Ladrokes suspend bets on Warbuton to captain the Lions

First topic message reminder :

Following a flood of money in the last 48 hours Ladrokes have suspended taking any more bets on Warburton captaining the Lions in the 1st test match http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/rugby-warburton-well-backed-captain-lions-110120373.html . It's amazing how fortunes change, from being a hero going into the World Cup semi final, a 'villain' (unfairly so) after the World Cup semi final, to a zero (unfairly so) after the Ireland game, to a hero after the Scotland and England matches.

On the basis that bookmakers seldom get it wrong, does this mean that Warburton will be at 6 - surely he can't be picked at 7 ahead of Tipuric? This will 'free up' the likes of Robshaw and Wood for the Argentina tour.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Newsilure wrote:The Lions need balance and with all Welsh and English coaches it makes sense for the capatain to come from Scotland or Ireland

Do we want to win the series or make sure no one feels left out?!

Pick the best players, regardless of nationality and whether they've beaten the Wallabies before.

Agree 100%. I keep hearing this "balance" argument, and it's horribly weak. It gets pretty desperate when your argument for wanting a player from your team/country to lead the Lions is simply that you don't have a "representative" on the coaching staff!!

Given the paucity of Scots likely to tour in any capacity, I suppose by that logic Kelly Brown has an excellent case. Although he's never won against Australia before, so I guess that rules him out....

funnyExiledScot wrote:I guess I'm just a little scarred myself after Sir Clive picked his 2005 squad based entirely on the "been there, seen it before, got the t-shirt" criterion, and forgot to consider (a) the type of game to expect down in the SH, and (b) the players he needed to compete and win at that type of game.

For me the weakness in Warburton's candidacy is primarily Justin Tipuric and SOB, not whether he has leadership abilities. His captaincy at the last WC was generally excellent and decisive, and I have no doubts he'd be able to lead this tour well from a captaincy perspective. The doubts for me stem from his position not just in the Test XV, but the fact that he's been in and out of the Welsh XV over the last 6 months. That for me is the key point.

He was excellent in the key game against England in the 6 Nations, really excellent, but had Dan Lydiate been fit, he probably wouldn't have started the game. That's not just second choice for the Lions, but second choice for his country. When weighting up the options (POC, BOD, Robshaw and Brown), they can at least all claim to be in their nations starting XV.

I wouldn't have a massive issue with Warburton, purely because there is no outstanding candidate for this tour, and I do think he has leadership qualities, but it's certainly a first as far as I can recall, a Lions captain who isn't guaranteed to start for his own country.

I wouldnt question Warburton's captaincy qualities at all either nor would I look at the '05 tour as the litmus test, template or precident for any other tour. I think it should just be written off from memory altogether.

If Kelly Brown can keep Lobbe in check and force penalties out of Armitage on Satruday I reckon he'll be in the running.

Remember last tour how critical Munster & Cardiff players club form was taken into consideration.

This is a critical weekend for a lot of players in the Sarries, Clermont, Toulon and Munster teams. Gatland will be watching.

fa0019 - are you trying to tell me that the first test in 2005 was some kind of success??

SCW's strategy was to try and smother the ABs with a strong set piece based around big and slow players, and when in doubt, kick the ball long. He even picked JW in a position he had barely ever played, purely to have a right and left kicking combination on the pitch, overlooking the fact that JW at 12 robbed the Lions of any sort of dynamic running capability.

The best forward on the tour ended up being Ryan Jones, a player he didn't even pick to tour. He talked about the Lions being the "best prepared", and yet the combinations for the first Test were barely tried during the tour, let alone honed. Rather than having fast and dynamic players on the pitch, he went for warriors who had beaten NZ years previous.

The team had no team spirit, or unity. Even having pick about a million players to tour, he still missed out a couple of important players. He then compounded those errors but not picking his XV based on what was going on in the tour itself, ignoring form.

I don't for one minute believe the Lions could have won that series, but I don't believe that Sir Clive's approach was in any successful.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:If Kelly Brown can keep Lobbe in check and force penalties out of Armitage on Satruday I reckon he'll be in the running.

I think he's a candidate with a decent case. As with all the others though, his place in the XV (in fact the tour) is hard to pin down clearly.

One thing is for sure though, he certainly isn't ruled out in my book just because he hasn't beaten Australia!!

funnyExiledScot wrote:fa0019 - are you trying to tell me that the first test in 2005 was some kind of success??

