Selection of the Lions captain - a different approach

First topic message reminder :

Before everyone piles in to nominate BOD or Sam or whoever, stop and read my reasoning.

The very act of appointing a captain creates a hostage to fortune in that the captain becomes un-droppable (save injury or malicious targeting).

Way back in 1983, there were two rivals for the captaincy - Peter Wheeler (England) and Ciaran Fitzgerald (Ireland) and basically came down to a head-to-head in the closing game of the five nations 1983 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Five_Nations_Championship ). Ireland won the game leaving England with the wooden spoon. Fitzgerald was made Lions captain and Wheeler was left out of the squad. Both of the contenders were hookers.

On the tour the Lions were walloped 4-0 by the ABs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_British_Lions_tour_to_New_Zealand ). But the general opinion at the time was that Colin Deans (Scotland) was the best hooker in the Lions squad - but Fitzgerald was untouchable.


My proposal is to (like in the Ryder Cup) appoint a non-playing captain. If (say) BOD doesn't have a great next nine months, he'd be a suitable candidate. Failing that - maybe Shane Williams? Someone who the Lions will respect for their achievements and leadership qualities.

But that would allow the manager to select his team from the best players available unconstrained by the demands of having to select his nominated player captain.

The Great Aukster wrote:Last time I looked it was XV against XV - what has that got to do with population?

Take say the ABs against England there is a 15:1 discrepancy in population therefore if population had anything to do with rugby that match would be farcical... erm...

You're right to a certain extent but obviously different countries are going to have different populaion sizes. There are different reasons that smaller nations with smaller player pools can punch above their weight - How popular Rugby is in that country, structures and sometimes a country just has a better 15 or 30 or whatever playing at the top level etc.

But when you can mould things artificially in terms of what nations are represented etc then to me it becomes silly to balance the weight so much in one sides favour. If you're going to do that then arguably you should artificially change how many nations represent the other side so that there is a better balance. Obviously with single nations you aren't going to change things artificially, you just accept that that's the way it is and in many ways it is one of the beautiful things about it all, that a smaller nation can punch above its weight or whatever.

I really don't think that the success of the Lions, or any lack thereof, warrants any of the changes being bandied about here, everyone accepts it is a challenge get players to gel in a short space of time. Things really aren't that bad (it is not an easy task for any team to win an away test series against any of the big 3 SH teams), and even if they were that bad, I'd want to use that fact to improve the quality available or the gelling process etc rather than just add more nations, especially in light of population sizes. IMO things are a good balance the way they are now

IHM - I take the point about manufactured teams. However the question is whether the current manufactured Lions team is in any way a match for the opposition and what benefits or losses the home nations incur.

Teams are becoming more "professional". The backroom staff are often cited as the ones making a difference on the pitch and there is some evidence to suggest that is right. Why did SCW get it so right with England and so wrong with the Lions? A big factor was having a settled team that learned over a number of years from experience in the former case and the impossibility of replicating that in the latter. Yet the opposition can have as settled sides and coaches as they wish, building depth and experience over years.

Looking at populations etc. has little bearing on performance. The proud tradition of the Lions is something to treasure but it is impossible under the current game restrictions to get anywhere near the levels of team experience once enjoyed. How many supporters of the current tours would really want to see the Lions leave these shores in April? Would they be prepared to forego their best players at the sharp end of the club season to uphold the Lion's tradition?

The equation is:
Opposition experience - Lions experience together = widening gap

The players try to cram more into the time they have in training to get up to speed faster = more injuries
The players put everything on the line all the time in the tests to try to make up the shortfall in team experience = more injuries
The players (who are taking the opportunity of a lifetime), hide and play with injuries to stay in the team = more serious injuries

Not only do the Lions stop home national sides getting a precious tour together, they also disrupt the following months games with the delayed re-integration of the Lions tourists. The competitive gap is widening but that is not the only disadvantage to NH rugby.

The Great Aukster wrote:IHM - I take the point about manufactured teams. However the question is whether the current manufactured Lions team is in any way a match for the opposition and what benefits or losses the home nations incur.

Teams are becoming more "professional". The backroom staff are often cited as the ones making a difference on the pitch and there is some evidence to suggest that is right. Why did SCW get it so right with England and so wrong with the Lions? A big factor was having a settled team that learned over a number of years from experience in the former case and the impossibility of replicating that in the latter. Yet the opposition can have as settled sides and coaches as they wish, building depth and experience over years.

