British and Irish Lions Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

smurphy29

Murray was there alright and got injured. Another one who was 'nailed on' six months out from the tour, but never really got going on the tour. Ross Ford also toured and started a test.

McGeechan picked a highly form-based selection in 2009. He said he especially wanted players who were finishing the season strongly. That's why he went for guys like Earls, Quinlan and Monye. He probably had guys available with greater pedigree but he went for players who were on top of their game.

In the end he admitted to picking too much on form and overlooking the all important 'beef' factor in the first test.

GerM is right. Nobody is nailed on. The closest thing to a certain starter is Mike Phillips but even he has competition from Ben Youngs if he can keep his game at a high level.

jm08

totallegend wrote: »

It's OK to admit to being wrong.

No mention of Euan Murray here that I can see?

http://www.lionsrugby.com/thetour/7120.php

totallegend

jm08 wrote: »

No mention of Euan Murray here that I can see?

http://www.lionsrugby.com/thetour/7120.php

Selected but got injured early on, replaced by John Hayes iirc.

jm08

smurphy29 wrote: »

Murray was there alright and got injured. Another one who was 'nailed on' six months out from the tour, but never really got going on the tour. Ross Ford also toured and started a test.

McGeechan picked a highly form-based selection in 2009. He said he especially wanted players who were finishing the season strongly. That's why he went for guys like Earls, Quinlan and Monye. He probably had guys available with greater pedigree but he went for players who were on top of their game.

In the end he admitted to picking too much on form and overlooking the all important 'beef' factor in the first test.

GerM is right. Nobody is nailed on. The closest thing to a certain starter is Mike Phillips but even he has competition from Ben Youngs if he can keep his game at a high level.

Earls was the uncapped player. Quinlan was to be the enforcer.

England is Sky's biggest market - they needed a few England players to be involved. Remember the Tom Croft media campaign to get him on tour and then play him! Thats why there was no 'beef' in the first Test.

thomond2006

Only 2 English players started the second test in 2009, Shaw and Croft. Shaw turned out to be an inspired selection.

The media did pick the test team for the second test in 2005 (10/11 changes in one week, ridiculous bull****), as Whiff of Cordite pointed out, but I don't think the media had much hand in 2009.

smurphy29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euan_Murray

He was picked alright. As one of four 'token' Scots.

The lack of beef in the first test was because they picked two beanpole loosehead locks (Wyn Jones and O'Connell) and a midget at hooker (Mears). They brought Shaw and Rees into the team for the second test to up the beef quotient and duly ended the humiliation in scrums and mauls that cost them the first test.

totallegend

Lee Mears. Jesus, the Lions never stood a chance.

smurphy29

jm08 wrote: »

Earls was the uncapped player. Quinlan was to be the enforcer.

I don't understand any of this. They were picked because they were playing superbly for Munster. Earls had played for Ireland in the previous November internationals. He scored a try against Canada.

thomond2006

totallegend wrote: »

Lee Mears. Jesus, the Lions never stood a chance.

Flannery's injury was a big blow to the '09 Lions. Bismarck must have laughed his ass off when he saw Mears was picked for the first test!

smurphy29

thomond2006 wrote: »

Flannery's injury was a big blow to the '09 Lions. Bismarck must have laughed his ass off when he saw Mears was picked for the first test!

Wasn't it just. Talk about your nailed on starter. He pretty much had all the good qualities of the other three (Rees, Mears and Ford) in aggregate.

totallegend

smurphy29 wrote: »

I don't understand any of this. They were picked because they were playing superbly for Munster. Earls had played for Ireland in the previous November internationals. He scored a try against Canada.

Think there's a bit of confusion there with the Barbarians who always pick an uncapped player, but this doesn't apply to the Lions and, as you say, Earls was capped anyway.

wicklowwonder

Can Gatland really go back to Wales after this tour? He will miss the Autumns 2012, 6 Nations 2013 and Summer Tour 2013 nearly a full year away from a team surely the team will have developed and moulded into a different animal than Gatland's team if they are successful will they want him back?

Secondly if the Lions lose all 3 tests surely Gatland is then undermined as a coach as will have lost the respect of the Welsh people and squad?

Finally if Lions win the tour surely Wales is a step backwards? Like Joe winning HCup with Leinster then managing Mary's? Surely the All Blacks would be the only thing that can top a successful Lions for Gatland?

smurphy29

wicklowwonder wrote: »

Can Gatland really go back to Wales after this tour? He will miss the Autumns 2012, 6 Nations 2013 and Summer Tour 2013 nearly a full year away from a team surely the team will have developed and moulded into a different animal than Gatland's team if they are successful will they want him back?

Secondly if the Lions lose all 3 tests surely Gatland is then undermined as a coach as will have lost the respect of the Welsh people and squad?

Finally if Lions win the tour surely Wales is a step backwards? Like Joe winning HCup with Leinster then managing Mary's? Surely the All Blacks would be the only thing that can top a successful Lions for Gatland?

