Surprising players who have never been Lions

First topic message reminder :

Hello, first post here, thought this might be interesting. Mike Tindall has never represented the Lions. Peter Stringer has never represented the Lions. Same with Chris Paterson. Thats a countries top points scorer, a World Cup winner, 2 Grand Slam medals, 2 Heineken Cup medals at least between them.

Is there anyone else who you are surprised to find out has not been a Lion? This is not a who deserved to be/ who didn't deserve to list. But I think those three players have been around for a long time and have a lot to show for their careers. That they are not Lions is something I was surprised to discover.

Anybody else?

dummy_half wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

LordDowlais wrote: I do think that people should remember how the old guard who were running things, what should be remembered though, is that there was talk that they used to pick the team as well, they would not let the coaches do it, they would want their favourites playing.

They weren't the only ones.

The RFU through the 70s/80s/90s were a complete shambles. Not that much better after that either really and only just in recent times starting to become a half decently run organisation.

Wasn't Cooke the first full time coach... in 1990 or whenever???

NZ and SA were not pro in those days. They had jobs.... but they did get additional support via expenses and conditioning was very important. Outside of the farmers like Os Du Randt most places were more than happy for chaps to get time off for training... I mean they were the boks afterall.

I recall reading about Jonno in those days mind. Came back form 3 wks off with England then asked for a further 6 wks for the 93 lions tour. Not all had the same luxuries, some couldn't tour many got into professions which would give them generous allowances. I think the diff came with the conditioning and training which whilst amateur was seen as very important.

Many in SA still have jobs... most go through university at least. Some still train as articles clerks and we have the odd medic now and again and you always have the rare farmer like Willem Alberts still around.

Of course certain clubs (Quins being one example) wre very good at placing their new player recruits in jobs that were both lucrative and would allow plenty of time off. Hence Peter Winterbottom going from being a sheep farmer in Wharfedale to a city trader...

At least full professionalism has stopped all this kind of nonsense.

You think.... what happens when most of those players retire??? Sure some at the top go into punditry but scores go into brokerage firms off a land management degree etc. But it helps in that industry to have a few chaps that open eyes, doors, contracts... its win-win.

The old boy network is still in place.

Not surprised Paterson never played for the Lions. He was awful. He could kick, whoopee.

bathmad wrote:Not surprised Paterson never played for the Lions. He was awful. He could kick, whoopee.

I think he would have been outpaced by Jason Leonard he was that slow.

Kicking at 20 metres does not equate world class kicking. Paterson never took on the big kicks, the distance kicks like the ones Morne, Jonny etc did showed to be the best you had to test yourself and sacrifice some stats.

I think Tom Wood was unlucky not to tour last year; it was probably Lancaster's terrible decision to put him at 8 that did for him.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Wasnt the Romania team backed by their army then...and just full of monster soldiers.

It was a time when some teams were flouting amateurism while other nations were regimentedly implying law.

I remember hearing an interview with Chico Hopkins saying that he was having a run around the park in maesteg once after going to league, he kicked a ball back to a former maesteg player, that player was then told if he talked to Chico he would be banned from the club for caving to professionalism.

It was an era of ridiculous circumstance and mis-management.

Thankfully the game has changed....! Cough cough...

dummy_half wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

LordDowlais wrote: I do think that people should remember how the old guard who were running things, what should be remembered though, is that there was talk that they used to pick the team as well, they would not let the coaches do it, they would want their favourites playing.

They weren't the only ones.

The RFU through the 70s/80s/90s were a complete shambles. Not that much better after that either really and only just in recent times starting to become a half decently run organisation.

Wasn't Cooke the first full time coach... in 1990 or whenever???

NZ and SA were not pro in those days. They had jobs.... but they did get additional support via expenses and conditioning was very important. Outside of the farmers like Os Du Randt most places were more than happy for chaps to get time off for training... I mean they were the boks afterall.

I recall reading about Jonno in those days mind. Came back form 3 wks off with England then asked for a further 6 wks for the 93 lions tour. Not all had the same luxuries, some couldn't tour many got into professions which would give them generous allowances. I think the diff came with the conditioning and training which whilst amateur was seen as very important.