Looking at populations etc. has little bearing on performance. The proud tradition of the Lions is something to treasure but it is impossible under the current game restrictions to get anywhere near the levels of team experience once enjoyed. How many supporters of the current tours would really want to see the Lions leave these shores in April? Would they be prepared to forego their best players at the sharp end of the club season to uphold the Lion's tradition?

The equation is:
Opposition experience - Lions experience together = widening gap

The players try to cram more into the time they have in training to get up to speed faster = more injuries
The players put everything on the line all the time in the tests to try to make up the shortfall in team experience = more injuries
The players (who are taking the opportunity of a lifetime), hide and play with injuries to stay in the team = more serious injuries

Not only do the Lions stop home national sides getting a precious tour together, they also disrupt the following months games with the delayed re-integration of the Lions tourists. The competitive gap is widening but that is not the only disadvantage to NH rugby.

Again all your argements point to scrapping the Lions altoghter without any evidence that adding a few more countries to the Lions mix would improve matters.

TGA

So I'm for the Lions as it is and you're against it. And as Gunsgerms says it seems that you are now advocating abolishing the Lions altogether rather than increasing the number of nations involved.

IMO the Lions have been competitive in the last number of years apart from '05 in NZ. Like I said before, any team has it's work cut out when trying to win an away series against any of the big 3 SH teams. Even if the Lions continue to lose but are largely competitive then I see that as a success in many respects, especially considering that they have to overcome the obstacle of gelling, something that won't be helped by including other nations and may perhaps make it even worse.

Looking at population sizes may indeed have little or no bearing on performances but it also has the potential to. IMO if you made it the European Lions, it would be the perceived conceptions around population sizes that could potentially cause problems if that makes sense. I think there is no need to upset the balance as it is. I just don't see any reason for changes cause like I say IMO, being largely competitve is a success in this context.

As for '05 in NZ, you may be right Aukster that the biggest factor was not having a settled team, but I'd argue that wasn't because it's the Lions and they didn't have enough time together. Instead I'd say not being settled was down to poor man management, poor selection and a lack of faith in the management from much of the squad, as well as too much emphasis on media BS off the pitch etc etc etc etc......

There was also in my opinion an abnormal void in talent in '05 too for the Lions given that the great England WC winning team of '03 had largely retired without any contingency leaving English rugby in tatters. The Lions also suffered from losing their two best players Drico and Dayglo to injury on tour which didnt help at all.

I would definitly argue that there are much better players to choose from now and the last tour.

Irishhoneymonster wrote:TGA

So I'm for the Lions as it is and you're against it. And as Gunsgerms says it seems that you are now advocating abolishing the Lions altogether rather than increasing the number of nations involved.

IHM - I wouldn't say I'm against the Lion's at all, but I am against the increasing unfairness and damage to NH rugby that is a consequence. My allegiance to the Lions is inversely proportional to how much damage the tours inflict on NH rugby. Abolition and expansion are actually two sides of the same coin - damage limitation.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Irishhoneymonster wrote:TGA

So I'm for the Lions as it is and you're against it. And as Gunsgerms says it seems that you are now advocating abolishing the Lions altogether rather than increasing the number of nations involved.

IHM - I wouldn't say I'm against the Lion's at all, but I am against the increasing unfairness and damage to NH rugby that is a consequence. My allegiance to the Lions is inversely proportional to how much damage the tours inflict on NH rugby. Abolition and expansion are actually two sides of the same coin - damage limitation.

Sorry I should have made myself clearer. I meant I'm for the Lions as things currently stand whereas it seems you would like some sort of change

If the Australians are capable of losing a whole island, then the BL tour must be well within their compass.

greytiger wrote:If the Australians are capable of losing a whole island, then the BL tour must be well within their compass.

Yes true tiger but I think it's actually the French that lost it! Or I think it was a French island at least

Surely it can't have gone? Traditionally it's always been there, and that never changes...

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

I like the idea actually.

But Warburton is an outstanding captain. Referees respond to him as he probably knows the rules and interpretations of each ref inside out. A little bit more complex than Robshaws old approach... "aww ref" with his hands raised.

fa0019 wrote:I like the idea actually.

But Warburton is an outstanding captain. Referees respond to him as he probably knows the rules and interpretations of each ref inside out. A little bit more complex than Robshaws old approach... "aww ref" with his hands raised.