Interesting questions. I'd imagine Gatland is held in very high esteem in Wales and his reputation can easily withstand a failed Lions tour. It's such a crazy, complicated beast that he'll surely find a way of blaming extraneous factors if it all goes pear shaped. I'd say if he wins the tour New Zealand will come calling eventually, but he'll have to bide his time until the job becomes available, so it would be back to Wales in the interim.

wicklowwonder

smurphy29 wrote: »

wicklowwonder wrote: »

Can Gatland really go back to Wales after this tour? He will miss the Autumns 2012, 6 Nations 2013 and Summer Tour 2013 nearly a full year away from a team surely the team will have developed and moulded into a different animal than Gatland's team if they are successful will they want him back?

Secondly if the Lions lose all 3 tests surely Gatland is then undermined as a coach as will have lost the respect of the Welsh people and squad?

Finally if Lions win the tour surely Wales is a step backwards? Like Joe winning HCup with Leinster then managing Mary's? Surely the All Blacks would be the only thing that can top a successful Lions for Gatland?

Interesting questions. I'd imagine Gatland is held in very high esteem in Wales and his reputation can easily withstand a failed Lions tour. It's such a crazy, complicated beast that he'll surely find a way of blaming extraneous factors if it all goes pear shaped. I'd say if he wins the tour New Zealand will come calling eventually, but he'll have to bide his time until the job becomes available, so it would be back to Wales in the interim.

Wales in the interim could ruin him, if he wins the tour the Welsh public will expect two Grand Slams and a Workd Cup, they may live him but they are demanding fans. He could be damaged property by the time All Blacks come along. Realistically after the next World Cup at earliest.

If the tour goes pear shape he returns to Wales and that goes belly up he could soon find himself as popular as Eddie O'Sullivan.

I think Gatland will have a lot of thinking to do, I feel he would be better off cutting all ties with Wales see how the tour goes and look at his options then.

Also what happens when it's a tight call between say Hook and Cipriani next summer for a spot and Gatland goes with Cipriani, Hook isn't going be happy seeing Gatland back for Wales and his mates might not be either.

sock puppet

smurphy29 wrote: »

Wasn't it just. Talk about your nailed on starter. He pretty much had all the good qualities of the other three (Rees, Mears and Ford) in aggregate.

From what I remember Ford was in awful form and Rees wasn't really rated until he actually played in the series. Funny looking back.

bamboozle

i think Gatland's in a very lucky position, he has potentially the strongest lions squad to assemble since '97, he's taking on a very average australian team and there will be a huge lions support there to roar them on.

Two interesting things for me is if he doesnt stay on with wales after the lions tour this may coincide with Kidney's tenure as Irish coach ending in June. Also, there may some very contentious selections to be made, unless BOD and POC show serious form in an injury free season i cant see either travelling.

GerM

totallegend wrote: »

Anyway, this time four years ago, you could have said with 100% certainty that O'Driscoll, O'Connell and Lee Byrne would be test starters for the 2009 games. ..

I genuinely wouldn't have. BOD had a fairly awful season in 2007/08 and many said he was done and dusted. He famously didn't score a try for the entire season. POC had the worst spell of international rugby in his career and, whilst he was excellent for Munster in the final stages of the HEC, he had missed the majority of the tournament through injury. Their spots were secured after both of them had inspired seasons leading up to the tour. Byrne was probably way ahead as the full back option a year out, alright, but over the next year Kearney outperformed him and it was a tight call come the first test. Shane Williams had a grand slam and was the IRB POTY in his pocket six months before the tour and didn't make the team. Anything can happen between now and then.

GerM

jm08 wrote: »

No mention of Euan Murray here that I can see?

http://www.lionsrugby.com/thetour/7120.php

Go through the match archive. Murray was favourite for the test jersey before the tour and after his first couple of games. He only got injured in the last game before the first test. He absolutely minced the scrums he was against and his stock was through the roof. The plan on that tour was to attack the SA set piece which famously fell on its arse when Mtawarira was allowed to do whatever he wanted against Vickery in the opening test.

GerM

jm08 wrote: »

Earls was the uncapped player. Quinlan was to be the enforcer.

Babas is the side that have a tradition of an uncapped player. Quinlan was never there to be an enforcer and that was never his game. He was named because he's an absolutely brilliant tourist and would have had a huge impact off the pitch. He was someone that could show great skills and be very niggly, getting under the oppositions skin but he was never an enforcer which is highlighted by the fact that it was Tom Croft who was brought in as his direct replacement. Worsley was the flanker that was the enforcer (or closest thing to it at the time) and he was brilliant when the coaching staff finally woke up and selected him.

bilston

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Seems like some of the English media are pushing Sexton as a pretty nailed-on starter.

Of course half the Irish media will probably call for ROG!

He's certainly the favourite (Sexton that is not ROG!) but he really needs to stamp his authority on the Irish team this season.