Many in SA still have jobs... most go through university at least. Some still train as articles clerks and we have the odd medic now and again and you always have the rare farmer like Willem Alberts still around.

Of course certain clubs (Quins being one example) wre very good at placing their new player recruits in jobs that were both lucrative and would allow plenty of time off. Hence Peter Winterbottom going from being a sheep farmer in Wharfedale to a city trader...

At least full professionalism has stopped all this kind of nonsense.

Yes, now they just get cars as part of sponsorship deals, restaurants bought for them, farms bought for them, childcare, help finding places to live etc.

fa0019 wrote:

bathmad wrote:Not surprised Paterson never played for the Lions. He was awful. He could kick, whoopee.

I think he would have been outpaced by Jason Leonard he was that slow.

Kicking at 20 metres does not equate world class kicking. Paterson never took on the big kicks, the distance kicks like the ones Morne, Jonny etc did showed to be the best you had to test yourself and sacrifice some stats.

Complete and utter nonsense.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

bathmad wrote:Not surprised Paterson never played for the Lions. He was awful. He could kick, whoopee.

I think he would have been outpaced by Jason Leonard he was that slow.

Kicking at 20 metres does not equate world class kicking. Paterson never took on the big kicks, the distance kicks like the ones Morne, Jonny etc did showed to be the best you had to test yourself and sacrifice some stats.

Complete and utter nonsense.

You honestly believe so?

He scored 22 tries. Not bad right. For an international 3/4 its not great when you consider he played in 109 tests and 16 of those 22 were scored against Japan, Canada, Italy, Romania and the USA. Only 6 were to tier 1 teams (4 vs. Wales, 1 vs. NZ and 1 vs SA). Can you recall him ever beating someone to the line?

Ever see him attempt a goal beyond the 10 metre line? No, me either and he wasn't small... light yes but he wasn't a wee chap like Arwel Thomas. He range for someone of his size was poor, we had that range when we were 14-16.

He could kick goals well in a decent range... like Laidlaw today but he never even attempted them beyond the 10m line. How many people today say Laidlaw is the best kicker around?

To be a lion you need a little more.

I'm not suggesting he should have been a Lion, although his form in 2005 was better than Iain Balshaw's. His bigger issue that year was that he wasn't English.

His kicking has been done to death. No, he didn't take speculative kicks that were outside of his range. Yes, he was exceptionally accurate within his range, which included touchline conversions. The outcome was that when Scotland took a kick it was with 100% accuracy and opportunities to kick to the corner vs taking points were virtually never squandered. Sure, there are players who can kick the ball further. But where Paterson was truly exceptional was knowing what he could do and what he couldn't. Very few opportunities were wasted and that for me marks him out as an exceptional goal kicker. He didn't miss a kick for about two years for heavens' sake, and we're supposed to knock him just because he didn't try kicks that were outside his range!!?

As for his abilities in open play, I would argue, as with many Scots, that he should have been kept at 10. He was a very good full back and an excellent broken field runner, but as a winger I never really rated him. He didn't have killer pace and he wasn't hugely powerful. He played three positions for Scotland over his time so it isn't fair to rate his try scoring rate against those of other wingers. Full back and fly halves often score less than wingers. It's also unfair to compare him against more successful nations. He played in some of the worst Scotland XVs of all time, so his record is hard to compare to players at more prolific scoring teams. His biggest weakness for me was not his kicking or his pace as you seem to suggest, but actually his defence. I never had much faith on his one on one tackling out on the wing. He seemed better in that regard at 15 for some reason, although I still maintain that we missed out on a potentially great half back pairing between Blair and Paterson. Still, if we did that we'd have missed out on Dan Parks.....

In sum Paternson was a very good international player, and in Scotland terms one of our greats. Messed about too much by Scotland and never allowed to settle properly at 10.

Him and Balshaw were very different players though. Balshaw had his failings but he was outstanding as an open field runner for a while. If you think the kicking is covered elsewhere you would expect Balshaw to be able to cause more damage than Paterson could.

The one thing Blashaw had which Paterson didn't was the x factor. He had it. He had the eye for the line and sheer pace. Paterson didn't have that.