That would be the Warburton who got red carded in a world cup semi for an over enthusiastic tackle

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I like the idea actually.

But Warburton is an outstanding captain. Referees respond to him as he probably knows the rules and interpretations of each ref inside out. A little bit more complex than Robshaws old approach... "aww ref" with his hands raised.

That would be the Warburton who got red carded in a world cup semi for an over enthusiastic tackle

well compared to Jonno's record he's already been canonised.

Oh dear oh dear. Using one overly sacred cow as a model for another sacred cow. If we don't watch out we'll have a herd of cows that need milking............... oh that's already happening in club

SecretFly wrote:Oh dear oh dear.  Using one overly sacred cow as a model for another sacred cow.  If we don't watch out we'll have a herd of cows that need milking............... oh that's already happening in club

sacred cow or not Warburton is a very good captain; his interpersonal skills and dealings with referees is stand alone.

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Oh dear oh dear.  Using one overly sacred cow as a model for another sacred cow.  If we don't watch out we'll have a herd of cows that need milking............... oh that's already happening in club

sacred cow or not Warburton is a very good captain; his interpersonal skills and dealings with referees is stand alone.

Jonno scared the Poopie out of referees. Thats what you want from your captain.

edit: Warburton does not impress me as a captain. The only reason why I think AW Jones is not Welsh captain is that Gatland likes a captain who will do what he is told.

.... not talking about Warburton, who I'm coming to like more and more. A damn nice man.

Talking about De Lions and De Ryder. Both entities I'm not all that fond of as they're much too full of schmaltzy high fives and inter-national air kissing

But maybe the Lions player's wives Could actually wear matching outfits when coming off the plane, yes. That would be wonderful stuff........................

SecretFly wrote:.... not talking about Warburton, who I'm coming to like more and more.  A damn nice man.

Talking about De Lions and De Ryder.  Both entities I'm not all that fond of as they're much too full of schmaltzy high fives and inter-national air kissing  

But maybe the Lions player's wives Could actually wear matching outfits when coming off the plane, yes.  That would be wonderful stuff........................

lets be frank though.. the ryder cup is an actual competition.

Lions tours are often massacres.

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:.... not talking about Warburton, who I'm coming to like more and more.  A damn nice man.

Talking about De Lions and De Ryder.  Both entities I'm not all that fond of as they're much too full of schmaltzy high fives and inter-national air kissing  

But maybe the Lions player's wives Could actually wear matching outfits when coming off the plane, yes.  That would be wonderful stuff........................

lets be frank though.. the ryder cup is an actual competition.

Lions tours are often massacres.

Ryder Cups can be massacres as well!

Picking the Lions captain is going to be tricky on this one. I'd say Warburton is the favourite having captained a successful Lions tour last time, and his relationship with the likely Head Coach (Gatland) is clearly strong. Still, I'd favour a fully fit SOB over Warburton in the XV, and there's a decent challenge from Hardie as well.

Other captaincy candidates would be Hartley (who has confounded my expectations thus far with England and performs well at set pieces), Best (rate him as a player in the loose but faces stiff competition from Hartley for the starting XV) and AWJ (unlikely if Gatland is Head Coach I'd suggest and also not assured of his place in the XV).

I think they'll select Gatland as Head Coach, which will surely mean Warburton gets the nod. Both pretty solid options with sound reasoning behind them. Pros and cons of course, as with every decision, and no such thing as a no brainer this time around (e.g. picking Johnson as captain in 2001, or McGeechan as coach in 2009).

I still think its better to have the coach and captain from different countries

lostinwales wrote:I still think its better to have the coach and captain from different countries

Gatland and Warburton are from different countries

It's practically impossible now to get a Lions coach and captain to be from the one country............. unless you ask the All Blacks captain to double job.

Knowsit17 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I still think its better to have the coach and captain from different countries

Gatland and Warburton are from different countries

But you know what I mean.....

Guy Noves for Coach.

SecretFly wrote:It's practically impossible now to get a Lions coach and captain to be from the one country............. unless you ask the All Blacks captain to double job.

Gatland and Hartley?

I knew someone would think hard enough to make my laziness redundant.  I forgot Hartley.............. which ain't a good omen for Hartley and the Lions Captaincy.....

Anyway...does the Lions coach Have to be from a Lions Nation. Why not be very very...Very...bold indeed, and invite Mr Cheika to do the gig.

Now that would be headlines! He's ambitious enough to have a serious think about it too......

