British and Irish Lions Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

GerM

jm08 wrote: »

A better selection this time than last time for sure. Ugo Monye started the first Test on the last tour. Harry Ellis was on the bench.

Gatland as forwards coach must have had something to say about starting Phil Vickery ahead of Adam Jones on the last tour. And they really took their time taking Vickery off as well.

There's no conspiracy. People let their natural dislike of English players cloud their judgement and twist their memories. Monye was the in form winger going into the first test. Most people were happy enough to see him in the side. He had 4 tries in 3 games going into the first test. His performances out there demanded selection considering the likes of Shane Williams was utterly useless in the warm ups.

As for Ellis, who else should have been on the bench? TOL was out. Mike Blair was selected despite being off form and his awful form continued into the tour. There was nobody else for the bench spot.

Vickery was in the side because Euan Murray, who was clear favourite for the jersey, went home injured. Again, Vickery was very good in the warm ups. Certainly as good as Jones. He was done by illegal scrummaging that he failed to sort out. He was hauled off just after half time.

English players will tour not because of politics or because Sky Sports are picking the team but because they're good players who add a lot to the squad and will make an impact.

cgpg5

jm08 wrote: »

A better selection this time than last time for sure. Ugo Monye started the first Test on the last tour. Harry Ellis was on the bench.

Gatland as forwards coach must have had something to say about starting Phil Vickery ahead of Adam Jones on the last tour. And they really took their time taking Vickery off as well.

I'm no Monye fan but he was the in-form winger going into that test in all fairness. There were very few at the time iirc who would have argued against his selection. Shane WIlliams had an awful tour in the warm up games and McGeechan had to be applauded for not picking on reputation. Unfortunately the selection didn't pay off but that's the way it goes

There should be a fair amount of English guys this time around pushing for selection. Of course it'll depend on how the 6n goes but they should have won the slam this year and they'll be close again I feel

At this moment in time Marler, Hartley, Cole, Lawes, Robshaw, Care, Farrell, Tuilagi, Ashton, Foden are as good as certainties to make the plane

cgpg5

GerM wrote: »

There's no conspiracy. People let their natural dislike of English players cloud their judgement and twist their memories. Monye was the in form winger going into the first test. Most people were happy enough to see him in the side. He had 4 tries in 3 games going into the first test. His performances out there demanded selection considering the likes of Shane Williams was utterly useless in the warm ups.

As for Ellis, who else should have been on the bench? TOL was out. Mike Blair was selected despite being off form and his awful form continued into the tour. There was nobody else for the bench spot.

Vickery was in the side because Euan Murray, who was clear favourite for the jersey, went home injured. Again, Vickery was very good in the warm ups. Certainly as good as Jones. He was done by illegal scrummaging that he failed to sort out. He was hauled off just after half time.

English players will tour not because of politics or because Sky Sports are picking the team but because they're good players who add a lot to the squad and will make an impact.

Just beat me to it, Ger

jm08

GerM wrote: »

There's no conspiracy. People let their natural dislike of English players cloud their judgement and twist their memories. Monye was the in form winger going into the first test. Most people were happy enough to see him in the side. He had 4 tries in 3 games going into the first test. His performances out there demanded selection considering the likes of Shane Williams was utterly useless in the warm ups.

Two of those tries were against the worst team that the Lions were to meet. Luke Fitz was on the GS winning team as a winger and he was played in the centre for some of the pre-Test games. Shane Williams got far too many chances on reputation.

As for Ellis, who else should have been on the bench? TOL was out. Mike Blair was selected despite being off form and his awful form continued into the tour. There was nobody else for the bench spot.

That was my point - even though the competition was poor for SH they brought the poor English choice. Why not put Blair on the bench.

Vickery was in the side because Euan Murray, who was clear favourite for the jersey, went home injured. Again, Vickery was very good in the warm ups. Certainly as good as Jones. He was done by illegal scrummaging that he failed to sort out. He was hauled off just after half time.

TBH, they were all fairly good in the warm-ups - the opposition was poor.

English players will tour not because of politics or because Sky Sports are picking the team but because they're good players who add a lot to the squad and will make an impact.

A lot of them do deserve their places. But there was blue murder when Croft wasn't selected initially the last time. Since Sky are losing the Aviva coverage, I'd expect them not to hype them up so much.

GerM

jm08 wrote: »

Two of those tries were against the worst team that the Lions were to meet.

Did other people perform as well? No. He was in the side because he was the form winger. It was a deserved selection. As I said, most people were calling for him to be in the team. There's no argument to be made against his inclusion for that opening game.

That was my point - even though the competition was poor for SH they brought the poor English choice. Why not put Blair on the bench.

As mentioned already, Blair was useless. Ellis was doing alright. Not great, not poor. He was there as cover. Blair had been useless all that year ever since his IRB nomination.