Remember that tour in 2005... the lions took Wilkinson, Jones, O'Gara. All the 10s could kick and kicked well. Given that there was no need to get a chap at 15 who could kick.
The problem with Paterson is thus. You can't have a kicker going in cold. You can't have someone like O'Gara only kicking say 2-3 times a match. He needs to get his eye set so saying Chris, you kick for 70% of the time in your range whilst Ronan, you kick those amongst the 10m line and beyond if possible. It wouldn't work.

Then compare Paterson as an attacking and defending 3/4 and he comes up well short I'm afraid.

In terms of Lions prospects I would compare Paterson to Jon Webb. Decent player for his country but when the best of Britain & Ireland got together... he was near the back of the pack when it came to his own position.

As an attacking fullback Paterson was actually very good, and I would argue better than Balshaw in 2005.

Balshaw was picked based on his 2000-2001 form. He was absolutely outstanding at 15 during that period. Sadly though, as with many of Sir Clive's 2005 picks, form was completely discarded in favour of past glories.

The kicking is a red herring in terms of 2005. Paterson had not established himself as a top class goal kicker at that point. It was his abilities as a fullback that had him on Sir Clive's radar. His weakness was defence, but Balshaw was also a wet blanket in the tackle, so it's hard to see how one was favoured ahead of the other. Frankly put, Josh Lewsey was miles ahead of both, as was Geordan Murphy and probably Gareth Thomas as well.

Shifty wrote:

greybeard wrote:Simon Geoghegan

Not sure about that he was up against Rory Underwood and Ieuan Evans, lol.
Good player don't get me wrong but no where near their level.

How about Jonathan Davies

Personally I think he was better than both of those players although playing for Ireland and a reoccuring injury never allowed him achieve as much as those guys. He certainly outshone his opposite number almost every time he played England so thats enough for me. In any case he wasnt going to be selected ahead of them at the time but on Lions tours there are more than two wingers selected and he missed out to some pretty obscure players so yes it is bizzare that he wasnt ever selected.

Aparently for the last Lions tour he was eligable for he was a banker to travel and a place was kept for him till the last minute but his reoccuring toe injury prevented him from travelling and cut his career short.

GunsGerms wrote:

Shifty wrote:

greybeard wrote:Simon Geoghegan

Not sure about that he was up against Rory Underwood and Ieuan Evans, lol.
Good player don't get me wrong but no where near their level.

How about Jonathan Davies

Personally I think he was better than both of those players although playing for Ireland and a reoccuring injury never allowed him achieve as much as those guys. He certainly outshone his opposite number almost every time he played England so thats enough for me. In any case he wasnt going to be selected ahead of them at the time but on Lions tours there are more than two wingers selected and he missed out to some pretty obscure players so yes it is bizzare that he wasnt ever selected.

Aparently for the last Lions tour he was eligable for he was a banker to travel and a place was kept for him till the last minute but his reoccuring toe injury prevented him from travelling and cut his career short.

I certainly thought Geoghegan had the 0-30 pace on Underwood and Evans albeit they were 5 years older and you would expect wingers to be more spritely when they were young.  He was a good player and on form (without any questions on attitude which I've heard on here albeit nowhere else) he would have made the tour.

Both Evans and Underwood were very good players mind. Both were strong tacklers, they rarely missed one and were both team men. Then in attack again they were both very very strong and neither were simply pace men.

They were very much all round top quality wingers. Types such as Tommy Bowe, George North, Josh Lewsey and Jason Robinson (never really saw him miss tackles to be honest.. rounded yes, miss no).

One thing I would say about Geoghegan was his ability to pump his side up with a morale boosting drive... much like Robinson/North have been able to do in their respected careers.

Could have made the diff in 93 given the margins were so small.

The talent of that side and that forward pack was immense... something I think people take for granted in terms of all-time status.

GunsGerms wrote:

Shifty wrote:

greybeard wrote:Simon Geoghegan

Not sure about that he was up against Rory Underwood and Ieuan Evans, lol.
Good player don't get me wrong but no where near their level.

How about Jonathan Davies

Personally I think he was better than both of those players although playing for Ireland and a reoccuring injury never allowed him achieve as much as those guys. He certainly outshone his opposite number almost every time he played England so thats enough for me. In any case he wasnt going to be selected ahead of them at the time but on Lions tours there are more than two wingers selected and he missed out to some pretty obscure players so yes it is bizzare that he wasnt ever selected.