Has there ever been an instance of the Lions successfully appointing somebody who actively coaches a non-English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh team? I imagine the FFR and ARU would have a lot to say if Noves or Cheika were respectively approached.

SecretFly wrote:Anyway...does the Lions coach Have to be from a Lions Nation.  Why not be very very...Very...bold indeed, and invite Mr Cheika to do the gig.

Now that would be headlines!    He's ambitious enough to have a serious think about it too......

Cheika is certainly the best left field suggestion I've heard so far.

Knowsit17 wrote:Has there ever been an instance of the Lions successfully appointing somebody who actively coaches a non-English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh team? I imagine the FFR and ARU would have a lot to say if Noves or Cheika were respectively approached.

Don't think so. In the amateur days it was a general rule that the captain and coach came from that years best performing team in the five nations.

Knowsit17 wrote:Has there ever been an instance of the Lions successfully appointing somebody who actively coaches a non-English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh team?

Not quite your question, but, since the 1971 tour, James, Millar and McGeechan have all coached the Lions to success while not managing a Home Nations side.

lostinwales wrote:I still think its better to have the coach and captain from different countries

I'd rather the individuals were the best for the job in question. Same country, different country, doesn't matter to me.

I know we have done this before, but I think its an easy way of reducing the chance that one nation completely dominates selection and tactics (And that is the same for any of the 4 nations)

SecretFly wrote:I knew someone would think hard enough to make my laziness redundant.  I forgot Hartley.............. which ain't a good omen for Hartley and the Lions Captaincy.....

He'd be able to use his experience when the team's in a jam.

Knowsit17 wrote:Has there ever been an instance of the Lions successfully appointing somebody who actively coaches a non-English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh team? I imagine the FFR and ARU would have a lot to say if Noves or Cheika were respectively approached.

The Lions committee would have a lot to say first! Can't see it passing their "stout hearts with different accents standing shoulder to shoulder, taking the Queen's shilling and keeping the colonials to heel" test that the Empire Lions is built upon.

I think taking Dylan Hartley as captain and Warren Gatland as coach to New Zealand could raise some eyebrows.
We could just go for it fully and play with an entire team born outside Britain and Ireland

1. Vunipola
2. Hartley
3. Nel
4. Ball
5. Evans
6. Strauss
7. Cowan
8. Faletau
9. Hart
10. Anscombe
11. Visser
12. Tuilagi
13. Payne
14. Seymour
15. Maitland

123456789 wrote:I think taking Dylan Hartley as captain and Warren Gatland as coach to New Zealand could raise some eyebrows.
We could just go for it fully and play with an entire team born outside Britain and Ireland

1. Vunipola
2. Hartley
3. Nel
4. Ball
5. Evans
6. Strauss
7. Cowan
8. Faletau
9. Hart
10. Anscombe
11. Visser
12. Tuilagi
13. Payne
14. Seymour
15. Maitland

 The realisation of how good that team is vs. an indigenous British & Irish team is like learning the truth about santa.

vs.

McGrath, Best, Cole, Jones, Kruis, Itoje, Warburton, O'Brien, Youngs, Sexton, North, Roberts, Joseph, Watson, Hogg.

I'd say right now the above foreign select side would win at least 1 test vs the "home" BL Lions side.

123456789 wrote:I think taking Dylan Hartley as captain and Warren Gatland as coach to New Zealand could raise some eyebrows.

Well I would hope not. Both are strong candidates for the respective positions and I think it's fairly clear where their loyalties lie. No question Gatland would absolutely love to put one over Hansen and the ABs.

I think what strengthens Hartley's case is his lineout throwing, and the combination with Itoje and Kruis in the GS winning England side. That was a combination that worked really well, and against Whitelock and Retallick the Lions cannot afford not to be strong at the lineout.

Hartley isn't the best lineout thrower (statistically), but it isn't just about throwing - jumping and lifting have just as much to do with success. Hartley would be at his best with the rest of the English front five around him who know the calls, timing, feints etc. Same applies to the scrum, and there aren't any candidates from the other nations anyway who are standout better than the English.

Hartley would also make a good pack leader too if he utilises his thuggish experience to soften up the ABs, which if brought to bear may be best way to rattle them.

Interesting. Statistically who out of the 6 Nations hookers was better?