TBH, they were all fairly good in the warm-ups - the opposition was poor.

So they went with the vastly experienced international captain and world cup winner. Again, absolutely nothing to indicate it was because of his nationality.

A lot of them do deserve their places. But there was blue murder when Croft wasn't selected initially the last time. Since Sky are losing the Aviva coverage, I'd expect them not to hype them up so much.

If there was political selections made, do you not think that Croft would have been named in the original touring party? Do people really think that a TV channel determine who is selected for the Lions? It's a laughable notion more suited to the conspiracy theory forum.

danthefan

Croft got called up when Ferris got injured, is that right?

cgpg5

If there was pro-English bias then Sheridan would have been a sure-fire starter, Croft (as already said) would have made the initial touring party, Delon Armitage would have toured and Flutey would have started. Also Flood/WIlko/Cipriani would have been brought as a 3rd choice fly half

It is a daft notion

GerM

danthefan wrote: »

Croft got called up when Ferris got injured, is that right?

When Quinlan graciously assisted Cullen with his contact lense, I recall. Which in itself shows how little things were affected by politics given they were happy to select a former international ahead of him originally.

There was no real replacement for Ferris. Ryan Jones went out there with a concussion and was promptly sent home.

cgpg5

danthefan wrote: »

Croft got called up when Ferris got injured, is that right?

It was for Quinlan surely when he got banned? When Ferris got injured he was then elevated to first choice 6.

danthefan

GerM wrote: »

When Quinlan graciously assisted Cullen with his contact lense, I recall. Which in itself shows how little things were affected by politics given they were happy to select a former international ahead of him originally.

There was no real replacement for Ferris. Ryan Jones went out there with a concussion and was promptly sent home.

Ahh yes fair enough.

GerM

cgpg5 wrote: »

It was for Quinlan surely when he got banned? When Ferris got injured he was then elevated to first choice 6.

Unless they selected Worsley for the opening test at which point there would have been cries of English favouritism!

Swiwi

GerM wrote: »

Unless they selected Worsley for the opening test at which point there would have been cries of English favouritism!

Worsley was crap, crap, crap solid but unspectacular. I would have been the first to cry English favouritism in that instance. On the other hand, I think Croft was unfairly maligned. He might not quite have the physical presence, but he is quick on his feet, and damned reliable in the lineout.

cgpg5

Swiwi wrote: »

Worsley was crap, crap, crap. I would have been the first to cry English favouritism in that instance. On the other hand, I think Croft was unfairly maligned. He might not quite have the physical presence, but he is quick on his feet, and damned reliable in the lineout.

To be fair to Worsley he was a serious warrior. He may not have been up to Lions standard but was one of England's most effective players in the 09 6n. He never let the side down. Ill-discipline was an issue at times yes but he was never found wanting out there

For a player who during his peak played second fiddle to one of the great back-rows, he stepped up well when given his opoortunity in later years

Swiwi

totallegend wrote: »

Spot on chief. I would expect Hartley, Cole, Sheridan (pending release from Toulon), Robshaw, Care, Youngs, Flood, Ashton and Foden to be very much in the mix when it comes to squad announcement. Steffon Armitage should be in there on form alone but there may be other issues at play.

In relation to Gatland not giving in to pressure, I don't think that will be an issue for England; the more pressing issue would be inclusion of token Scots so let's hope Gray, Denton, Hogg and Visser have a good 6N and stay fit.

On the other hand, you would hope that Gatland doesn't go too far the other way and give too much preference to the guys he's most familiar with, i.e Wales...

I'm a Crusader

At the end of the day, England finished 2nd in the 6N this year, and comfortably accounted for Ireland 30-9, so they do have some good players, and I would expect no tokenism needed.

Swiwi

cgpg5 wrote: »

To be fair to Worsley he was a serious warrior. He may not have been up to Lions standard but was one of England's most effective players in the 09 6n. He never let the side down. Ill-discipline was an issue at times yes but he was never found wanting out there

For a player who during his peak played second fiddle to one of the great back-rows, he stepped up well when given his opoortunity in later years

Warrior, but journeyman. But no show-pony, so he has that in his favour.

cgpg5

Swiwi wrote: »

I'm a Crusader

At the end of the day, England finished 2nd in the 6N this year, and comfortably accounted for Ireland 30-9, so they do have some good players, and I would expect no tokenism needed.

Were very hard done by against Wales too could very easily have won the slam. They're my pick next year.

Also I was impressed by them in the Summer v SA. they were missing key players and using it to try out new combos/players but they showed very well

Swiwi

cgpg5 wrote: »

Were very hard done by against Wales too could very easily have won the slam. They're my pick next year.