SCW's strategy was to try and smother the ABs with a strong set piece based around big and slow players, and when in doubt, kick the ball long. He even picked JW in a position he had barely ever played, purely to have a right and left kicking combination on the pitch, overlooking the fact that JW at 12 robbed the Lions of any sort of dynamic running capability.

The best forward on the tour ended up being Ryan Jones, a player he didn't even pick to tour. He talked about the Lions being the "best prepared", and yet the combinations for the first Test were barely tried during the tour, let alone honed. Rather than having fast and dynamic players on the pitch, he went for warriors who had beaten NZ years previous.

The team had no team spirit, or unity. Even having pick about a million players to tour, he still missed out a couple of important players. He then compounded those errors but not picking his XV based on what was going on in the tour itself, ignoring form.

I don't for one minute believe the Lions could have won that series, but I don't believe that Sir Clive's approach was in any successful.

I'm not saying the tour was a success, not that it was the best result that they could have achieved.

However, who else should he have chosen? You cite Ryan Jones as being massive error in not originally taking... but it has been the same for McGeechan (Johnson over Reed & Cronin in 93 and Tom Croft in 09 over Worsley & Powell) and Henry (Corry over Charvis).

If you look at the first test (which as I mentioned earlier was the test which was closest as a contest and on the score board) there was l few players you could have argued over in reality

Out of the original test team of

Jenkins, Bryne, White, Kay, O'Connell, Hill, Back, Corry, Peel, Jones, Robinson, Wilkinson, BOD, Lewsey & Thomas.

Who was out lucky to be in the side??? Bryne, Kay, Back ... the rest it was pretty much the best side they could put out.

You could argue for Henson to have started over wither Wilkinson or Jones, Williams for Robinson otherwise but it woudn't have had that much of a difference.

In reality, the Lions were simply inferior in all departments and only a roaring fit Wilkinson, O'Driscoll and perhaps Dillaglio could have made the test match a proper contest.

fa0019 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:fa0019 - are you trying to tell me that the first test in 2005 was some kind of success??

SCW's strategy was to try and smother the ABs with a strong set piece based around big and slow players, and when in doubt, kick the ball long. He even picked JW in a position he had barely ever played, purely to have a right and left kicking combination on the pitch, overlooking the fact that JW at 12 robbed the Lions of any sort of dynamic running capability.

The best forward on the tour ended up being Ryan Jones, a player he didn't even pick to tour. He talked about the Lions being the "best prepared", and yet the combinations for the first Test were barely tried during the tour, let alone honed. Rather than having fast and dynamic players on the pitch, he went for warriors who had beaten NZ years previous.

The team had no team spirit, or unity. Even having pick about a million players to tour, he still missed out a couple of important players. He then compounded those errors but not picking his XV based on what was going on in the tour itself, ignoring form.

I don't for one minute believe the Lions could have won that series, but I don't believe that Sir Clive's approach was in any successful.

I'm not saying the tour was a success, not that it was the best result that they could have achieved.

However, who else should he have chosen? You cite Ryan Jones as being massive error in not originally taking... but it has been the same for McGeechan (Johnson over Reed & Cronin in 93 and Tom Croft in 09 over Worsley & Powell) and Henry (Corry over Charvis).

If you look at the first test (which as I mentioned earlier was the test which was closest as a contest and on the score board) there was l few players you could have argued over in reality

Out of the original test team of

Jenkins, Bryne, White, Kay, O'Connell, Hill, Back, Corry, Peel, Jones, Robinson, Wilkinson, BOD, Lewsey & Thomas.

Who was out lucky to be in the side??? Bryne, Kay, Back ... the rest it was pretty much the best side they could put out.

You could argue for Henson to have started over wither Wilkinson or Jones, Williams for Robinson otherwise but it woudn't have had that much of a difference.

In reality, the Lions were simply inferior in all departments and only a roaring fit Wilkinson, O'Driscoll and perhaps Dillaglio could have made the test match a proper contest.

FA is correct.

FES you have it wrong again.

No side could have stopped that All Blacks team in that form.

AND another thing Kia

and others

I have said nothing at all about England at the last RWC so your comments around that are irrelevant.

