Cian Healey Update

First topic message reminder :


The (not so) Independent

The Lions will decide within the next 48 hours whether to summon a replacement prop for Cian Healy, who suffered suspected ankle ligament damage in today’s 69-17 win over Western Force.


Although an X-ray confirmed the Ireland loose-head did not suffer a break, Warren Gatland is sufficiently concerned to consider a replacement.

England’s Alex Corbisiero, who can play on both sides of the scrum, and Ryan Grant, impressive for Scotland during the Six Nations, will be the front-runners to come in if needed.

Riskysports wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:

Riskysports wrote:But gavindragon is that not a fundamental flaw then in the coaching selection.

The lions is supposed to be the best players in their position, regardless of who they play for

If Italy were in the lions would you not take parissa? With your logic he would not have a chance

Which would be wrong

how do you know who is the best? Is it not subjective? And if you were coach in a team sport would you not be inclined to pick from the most successful team?

Where did Scotland end up in this years 6 nations...


3rd


Hmmm,mm

and where did england finish?

And where did they finish last year wih corbisero on the loose head? 2nd and he was widely tipped as a lions tourist then...

look risky i re-iterate that I feel we are coming from different positions on this I accept where your coming from and dont agree with you...

perhaps when grant stuffs adam jones in 2014 6n you can make me eat my words but shall we leave it there?

GavinDragon wrote:

Riskysports wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:I dont give a damn who is in the team as long as we win!

I just dont quite get the scots sense of agrievemet over certain selections, disappointment yes but outrage not so much...

It is easy to be magnanimous when lots in the team

trust me gents ive been following rugby long enough to have experienced wlesh rugby in the doldrums and our lions numbers have reflected that even in some cases been over and above what we should have had (im thinking 2001 here how robin mcbryde toured ill never know!)

likewise I also have experience lions tours where we have been in welsh opinion hard done by e.g Henson missing the first test desptie being the best inside centre - in a winning 6n team - at the time.

Yes indeed, during Wales's dreadful 80's and 90's, when you were beaten by cricket scores, you did have slightly lower representation...5...Despite picking up countless wooden spoons that was your lowest point. For Scotland (who finished 3rd in the 6nations) 5 players would be a coup. Why is that?

Going back to your point about winning teams. I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about Lions selection, I was talking about Wales selection.

If players should only be selected from winning teams, then why did the Welsh management (who are also coaching the Lions!), only select a paltry 2 players from your most successful team this season, the Scarlets? How on earth did the Ospreys get 3x as many players in the Wales team?

My answer is that sometimes great players play in otherwise average teams. There a few Scottish players who fit that bill. It should be on the individual merit of a player, not based on the playing company he keeps.

It's very easy to shrug and imply we're whinging. However as I said earlier, Paul James is also unlucky.

What really really sticks in the throat is Gatland's repeated comments about picking on form and fitness. Why the hell did he make them. Maybe take one odd players based on legendary reputation (POC in my opinion). But this is reaching double figures now.

cakeordeath wrote:I don't remember England's tight five taking any other nations scrum apart

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXmC_fku15Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uynys0SY1Q

For your viewing pleasure

GavinDragon wrote:

Riskysports wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:I dont give a damn who is in the team as long as we win!

I just dont quite get the scots sense of agrievemet over certain selections, disappointment yes but outrage not so much...

It is easy to be magnanimous when lots in the team

trust me gents ive been following rugby long enough to have experienced wlesh rugby in the doldrums and our lions numbers have reflected that even in some cases been over and above what we should have had (im thinking 2001 here how robin mcbryde toured ill never know!)

likewise I also have experience lions tours where we have been in welsh opinion hard done by e.g Henson missing the first test desptie being the best inside centre - in a winning 6n team - at the time.

Oh and here's an interesting fact for you.

Last time Scotland had a championship team was the 1999 5 Nations. Based on your logic that means they'd get a good representation on the next Lions tour. Well the next Lions squad 2 years later featured...wait for it...5 Scottish players. The exact amount that represents Wales's worst ever representation in over 120 years of the Lions.

Here's another stat about that tour. Wales finished below Scotland and got the wooden spoon, as you did the year before, and yet somehow you got 11 players on that Lions tour. Over double. And it happens every tour, however well we play.

So it's rubbish, those 50/50 calls don't seem to apply to Scotland, even when we're winning we're ignored. I honestly think the SRU need to think long and hard about whether to stay involved. I think it must do terrible harm to the confidence of the players so what's the point?

'Yes indeed, during Wales's dreadful 80's and 90's, when you were beaten by cricket scores, you did have slightly lower representation...5...Despite picking up countless wooden spoons that was your lowest point. For Scotland (who finished 3rd in the 6nations) 5 players would be a coup. Why is that?'

Im not sure what your asking here and on which tour, you refer to 80s AND 90's but which tour did we have 5 on specifically?

'If players should only be selected from winning teams, then why did the Welsh management (who are also coaching the Lions!), only select a paltry 2 players from your most successful team this season, the Scarlets? How on earth did the Ospreys get 3x as many players in the Wales team?