Also I was impressed by them in the Summer v SA. they were missing key players and using it to try out new combos/players but they showed very well

Agree, that was definitely a try in the corner. Would have been very exciting to see if they could have nailed the sideline conversion for the win. IMO, there is never a bad English side, often average ones, and sometimes very good, but they always give the ABs a decent run for their money, especially in the forwards, and I never ever take a game against them for granted, especially at Twickenham.

jm08

There was uproar in the English press when Croft wasn't selected. They went bananas over Quinlan being ahead of him (and I'm pretty sure that Luke Fitz wouldn't be getting his eyes checked out if Quinlan was around) long before Quinlan's ban. Sky replayed the slowed down incident repeatedly. If Croft had been selected in the first place, there wouldn't have been as much as an outcry over Quinlan.

irishbucsfan

Swiwi wrote: »

Worsley was crap, crap, crap. I would have been the first to cry English favouritism in that instance. On the other hand, I think Croft was unfairly maligned. He might not quite have the physical presence, but he is quick on his feet, and damned reliable in the lineout.

Worley was certainly not crap. Very talented player.

cgpg5

jm08 wrote: »

There was uproar in the English press when Croft wasn't selected. They went bananas over Quinlan being ahead of him (and I'm pretty sure that Luke Fitz wouldn't be getting his eyes checked out if Quinlan was around) long before Quinlan's ban. Sky replayed the slowed down incident repeatedly. If Croft had been selected in the first place, there wouldn't have been as much as an outcry over Quinlan.

To be fair it was a daft selection. Croft was England's best player by a country mile in the 09 6n despite the fact he didn't even play every game (that is saying something!). He beat Scotland on his own and was immense v France. Got MOTM in both games iirc

Tox56

Swiwi wrote: »

I'm a Crusader

At the end of the day, England finished 2nd in the 6N this year, and comfortably accounted for Ireland 30-9, so they do have some good players, and I would expect no tokenism needed.

To be fair their scrum accounted for Ireland, I can't remember exactly how many but almost all of their points came directly from the scrum.

jm08

danthefan wrote: »

Croft got called up when Ferris got injured, is that right?

An unfit Ryan Jones I think came in for Ferris.

cgpg5

Tox56 wrote: »

To be fair their scrum accounted for Ireland, I can't remember exactly how many but almost all of their points came directly from the scrum.

There was a point where I remember calls being made to take a prop off "Injured" so as to have uncontested scrums. It was that bad

Swiwi

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Worley was certainly not crap. Very talented player.

Agree to disagree. I don't think we will convince each other to change opinion...

rrpc

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Worley was certainly not crap. Very talented player.

Talented, but limited. Very effective and aggressive tackler and extremely hard worker around the pitch. Definitely above journeyman standard, but a bit below Lions I would think.

Swiwi

rrpc wrote: »

Talented, but limited. Very effective and aggressive tackler and extremely hard worker around the pitch. Definitely above journeyman standard, but a bit below Lions I would think.

Ok, I'll moderate my view a little. Typical English forward, in that he was decent enough at the tight stuff, which is what makes English forward packs hard to break down. But wouldn't have got near an AB jersey, due to lack of a multi-faceted skillset (eg Kieran Read), which is considered a pre-requisite for a loose forward in NZ.

rrpc

Swiwi wrote: »

Ok, I'll moderate my view a little. Typical English forward, in that he was decent enough at the tight stuff, which is what makes English forward packs hard to break down. But wouldn't have got near an AB jersey, due to lack of a multi-faceted skillset (eg Kieran Read), which is considered a pre-requisite for a loose forward in NZ.

Well he might if he tackled an AB

Don't think that's in question here tbh, an England stalwart is all he was ever likely to be.

irishbucsfan

rrpc wrote: »

Talented, but limited. Very effective and aggressive tackler and extremely hard worker around the pitch. Definitely above journeyman standard, but a bit below Lions I would think.

Yeah I'd agree with that. He was hard as nails and put in full 80 minute shifts wthout going backwards. Exactly what every team needs. You don't get almost 80 caps and 2 heineken cup medals from being "crap crap crap."

GerM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yeah I'd agree with that. He was hard as nails and put in full 80 minute shifts wthout going backwards. Exactly what every team needs. You don't get almost 80 caps and 2 heineken cup medals from being "crap crap crap."

Bingo. He was absolutely heroic in that Wasps team. He wasn't pretty but he was an extremely effective blindside. Tackled himself to death, hit like a train, decent in the lineout and a nuisance at the ruck. The guy managed 80 caps despite his time coinciding with the greatest, Richard Hill.

I think Lions midweek was about right and was delighted to see him get some recognition. Always came across as a fierce nice bloke too and extremely humble.

KJY

I remember it was that tour that made him one of my favourite players. It was a joy to watch him tackle