I agree, Byrne, Kay and Back should not have been in that starting XV, and I don't recall Corry being on sparking form in 2005 either (picked mainly on his 2001 Lions form). That back row was horribly slow for the task in hand, compounded by an ageing off form Ben Kay in the side, and the powerful but slow Julian White.

Pretty much the most undynamic pack ever to take the field for the Lions, against one of the most dynamic packs on the planet.

Wilkinson at 12 was a horrible decision. He should have played 10 or not at all. There was simply no basis on which to omit Henson from that first Test. None at all. You can point to the 2nd Test and say it wouldn't have made a difference, but on all th evidence at the time, it was still a bad bad call.

The other thing to remember that the first Test was the Lions' best chance of beating the All Blacks, catching them cold, without a win under their belts. You have to take that in consideration when you point to the scoreline, and the larger winning (or losing) margins in the second and third Tests.

Triangulation wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I don't for one minute believe the Lions could have won that series

FES you have it wrong again.

No side could have stopped that All Blacks team in that form.

Quite remarkable.

I think with benefit of hindsight that Charlie Hogdson would have been the man to look to against NZ in 2005.

red_stag wrote:I think with benefit of hindsight that Charlie Hogdson would have been the man to look to against NZ in 2005.

I think Hodgson would have crapped himself if he played in the test match like he has always done so. In terms of skills he was the best 10 of his era in Europe.... but he always crumbled when teams applied pressure.

I think in hindsight you'd have left Hodgson well alone, not a "test match animal". However, you might well have selected him at the time based on his performances throughout the tour. Sir Clive wasn't bothered about form though.

form is not the be all and end all.... which going back to original post is why I think Warburton will play 7 over Tipuric.... he's is physically more able to adapt and is a better player overall.

My own issues with Warburton have nothing to do with his playing form. Left to his own game he is a class openside and the best the lions have.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think in hindsight you'd have left Hodgson well alone, not a "test match animal". However, you might well have selected him at the time based on his performances throughout the tour. Sir Clive wasn't bothered about form though.

Can anyone seriously say that Cusiter and Hodgeson would have done a worse job?

The 2005 Lions was a dark time for the Lions. NZ were very strong but I think they were beatable. The tactics and approach were all wrong. SCW sterilized the lions. Wheras other coaches made the guys bunk together and build a real team spirit.

Also WTF was with that anthem

Form is a very over rated commodity. Especially when comparing how a player does in one team with how he will do in a completely different team with different team mates and different tactics.

I would not make Warburton captain as I feel it is a strange move. Gatland and the Welsh coaches removed the captaincy from Warburton to relieve the pressure and allow him to concentrate on his own game.

Even when Ryan Jones was injured Warburton was still over looked for captaincy.

Why now make him Lions captain?

red_stag wrote:Form is a very over rated commodity. Especially when comparing how a player does in one team with how he will do in a completely different team with different team mates and different tactics.

I would not make Warburton captain as I feel it is a strange move. Gatland and the Welsh coaches removed the captaincy from Warburton to relieve the pressure and allow him to concentrate on his own game.

Even when Ryan Jones was injured Warburton was still over looked for captaincy.

Why now make him Lions captain?

Sensible posting? On a Lions thread?

red_stag wrote:Form is a very over rated commodity. Especially when comparing how a player does in one team with how he will do in a completely different team with different team mates and different tactics.

I would not make Warburton captain as I feel it is a strange move. Gatland and the Welsh coaches removed the captaincy from Warburton to relieve the pressure and allow him to concentrate on his own game.

Even when Ryan Jones was injured Warburton was still over looked for captaincy.

Why now make him Lions captain?

No I think he was dropped by Edwards because Tipuric was better v Ireland in the 6N no?? When he came back he showed his class.

class player... not a class captain.

Guns,

No I'm talking about as captain. He was relieved as captain for entire 6 Nations. Warburton was replaced by Tipuric and Ryan Jones was captain and told to "focus on his own game" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/21672873).

fa0019 wrote:class player... not a class captain.

Exactly

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think in hindsight you'd have left Hodgson well alone, not a "test match animal". However, you might well have selected him at the time based on his performances throughout the tour. Sir Clive wasn't bothered about form though.

fes. You say SCW was not bothered about form though. That could well be Gatlands down fall on this lions tour. If he does not pick player/s that are ( on form) and picks player/s any player/s on reputation. ..It could well be that the lions get white washed.

majesticimperialman wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think in hindsight you'd have left Hodgson well alone, not a "test match animal". However, you might well have selected him at the time based on his performances throughout the tour. Sir Clive wasn't bothered about form though.

fes. You say SCW was not bothered about form though. That could well be Gatlands down fall on this lions tour. If he does not pick player/s that are ( on form) and picks player/s any player/s on reputation. ..It could well be that the lions get white washed.