Of course it isn't just the throwing, it's why I would select Hartley, Itoje and Kruis as a unit were I picking a Lions team to play on Saturday. Yes, there's also the lifting to be taking into account as well and Dan Cole would probably make the side as well, but I don't think there's a better loosehead scrummager than Jack McGrath at the moment so I'd want him included in the front row. Marler is ok, but I don't rate Mako Vunipola's scrummaging technique at all.

fa0019 wrote:

123456789 wrote:I think taking Dylan Hartley as captain and Warren Gatland as coach to New Zealand could raise some eyebrows.
We could just go for it fully and play with an entire team born outside Britain and Ireland

1. Vunipola
2. Hartley
3. Nel
4. Ball
5. Evans
6. Strauss
7. Cowan
8. Faletau
9. Hart
10. Anscombe
11. Visser
12. Tuilagi
13. Payne
14. Seymour
15. Maitland

 The realisation of how good that team is vs. an indigenous British & Irish team is like learning the truth about santa.

vs.

McGrath, Best, Cole, Jones, Kruis, Itoje, Warburton, O'Brien, Youngs, Sexton, North, Roberts, Joseph, Watson, Hogg.

I'd say right now the above foreign select side would win at least 1 test vs the "home" BL Lions side.

fa0019 really?

I think that "foreign" side wouldn't win one test.

The only issue with the indigenous might be the lack of a decent no 8 but pretty much every other opposition I think they are comfortably better. Maybe not the frontrow but that's pretty much it.

The best "foreign" 10 is Anscombe... come on Ford,Farrell,Sexton,Biggar even Priestland or Russell are better.

Perhaps he's factoring in the fact that his "home" side only has 14 players, and is coping without a number 8.

O'Brien has played there before hasn't he? The home side would trounce them, just at the setpiece alone, backs are better too by a distance.

fa0019 wrote:

123456789 wrote:I think taking Dylan Hartley as captain and Warren Gatland as coach to New Zealand could raise some eyebrows.
We could just go for it fully and play with an entire team born outside Britain and Ireland

1. Vunipola
2. Hartley
3. Nel
4. Ball
5. Evans
6. Strauss
7. Cowan
8. Faletau
9. Hart
10. Anscombe
11. Visser
12. Tuilagi
13. Payne
14. Seymour
15. Maitland

 The realisation of how good that team is vs. an indigenous British & Irish team is like learning the truth about santa.

vs.

McGrath, Best, Cole, Jones, Kruis, Itoje, Warburton, O'Brien, Youngs, Sexton, North, Roberts, Joseph, Watson, Hogg.

I'd say right now the above foreign select side would win at least 1 test vs the "home" BL Lions side.

I cannot see how.

The only overseas born players I would have are Hartley, Vunipola but Billy not Mako and possibly Tuilagi but he has a lot of work to prove he is ready. As for your back line it looks like a good club side.

Not much point discussing the Lions Captain, its already been picked hasn't it LT....

Stand up Sean Robinson

That foreign backline is not bad. Maitland and Tuilagi were Lions, Seymour will be a Lion if he continues, Visser and Payne are proven internationals at this point. Hart and Anscombe are the big holes. Anscombe to me is inconsistent at this level at best. Hart is a lower half of the table scrum half. There must be better options around.

Forwards are not bad except Hardie would start at 7. The second row needs a big shake up to compete with the home grown ones. NH do locks quite well with the Gray's, Itoje, Kruis, Launchbury and Jones in the reckoning.

SecretFly wrote:Oh dear oh dear.  Using one overly sacred cow as a model for another sacred cow.  If we don't watch out we'll have a herd of cows that need milking............... oh that's already happening in club

I remember someone wrote 'scared cow' on here once by mistake. It's my favourite typo to date.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Not much point discussing the Lions Captain, its already been picked hasn't it LT....

Stand up Sean Robinson

Back on topic - Lions captaincy. Saw someone comment yesterday about Paul O'Connell as Lions Captain.

At training, Martyn Williams missed a lineout call and just got the 'glare' from POC. After the training session, POC took him aside and said to him that as a senior player, he is an example to everyone and if they see that its ok for him to get some wrong, they too will think thats its all right for them to make mistakes. Martyn said he didn't miss a lineout call again!

Setting standards. Thats the kind of affect a good captain can have. He said Paul O'Connell was the best captain he every played with.

One of the Irish posters on here told me that on the last Lions tour POC threw a sulk over team selection for the 3rd Test and threatened not to show up to support the team.

If that's true it sets an awful example and should rule him out of future Lions involvement.