My answer is that sometimes great players play in otherwise average teams. There a few Scottish players who fit that bill. It should be on the individual merit of a player, not based on the playing company he keeps.'

because the whole welsh domestic game is geared towards team wales. Therefor welsh players are judged on their performance in training and in test fixtures.

For the lions it should be judged on test performances and IMO it has been although rightly or wrongly some - including lydate and to an extent gray - have need picked on 2012 form. However even on 2013 form in test fixtures again certain players have not done enough to overcome and overturn the thinking of the coaches - if Scotland had won the 6n ib be more inclined to agree with scottish fans over such decisions than I currently am for this reason...

It's very easy to shrug and imply we're whinging.

I have not said that your whingeing and I understand your frustration, I have just merely voiced my opinion in relation to your angers....

What really really sticks in the throat is Gatland's repeated comments about picking on form and fitness. Why the hell did he make them. Maybe take one odd players based on legendary reputation (POC in my opinion). But this is reaching double figures now.

dont listen to a word gatland says the guy is full of crap. This is the guy who plucked a 18 year old out of the welsh premiership for his first cap over players who were leading try scorers in the rabbo who went to france as a result. The same youngster hasnt been seen (until now) on the scene. What he does is select winning teams and he should be judged as such, no dout had he not guided Wales to the semi final and gs he wouldnt be in charge of the lions now

madmaccas wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:

Riskysports wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:I dont give a damn who is in the team as long as we win!

I just dont quite get the scots sense of agrievemet over certain selections, disappointment yes but outrage not so much...

It is easy to be magnanimous when lots in the team

trust me gents ive been following rugby long enough to have experienced wlesh rugby in the doldrums and our lions numbers have reflected that even in some cases been over and above what we should have had (im thinking 2001 here how robin mcbryde toured ill never know!)

likewise I also have experience lions tours where we have been in welsh opinion hard done by e.g Henson missing the first test desptie being the best inside centre - in a winning 6n team - at the time.

Oh and here's an interesting fact for you.

Last time Scotland had a championship team was the 1999 5 Nations. Based on your logic that means they'd get a good representation on the next Lions tour. Well the next Lions squad 2 years later featured...wait for it...5 Scottish players. The exact amount that represents Wales's worst ever representation in over 120 years of the Lions.

Here's another stat about that tour. Wales finished below Scotland and got the wooden spoon, as you did the year before, and yet somehow you got 11 players on that Lions tour. Over double. And it happens every tour, however well we play.

So it's rubbish, those 50/50 calls don't seem to apply to Scotland, even when we're winning we're ignored. I honestly think the SRU need to think long and hard about whether to stay involved. I think it must do terrible harm to the confidence of the players so what's the point?

so you're suggesting there is a conspiracy against scottish players being involved in the lions?

GavinDragon wrote:'Yes indeed, during Wales's dreadful 80's and 90's, when you were beaten by cricket scores, you did have slightly lower representation...5...Despite picking up countless wooden spoons that was your lowest point. For Scotland (who finished 3rd in the 6nations) 5 players would be a coup. Why is that?'

Im not sure what your asking here and on which tour, you refer to 80s AND 90's but which tour did we have 5 on specifically?

It was questioning your logic about winning teams getting those 50/50 calls. If the squad should be picked from winning teams then why, even when Scotland has a winning team, do we only ever get 2-5 players on tour?

The tour I'm talking about is the 1993 tour to New Zealand where only 5 Welsh players were picked.

GavinDragon wrote:

so you're suggesting there is a conspiracy against scottish players being involved in the lions?

Ha ha I knew you were going to say that.

No not actively or even consciously. All I can say is that over my lifetime, no matter how well Scotland play, we're always underrated and ignored come Lions time. Once fair enough, twice ok but there comes a point when you see an undeniable pattern. Look for yourself.

madmaccas wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:

so you're suggesting there is a conspiracy against scottish players being involved in the lions?

Ha ha I knew you were going to say that.

No not actively or even consciously. All I can say is that over my lifetime, no matter how well Scotland play, we're always underrated and ignored come Lions time. Once fair enough, twice ok but there comes a point when you see an undeniable pattern. Look for yourself.

you had 9 in 1989 but then you had a good national side then.....now thing sare not good for scotland though i think the future look s brigher after this 6 Nations and come NZ 2017 assuming you have won a 6 nations and done something at RWC then a bigger contingent is possible

madmaccas wrote:

GavinDragon wrote:

so you're suggesting there is a conspiracy against scottish players being involved in the lions?

Ha ha I knew you were going to say that.

No not actively or even consciously. All I can say is that over my lifetime, no matter how well Scotland play, we're always underrated and ignored come Lions time. Once fair enough, twice ok but there comes a point when you see an undeniable pattern. Look for yourself.

I see your point and understand that point of view, however I think it is slightly difficult to compare tours in the early nineties and now,

because now the squads have to gel so fast that combinations come into play the coaches have to pick who they percieve to be the best players to get up to speed that will inevitably come from winning teams who look cohesive and have gelled

Alex Corbisero called out according to the BBC.

red_stag wrote:Who is to say what the criteria is?