I expect Priestland will be proven to be a one season wonder albeit remaining a decent option and Farrell is solid but I'm not sure he fits in with Gatland's thinking. I'd be more interested in the progress of George Ford this season but I expect the Lions will come a year too soon for him, plus he has Flood ahead of him at Leicester. Duncan Weir isn't good enough and while I've always rated Rhuaridh Jackson very highly he hasn't quite lived up to expectations. It's Sexton's to lose but he isn't a certainty.

bilston

thomond2006 wrote: »

Only 2 English players started the second test in 2009, Shaw and Croft. Shaw turned out to be an inspired selection.

That 2nd test was one of the greatest test matches of recent years. Shaw was outstanding, Kearney imperious and BOD was a real leader with total disregard for his own body.

totallegend

bilston wrote: »

He's certainly the favourite (Sexton that is not ROG!) but he really needs to stamp his authority on the Irish team this season.

Yes, but he needs to be allowed to do so. That means 80-minute games, that means none of this "moving Sexton to 12 with ROG at 10" bull**** and that means giving him licence to play with the sort of freedom he does at Leinster.

bilston wrote: »

I expect Priestland will be proven to be a one season wonder albeit remaining a decent option and Farrell is solid but I'm not sure he fits in with Gatland's thinking. I'd be more interested in the progress of George Ford this season but I expect the Lions will come a year too soon for him, plus he has Flood ahead of him at Leicester. Duncan Weir isn't good enough and while I've always rated Rhuaridh Jackson very highly he hasn't quite lived up to expectations. It's Sexton's to lose but he isn't a certainty.

Agree with all that. The jersey is Sexton's to lose but Gatland obviously rates Priestland very highly.

bilston

jm08 wrote: »

Remember the Tom Croft media campaign to get him on tour and then play him! Thats why there was no 'beef' in the first Test.

I agree there is a love in for Croft from the English media...but...he is actually a very good player. He's just not as good as Ferris or Lydiate at 6 and he isn't as good as the likes of Gray or O'Connell in the second row.

jm08

GerM wrote: »

Babas is the side that have a tradition of an uncapped player. Quinlan was never there to be an enforcer and that was never his game. He was named because he's an absolutely brilliant tourist and would have had a huge impact off the pitch. He was someone that could show great skills and be very niggly, getting under the oppositions skin but he was never an enforcer which is highlighted by the fact that it was Tom Croft who was brought in as his direct replacement. Worsley was the flanker that was the enforcer (or closest thing to it at the time) and he was brilliant when the coaching staff finally woke up and selected him.

I don't know what they call it, but the Lions have a tradition of bringing one relatively inexperienced international on tour. ROG was that player in Australia, I think Ollie Smith was the player in NZ and Earls was that player in SA. They are not expected to be Test starters.

Maybe Enforcer was the wrong word to use for Quinlan, but my understanding was that he was picked because of his ability to niggle and he would be a good person to have with the dirt trackers.

Croft was brought in not because he was a like-for-like replacement for Quinlan, but because Sky/the British media wanted him on tour.

jm08

bilston wrote: »

That 2nd test was one of the greatest test matches of recent years. Shaw was outstanding, Kearney imperious and BOD was a real leader with total disregard for his own body.

The Welsh props deserve as much praise as Shaw.

Teferi

bilston wrote: »

He's certainly the favourite (Sexton that is not ROG!) but he really needs to stamp his authority on the Irish team this season.

Sexton hasn't a hope of playing for Ireland like he does for Leinster until Kidney is gone. It really is that simple.

He's clearly world class, I think his club form is enough to get him a jersey and Gatland smart enough to know Kidney is muck.

irishbucsfan

Stuart Barnes was talking about who he thinks will be the Lions back room staff and he straight away mentioned Joe Schmidt, and his reasoning for that was Johnny Sexton. I think most people realise how misspent our resources are and Warren Gatland will be very aware of it. Even if he doesn't hire Schmidt I think Sexton is clearly the most complete 10 in the British Isles... and his performances in the 6 Nations will be pretty irrelevant once he gets down there and starts training with the weapons the Lions will have at their disposal.

jm08

bilston wrote: »

I agree there is a love in for Croft from the English media...but...he is actually a very good player. He's just not as good as Ferris or Lydiate at 6 and he isn't as good as the likes of Gray or O'Connell in the second row.

I agee that Croft is a good player - just not physical enough against a team like SA. He could be a very good option in Aus though.

bamboozle

jm08 wrote: »

The Welsh props deserve as much praise as Shaw.

Completely agree, the lions fell apart when both props got injured.

It was a great game, would have been a great lions victory had the referee and his touch judge shown a pair and sent of Burger for trying to blind Luke Fitz.

jm08

Teferi wrote: »

Sexton hasn't a hope of playing for Ireland like he does for Leinster until Kidney is gone. It really is that simple.

He's clearly world class, I think his club form is enough to get him a jersey and Gatland smart enough to know Kidney is muck.

Do you not think that Gatland might wonder why Healy, Cronin, SOB, Ross, BOD* & Kearney* etc. can bring their Leinster game to Ireland and Sexton can't?

*those two look better for Ireland than they do for Leinster.