Aparently for the last Lions tour he was eligable for he was a banker to travel and a place was kept for him till the last minute but his reoccuring toe injury prevented him from travelling and cut his career short.

Not sure Evans had much of a better deal playing with Wales in those days. Underwood probably had the easiest ride given that the England pack on those days only released the ball when the opposition had been ground into the mud leaving a simple run in (plus having Guscott at 13 was handy as well). It's hard comparing wingers of different teams. The Ireland (and Wales) sides in the 90s were not of a high calibre, rather like the Scotland side now. Difficult to show how good you are when stuck out on the wing in those sides, and you end up having to rely on playing for a decent club side for profile, and I suppose in that regard Geoghegan was in the right place.

Well Ireland hadnt a hope of winning the 5 nations when Geoghegan was playing, they didnt come close. Wales did win it in 94 so I think in general they were in a better place than Ireland even if our record against them was quite good and they werent great the other years around then. No?

If you are talking about bad teams - then how about the England team Rory Underwood first played for form 84-89. God they were awful. 87 RWC 1/4 final stands out. Yet he still managed to look good.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Did Jeff Probyn not get a lions tour??! Well that is a surprise.

Geoghan was a class winger...simple as that!

I dont think Chris Robshaw will make the next tour...and he SHOULD definately have gone on the last one.

Calling that on the basis that the thread title says "surprising". The exclusion of any non-Welsh back rower ceased to be surprising the moment Gatland was confirmed. Interestingly, Rowntree at one point said that the final debate in selection was whether to take an additional back rower....

Poorfour wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Did Jeff Probyn not get a lions tour??! Well that is a surprise.

Geoghan was a class winger...simple as that!

I dont think Chris Robshaw will make the next tour...and he SHOULD definately have gone on the last one.

Calling that on the basis that the thread title says "surprising". The exclusion of any non-Welsh back rower ceased to be surprising the moment Gatland was confirmed. Interestingly, Rowntree at one point said that the final debate in selection was whether to take an additional back rower....

Given that one test certainty was also an almost certainty to not make it through all three matches, you would have thought.....

To be honest there were hints that Robshaw needed the rest, but you would have thought Kelly Brown would have made an excellent tourist, and he'll never get a chance now

Competition in the back row was pretty fierce don't forget. Warburton was captain, SOB was clearly going to go along, and you had Croft and Lydiate at 6.

Saying that Robshaw and Brown were surprising omissions is to suggest that one of Warburton or SOB should have been omitted for Robshaw, and one of Croft or Lydiate should have been omitted for Brown. Difficult calls.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Competition in the back row was pretty fierce don't forget. Warburton was captain, SOB was clearly going to go along, and you had Croft and Lydiate at 6.

Saying that Robshaw and Brown were surprising omissions is to suggest that one of Warburton or SOB should have been omitted for Robshaw, and one of Croft or Lydiate should have been omitted for Brown. Difficult calls.

I think Tipuric was a little fortunate to get on tour, had Gatland not been the coach I doubt he would have toured.

Ah yes, I had forgotten he had toured. Fair point.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Competition in the back row was pretty fierce don't forget. Warburton was captain, SOB was clearly going to go along, and you had Croft and Lydiate at 6.

Saying that Robshaw and Brown were surprising omissions is to suggest that one of Warburton or SOB should have been omitted for Robshaw, and one of Croft or Lydiate should have been omitted for Brown. Difficult calls.

Well, I'd call them easy calls but I see things differently to Gatland

funnyExiledScot wrote:Competition in the back row was pretty fierce don't forget. Warburton was captain, SOB was clearly going to go along, and you had Croft and Lydiate at 6.

Saying that Robshaw and Brown were surprising omissions is to suggest that one of Warburton or SOB should have been omitted for Robshaw, and one of Croft or Lydiate should have been omitted for Brown. Difficult calls.

Lydiate had barely played before the tour due to injury, and ended up being complete garbage when he was out there, he owes a hell of a lot to Jiffy

BamBam wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Competition in the back row was pretty fierce don't forget. Warburton was captain, SOB was clearly going to go along, and you had Croft and Lydiate at 6.

