted by: Big Col  | February 13, 2008 9:01 AM