The difference being I could easily see a 0-3 loss to AUS being on the cards... but this tour is actually for the taking whereas 05 was a certain disaster waiting to happen. If the Lions get white-washed this year it will be a bigger fail then 05.

majesticimperialman wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think in hindsight you'd have left Hodgson well alone, not a "test match animal". However, you might well have selected him at the time based on his performances throughout the tour. Sir Clive wasn't bothered about form though.

fes. You say SCW was not bothered about form though. That could well be Gatlands down fall on this lions tour. If he does not pick player/s that are ( on form) and picks player/s any player/s on reputation. ..It could well be that the lions get white washed.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making, but if you're saying that Gatland should pick on form and not reputation, then we are in agreement.

It's why I'm not overly swayed by the "been there, got the T-shirt" argument. The sad fact is that we have no players available who have won a Lions test series, or even a three match series down under.

I think I have to agree and say Warbs is a fantastic player and did a decent job of captaining Wales at the beginning of his reign but Ryan Jones proved how good a captain he was when he took over, as did Gethin Jenkins for that matter.

I think if AWJ's past petulance is a distant memory, he would be my choice as he truly leads by example with his performance on the field and puts his heart and soul into every single match he plays. He would also definitely be one of the starting locks for me. Toss up between a few players then such as Evans/Parling/Gray etc..

fa0019 wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:I think in hindsight you'd have left Hodgson well alone, not a "test match animal". However, you might well have selected him at the time based on his performances throughout the tour. Sir Clive wasn't bothered about form though.

fes. You say SCW was not bothered about form though. That could well be Gatlands down fall on this lions tour. If he does not pick player/s that are ( on form) and picks player/s any player/s on reputation. ..It could well be that the lions get white washed.

The difference being I could easily see a 0-3 loss to AUS being on the cards... but this tour is actually for the taking whereas 05 was a certain disaster waiting to happen. If the Lions get white-washed this year it will be a bigger fail then 05.

The Lions will get white washed if they try to play like Wales. The route 1 rugby that Wales employ throwing Roberts, North, JD and Cuthbert into contact in addition with Phillips looking to bury himself under lb's of Australian forwards it will be another case of close but no cigar.

Australia has never really been phased by that style of play. They have a really potent attack. IMO the Lions will do very well to not concede tries to Australia. We have to attack them head on to have the best chance of winning.

We need the breakdown power of England : NZ, Scotland, France and Ireland are examples of recent games where England have bossed the breakdown and won. Wood, Robshaw, Parling etc…

The physicality of the Welsh : Every recent game their hard runners break the gain line and punch holes, the problem against Australia was the lack of recycling ability that hamstrung them, hence Pockock and Genia looked immense in the summer tests. Use the Welsh power runners Roberts, JD, Faleteu to break the gain line and recycle it quickly to...

the elusive running of the Scottish and Irish backs : Guys like Hogg, Visser, Zebo, Bowe and even Halfpenny. I don’t really care how the team is broken down but I would like other options instead of Cuthberts and Norths...


I’m not saying there is a hard and fast rule to countries playing in set ways or anything because guys like Kelly Brown, Ryan Jones, Mike Brown and others can all fill in different roles.

I want the Lions coaching team to be a little more creative than relying on route 1 stuff.

I personally don’t think the bish bash bosh option will be enough in June.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:


We need the breakdown power of England : NZ, Scotland, France and Ireland are examples of recent games where England have bossed the breakdown and won. Wood, Robshaw, Parling etc…

The physicality of the Welsh : Every recent game their hard runners break the gain line and punch holes, the problem against Australia was the lack of recycling ability that hamstrung them, hence Pockock and Genia looked immense in the summer tests. Use the Welsh power runners Roberts, JD, Faleteu to break the gain line and recycle it quickly to...

the elusive running of the Scottish and Irish backs : Guys like Hogg, Visser, Zebo, Bowe and even Halfpenny. I don’t really care how the team is broken down but I would like other options instead of Cuthberts and Norths...