Saying that Robshaw and Brown were surprising omissions is to suggest that one of Warburton or SOB should have been omitted for Robshaw, and one of Croft or Lydiate should have been omitted for Brown. Difficult calls.

Lydiate had barely played before the tour due to injury, and ended up being complete garbage when he was out there, he owes a hell of a lot to Jiffy

How come? Does he have a qualification in sports physiotherapy or something?

fa0019 wrote:

BamBam wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Competition in the back row was pretty fierce don't forget. Warburton was captain, SOB was clearly going to go along, and you had Croft and Lydiate at 6.

Saying that Robshaw and Brown were surprising omissions is to suggest that one of Warburton or SOB should have been omitted for Robshaw, and one of Croft or Lydiate should have been omitted for Brown. Difficult calls.

Lydiate had barely played before the tour due to injury, and ended up being complete garbage when he was out there, he owes a hell of a lot to Jiffy

How come? Does he have a qualification in sports physiotherapy or something?

#

Its because of the season he was player of the tournament in the 6N. The feeling was he got the vote because Jiffy took every opportunity to tell everyone how fantastic he was.

fa0019 wrote:

BamBam wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Competition in the back row was pretty fierce don't forget. Warburton was captain, SOB was clearly going to go along, and you had Croft and Lydiate at 6.

Saying that Robshaw and Brown were surprising omissions is to suggest that one of Warburton or SOB should have been omitted for Robshaw, and one of Croft or Lydiate should have been omitted for Brown. Difficult calls.

Lydiate had barely played before the tour due to injury, and ended up being complete garbage when he was out there, he owes a hell of a lot to Jiffy

How come? Does he have a qualification in sports physiotherapy or something?

Assuming you're talking about why he owes a lot to Jiffy?

Mainly because Jonathan Davies over the top hyping up of Lydiate for making tackles has caused him to be way overrated IMO. He offers next to nothing ball in hand, isn't particularly effective at the breakdown for a back row player but just because he is a solid tackler (and he is excellent there) he was made into some sort of back row god at the time of the Lions tour, and despite his injury troubles was picked ahead of three very worthy players in Robshaw, Wood and Brown

Well Lydiate is a 6 and Robshaw is a 7, so I think the question around Robshaw was more whether he should have gone ahead of Tipuric rather than Lydiate. You can argue that one both ways.

I think the issue with Lydiate was less his abilities and more his fitness at the time of selection. A fully fit Lydiate would for me have been a no brainer given his form during the preceding 6 Nations and Brown was stuck in a dire Scotland side. It was his lack of fitness that made his selection controversial in my view. I don't think Jiffy had anything to do with it personally.

If Jiffy was in charge of picking the Lions we would have seen 15 flyhalfs on tour. Come on, how can you believe a pundit could influence the selectors of the Lions, perhaps Gatland went for Lydiate as he is familiar with him, as he picks him for the Welsh side, I am getting a little fed up of some of the English posters on here of late, you do nothing to dispel the monicker the rest of the world gives you as being arrogant, not all of you though, just a few.

I am getting a little fed up of some of the English posters on here of late, you do nothing to dispel the monica the rest of the world gives you as being arrogant, not all of you though, just a few

In what regards Dowlais

I've seen a lot of arrogance over the last few years from Irish and Welsh. NZ. Even Scotland. Lazy sterotypes.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Well Lydiate is a 6 and Robshaw is a 7, so I think the question around Robshaw was more whether he should have gone ahead of Tipuric rather than Lydiate. You can argue that one both ways.

I think the issue with Lydiate was less his abilities and more his fitness at the time of selection. A fully fit Lydiate would for me have been a no brainer given his form during the preceding 6 Nations and Brown was stuck in a dire Scotland side. It was his lack of fitness that made his selection controversial in my view. I don't think Jiffy had anything to do with it personally.