Eh what about the Irish? What will they contribute, a bit of craic?

GunsGerms wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:


We need the breakdown power of England : NZ, Scotland, France and Ireland are examples of recent games where England have bossed the breakdown and won. Wood, Robshaw, Parling etc…

The physicality of the Welsh : Every recent game their hard runners break the gain line and punch holes, the problem against Australia was the lack of recycling ability that hamstrung them, hence Pockock and Genia looked immense in the summer tests. Use the Welsh power runners Roberts, JD, Faleteu to break the gain line and recycle it quickly to...

the elusive running of the Scottish and Irish backs : Guys like Hogg, Visser, Zebo, Bowe and even Halfpenny. I don’t really care how the team is broken down but I would like other options instead of Cuthberts and Norths...

Eh what about the Irish? What will they contribute, a bit of craic?

I wasn't wanting to get into naming names but I mentioned Zebo and Bowe. I also think Best will likely contribute as will O'Connell...

Don't get too precious. I mentioned more Irish than some people have mentioned Scots... despite Scotland having their best 6N in a decade.

Ireland have a tough autumn series. Will he come back for that or will he bow out without getting a win over NZ? Personally I hope BOD comes back because I don't see too many pretenders to the thrown in that OC position.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Ireland have a tough autumn series. Will he come back for that or will he bow out without getting a win over NZ? Personally I hope BOD comes back because I don't see too many pretenders to the thrown in that OC position.

He will most likely play in Nov.

I hope for Ireland's sake he does otherwise it might get ugly GG.

kia, who do you think should be the Lion's captain?

Ok sure. I think BOD should be captian because he has the best record of any potential captain v Australia.

Richie McCaw is probably bored to tears on his sabbatical. He's not involved in the French series so probably worth Gatland giving him a call. He's played in red with the Crusaders before so he should be used to lying on the wrong side of the ruck in that shirt as well. His record against Australia speaks for itself.

He can bring out the oranges at half time if he likes.

I don't think Henson will be in the squad...

GunsGerms wrote:Ok sure. I think BOD should be captian because he has the best record of any potential captain v Australia.

What do you think the downsides are to selecting BOD as captain? If you were criticising your own selection, what would you say?

Interesting read on POC's comeback. Like the image of him and Quinny walking the deserted streets: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/apr/22/paul-o-connell-lions-munster-interview Wouldn't want to run into those two in the dead of night.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Ok sure. I think BOD should be captian because he has the best record of any potential captain v Australia.

What do you think the downsides are to selecting BOD as captain? If you were criticising your own selection, what would you say?

The down side to BOD is his age. he is too slow for the Australia test in my opinion. He did say in one of his Lions interviews, that if the Lions was going too go there and not even try too win the test series, Then forget even asking him about it.

I still believe that BOD will not go on the Lions tour too be honest.

GunsGerms wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Ireland have a tough autumn series. Will he come back for that or will he bow out without getting a win over NZ? Personally I hope BOD comes back because I don't see too many pretenders to the thrown in that OC position.

He will most likely play in Nov.

But there are some good lads coming through. BOD is a once in a generation player, not many at his level anywhere. But Cave looks great for Ulster, I like Eoin O'Malley at Leinster too.

GunsGerms wrote:Not sure it really matters that much who is captain. There will be lots of leaders in the side. A bit like Englands world cup winning side. Johnson was a great captain but you could have chosen any number of other captains in the side that could also rally the troups if required.

On a tour the choice of Capt is crucial. he sets the tone, he represents the club on and off the pitch. Choice of skipper is crucial.

100%beefy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Not sure it really matters that much who is captain. There will be lots of leaders in the side. A bit like Englands world cup winning side. Johnson was a great captain but you could have chosen any number of other captains in the side that could also rally the troups if required.

On a tour the choice of Capt is crucial. he sets the tone, he represents the club on and off the pitch. Choice of skipper is crucial.

There will likely be plenty of good leaders. AWJ, POC, BOD, Gethin, Robshaw, Warburton. But considering that Gats said he is interested in a tour Captain, I would take O'Driscoll purely for that. Even if he doesn't make the test team he would be an inspiration in the squad. Best captain we have seen in any nation for a very long time.

maestegmafia wrote:

100%beefy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Not sure it really matters that much who is captain. There will be lots of leaders in the side. A bit like Englands world cup winning side. Johnson was a great captain but you could have chosen any number of other captains in the side that could also rally the troups if required.

On a tour the choice of Capt is crucial. he sets the tone, he represents the club on and off the pitch. Choice of skipper is crucial.

There will likely be plenty of good leaders. AWJ, POC, BOD, Gethin, Robshaw, Warburton. But considering that Gats said he is interested in a tour Captain, I would take O'Driscoll purely for that. Even if he doesn't make the test team he would be an inspiration in the squad. Best captain we have seen in any nation for a very long time.

I agree maesteg up to a point, but my concern is how the press will spin it....tour capt not good enough to play, impotent figurehead, career finished etc. I would rather take a guaranteed starter, a forward, someone like Johnson...that's where my plan comes a cropper

100%beefy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

100%beefy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Not sure it really matters that much who is captain. There will be lots of leaders in the side. A bit like Englands world cup winning side. Johnson was a great captain but you could have chosen any number of other captains in the side that could also rally the troups if required.

On a tour the choice of Capt is crucial. he sets the tone, he represents the club on and off the pitch. Choice of skipper is crucial.

There will likely be plenty of good leaders. AWJ, POC, BOD, Gethin, Robshaw, Warburton. But considering that Gats said he is interested in a tour Captain, I would take O'Driscoll purely for that. Even if he doesn't make the test team he would be an inspiration in the squad. Best captain we have seen in any nation for a very long time.

I agree maesteg up to a point, but my concern is how the press will spin it....tour capt not good enough to play, impotent figurehead, career finished etc. I would rather take a guaranteed starter, a forward, someone like Johnson...that's where my plan comes a cropper

AWJ or POC are probably the best candidates in the forwards for that kind of leader...

I can't see the press not supporting BOD, he is a legend of the game and he is still playing, not many achieve that accolade.

maestegmafia wrote:

100%beefy wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

100%beefy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Not sure it really matters that much who is captain. There will be lots of leaders in the side. A bit like Englands world cup winning side. Johnson was a great captain but you could have chosen any number of other captains in the side that could also rally the troups if required.

On a tour the choice of Capt is crucial. he sets the tone, he represents the club on and off the pitch. Choice of skipper is crucial.

There will likely be plenty of good leaders. AWJ, POC, BOD, Gethin, Robshaw, Warburton. But considering that Gats said he is interested in a tour Captain, I would take O'Driscoll purely for that. Even if he doesn't make the test team he would be an inspiration in the squad. Best captain we have seen in any nation for a very long time.

I agree maesteg up to a point, but my concern is how the press will spin it....tour capt not good enough to play, impotent figurehead, career finished etc. I would rather take a guaranteed starter, a forward, someone like Johnson...that's where my plan comes a cropper

AWJ or POC are probably the best candidates in the forwards for that kind of leader...

I can't see the press not supporting BOD, he is a legend of the game and he is still playing, not many achieve that accolade.

Again i agree, but the Aussie press will make that the story. My pref is AWJ but POC will do. Will he make it though? Just not Warbs.

AW Jones Imo is a tad overrated. Charteris and Ian Evans are much better players IMO.

Gatland can't pick a tour captain who won't play. That would be tantamount to admitting they need another Alastair Campbell to handle the media, and also that there is no one in the team capable of doing the job. Either way two captains who aren't quite good enough for the complete role.

It is easy in hindsight to slate failed Lions selections, that Q rather than P would have made all the difference or X would have coped with the opposition better than Y. The truth is that every Lions team has maybe no more than a 20% chance of series success because they are a scratch team against a settled Test unit. Anyone who believes coaching has any effect on match outcome cannot surely believe that compiling a fantasy team with no time to coach them will be competitive.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:AW Jones Imo is a tad overrated. Charteris and Ian Evans are much better players IMO.

I think they all bring something different to the 2nd row with Evans moving ahead this year. My Lions 4 and 5 would be Evans and Hines and BOD as Capt.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:AW Jones Imo is a tad overrated. Charteris and Ian Evans are much better players IMO.

I hear you about AWJ....but i think his major flaws e.g. catching and tripping etc may have given him some much needed character and maturity....cometh the hour etc. His work rate is immense and he is a player the others can follow. BOD as skipper to me is a throwback to a tour i wish to forget. POC, if fit and firing works. It seems pretty foreboding that we don't even really have an obvious capt.