Fair, although Robshaw can play both sides. I still don't think a fully fit Lydiate is as good as he was made out to be at the time, and his performances since back that up for me

LordDowlais wrote:If Jiffy was in charge of picking the Lions we would have seen 15 flyhalfs on tour. Come on, how can you believe a pundit could influence the selectors of the Lions, perhaps Gatland went for Lydiate as he is familiar with him, as he picks him for the Welsh side, I am getting a little fed up of some of the English posters on here of late, you do nothing to dispel the monica the rest of the world gives you as being arrogant, not all of you though, just a few.

I dont think theres alot of arrogance on here...

But there is a lot of double standards..and irony.

See Joe Worlsey v Dan Lydiate.

Identikit players...both are tacklers with a bit of graft.

Wales fans slated Worsley as a talentless tackler only.
But they put Lydiate in the heavens.

And vice versa now with England fans.
Worsley was heralded as teamplayer who was exceptional and teams need players like that....
But slate Lydiate as a skillless tackler only....

In the end, if the Lions take a national coach... expect the 50/50 calls to go those he knows (either from club or country). He knows their ability better, how they train and also very importantly.... say Gatland had a call between Lydiate and Robshaw and he chose Robshaw...

how would that affect Lydiate come the return to the Welsh setup 4 months later? How would that change the dynamic between coach and player.... i.e. no offence but I think the opposition is better than you.

You can say its unprofessional but I think deep down these thoughts are in the backs of all likeminded coaches.

LondonTiger wrote:If you are talking about bad teams - then how about the England team Rory Underwood first played for form 84-89. God they were awful. 87 RWC 1/4 final stands out. Yet he still managed to look good.

He was agood player but if you are comparing the two players with respect to Lions tours they should only be compared when their careers overlapped at which point IMO Geoghegan was a better player and very unlucky not to tour. He was certainly better than Ian Hunter, Richard Wallace and Tony Underwood who were all picked ahead of him in '93.

GunsGerms wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:If you are talking about bad teams - then how about the England team Rory Underwood first played for form 84-89. God they were awful. 87 RWC 1/4 final stands out. Yet he still managed to look good.

He was agood player but if you are comparing the two players with respect to Lions tours they should only be compared when their careers overlapped at which point IMO Geoghegan was a better player and very unlucky not to tour. He was certainly better than Ian Hunter, Richard Wallace and Tony Underwood who were all picked ahead of him in '93.

Hunter was more a 15 to be fair.

Underwood was literally the quickest player in the squad by far but I agree I would have had a fit Geoghegan over him or Wallace.

I'd have had anyone over Wallace.

fa0019 wrote:In the end, if the Lions take a national coach... expect the 50/50 calls to go those he knows (either from club or country). He knows their ability better, how they train and also very importantly.... say Gatland had a call between Lydiate and Robshaw and he chose Robshaw...

how would that affect Lydiate come the return to the Welsh setup 4 months later? How would that change the dynamic between coach and player.... i.e. no offence but I think the opposition is better than you.

You can say its unprofessional but I think deep down these thoughts are in the backs of all likeminded coaches.

I think that happened a lot after Henry took charge of the 01 Lions, there was a fair bit of fallout in the Wales camp afterwards.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

fa0019 wrote:In the end, if the Lions take a national coach... expect the 50/50 calls to go those he knows (either from club or country). He knows their ability better, how they train and also very importantly.... say Gatland had a call between Lydiate and Robshaw and he chose Robshaw...

how would that affect Lydiate come the return to the Welsh setup 4 months later? How would that change the dynamic between coach and player.... i.e. no offence but I think the opposition is better than you.

You can say its unprofessional but I think deep down these thoughts are in the backs of all likeminded coaches.

I think that happened a lot after Henry took charge of the 01 Lions, there was a fair bit of fallout in the Wales camp afterwards.

Yeah I recall that.... which is crazy because a) Wales came bottom in the 6N of all the home nations that year and b) they took the 2nd largest body of players after England. Chaps like Williams and Charvis shouldn't have even got near the pre tour meet up.

I suppose thats why things work better with a Scottish coach. Nobody expects him to pick many scots.

True - McGeechan writes in his autobiography that whilst he was sad not to see a larger Scots representation on the last South Africa tour, gone are the days where players can go as part of a token representation. It's a highly commercial and profitable endeavour and no-one wants to see players picked for anything other than rugby reasons (albeit that selection decisions are ultimately the opinion of the coach in question).

For those who feel that Gatland had some sort of agenda, it was his reputation very much on the line. Henry had a great pool of players in 2001 and blew it. No way the Lions should have lost that series. Gatland had a similar instance on the last tour and I refuse to believe that he would have done anything other than select the players he believed optimised the Lions' chances of winning. He was successful.

funnyExiledScot wrote:True - McGeechan writes in his autobiography that whilst he was sad not to see a larger Scots representation on the last South Africa tour, gone are the days where players can go as part of a token representation. It's a highly commercial and profitable endeavour and no-one wants to see players picked for anything other than rugby reasons (albeit that selection decisions are ultimately the opinion of the coach in question).

For those who feel that Gatland had some sort of agenda, it was his reputation very much on the line. Henry had a great pool of players in 2001 and blew it. No way the Lions should have lost that series. Gatland had a similar instance on the last tour and I refuse to believe that he would have done anything other than select the players he believed optimised the Lions' chances of winning. He was successful.

That is a good insight. Maybe the problem was more that he had fixed preconcieved ideas as to how to play (e.g. what everyone calls Gatlandball) and of course the players most comfortable with that style were the Welsh. I don't think it did him many favours with the rest of the home nations + ireland.

The consequences had he failed to beat Australia would have been quite something

Yes, all this nonsense that he only took Lydiate because of Johnathan Davies is stupid, as I said earlier, Gatland took the players who he was familiar with, if it is 50/50 people will always take the safer option, and doing this he won the series, so as a result there were no consequences, but there are still people out there who complain that he did not whtie wash the Aussies, perhaps if he picked the same team as he did for the third test for all the others it would have been.

Bambam well said. Lydiate has been elevated to god like status in Wales. I personally think he's one of the most overrated players in the world.

Lorddowlais it wasn't 50/50. Lydiate shouldn't have gone. He hadn't played in months yet was picked for the Lions ahead of superior backrowers like Robshaw,Wood and Brown.

Lydiate was one of the top performing Welsh players on the tour though so deserved his place in the end though not selecting Robshaw was wrong.

funnyExiledScot wrote:True - McGeechan writes in his autobiography that whilst he was sad not to see a larger Scots representation on the last South Africa tour, gone are the days where players can go as part of a token representation. It's a highly commercial and profitable endeavour and no-one wants to see players picked for anything other than rugby reasons (albeit that selection decisions are ultimately the opinion of the coach in question).

For those who feel that Gatland had some sort of agenda, it was his reputation very much on the line. Henry had a great pool of players in 2001 and blew it. No way the Lions should have lost that series. Gatland had a similar instance on the last tour and I refuse to believe that he would have done anything other than select the players he believed optimised the Lions' chances of winning. He was successful.

What Gatland would have done is set out his XV and then the midweek players would have been more flexible. Take Tipuric for instance. Was never going to be in the side with Warburton fit. In that case if its between him and Robshaw then you're not harming your test team and you might just help yourself by developing Tipuric (and also denying Robshaw developing himself... as well as knocking his confidence too).

Yes he had a job to do and all credit to him, he did it. I don't doubt however these questions crossed his mind... i.e. Tipuric could really do with the tour, he would really develop and that helps me and Wales out.

Henry did it, SCW did it, Gatland did it... they all did it. They all did it probably subconsciously, 50:50 calls will almost always go with whom they know most of all.

beshocked wrote:Bambam well said. Lydiate has been elevated to god like status in Wales. I personally think he's one of the most overrated players in the world.

Lorddowlais it wasn't 50/50. Lydiate shouldn't have gone. He hadn't played in months yet was picked for the Lions ahead of superior backrowers like Robshaw,Wood and Brown.

Probably could say the same about Croft to be fair.

fa0019 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Bambam well said. Lydiate has been elevated to god like status in Wales. I personally think he's one of the most overrated players in the world.

Lorddowlais it wasn't 50/50. Lydiate shouldn't have gone. He hadn't played in months yet was picked for the Lions ahead of superior backrowers like Robshaw,Wood and Brown.

Probably could say the same about Croft to be fair.

Yes. It was probably because he had done so well against SA on the previous tour

Backrow was very strong. Taking 1 inside centre was a bit nuts.