Maybe it is decided that Grant wouldn't have enough time to adapt to Rowantree's scrummaging methods in time to be effective whereas Cobisiero is used to it. Its likely given that he would have only 1-2 games to be match ready for the test games and may be required to feature. All other props have weeks of training already done.

This is the most sensible post on this thread. There's so little time between now and the first Test and it's a case of needs must. Ryan Grant has been excellent for Glasgow all season and there's no doubt that he was unlucky to miss out on a call-up in the first place, but the focus now, quite rightly, is on winning the fast-approaching Test series. I don't often quote Stone Cold Steve Austin, but that's the bottom line.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

red_stag wrote:Who is to say what the criteria is?

Maybe it is decided that Grant wouldn't have enough time to adapt to Rowantree's scrummaging methods in time to be effective whereas Cobisiero is used to it. Its likely given that he would have only 1-2 games to be match ready for the test games and may be required to feature. All other props have weeks of training already done.

This is the most sensible post on this thread. There's so little time between now and the first Test and it's a case of needs must. Ryan Grant has been excellent for Glasgow all season and there's no doubt that he was unlucky to miss out on a call-up in the first place, but the focus now, quite rightly, is on winning the fast-approaching Test series. I don't often quote Stone Cold Steve Austin, but that's the bottom line.

The problem is this does not really stack up, as Corbs will be playing with mosts likely Welsh front rows, who he has not played with before

If it was for the reason of familiarity, then James should have been called up (and I would have been happy with it as he has been on form and fit) - not someone who has started 3 games for a poor side in a year

Shocking nepatisum, which is as clear as day (IMO )

Heard a rumour that the Scotland camp were unwilling to release Grant until after the Samoa test, whereas England released Cobs immediately. Only a rumour mind.

I find it a bit odd also that there is an argument for an uncinscious conspiracy asgainst Scottish players yet you are talking about the odd player or two per tour, if it was at a point where 4/5 were clearly being overlooked because of national bias etc then I could understand, but we are arguing 1 players case which is not clear cut at all.

If we put up a poll of who shouldve gone out for Healy James, Grant, Sheridan and Corbisiero would all be up there, and it would be a close call between fans, so with such little time before test 1 you can't really blame the coaches for selecting a unit member of the majority of options already there.

Riskysports wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

red_stag wrote:Who is to say what the criteria is?

Maybe it is decided that Grant wouldn't have enough time to adapt to Rowantree's scrummaging methods in time to be effective whereas Cobisiero is used to it. Its likely given that he would have only 1-2 games to be match ready for the test games and may be required to feature. All other props have weeks of training already done.

This is the most sensible post on this thread. There's so little time between now and the first Test and it's a case of needs must. Ryan Grant has been excellent for Glasgow all season and there's no doubt that he was unlucky to miss out on a call-up in the first place, but the focus now, quite rightly, is on winning the fast-approaching Test series. I don't often quote Stone Cold Steve Austin, but that's the bottom line.

The problem is this does not really stack up, as Corbs will be playing with mosts likely Welsh front rows, who he has not played with before

If it was for the reason of familiarity, then James should have been called up (and I would have been happy with it as he has been on form and fit) - not someone who has started 3 games for a poor side in a year

Shocking nepatisum, which is as clear as day (IMO )

But Rowntree is implimenting his set peice systems with the lions, and Corbs has experience of these systems.

thebluesmancometh wrote:I find it a bit odd also that there is an argument for an uncinscious conspiracy asgainst Scottish players yet you are talking about the odd player or two per tour, if it was at a point where 4/5 were clearly being overlooked because of national bias etc then I could understand, but we are arguing 1 players case which is not clear cut at all.

If we put up a poll of who shouldve gone out for Healy James, Grant, Sheridan and Corbisiero would all be up there, and it would be a close call between fans, so with such little time before test 1 you can't really blame the coaches for selecting a unit member of the majority of options already there.

I think if you did that poll Corbisiero would have got very few votes - due to injury and current form

The other 3 would have have had a chance, and I would have have been happy with any

Risky, the point is that at this late stage, Corbisiero's familiarity with Rowntree's scrummaging methods / techniques is a real bonus.

It's not Ryan Grant's fault that he doesn't have that familiarity, but nor is it Corbisiero's fault that he does.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Risky, he'll be playing with Welsh front rowers who have been coached by Graham Rowntree (who's not Welsh as far as I'm aware) for the last few weeks, just as the Irish front rowers have. The point is that at this late stage, Corbisiero's familiarity with Rowntree's scrummaging methods / techniques is a real bonus.

It's not Ryan Grant's fault that he doesn't have that familiarity, but nor is it Corbisiero's fault that he does.

It's always been a short tour, and always is, so following that logic they should have only picked English forwards and Welsh backs in the first place.

madmaccas wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Risky, he'll be playing with Welsh front rowers who have been coached by Graham Rowntree (who's not Welsh as far as I'm aware) for the last few weeks, just as the Irish front rowers have. The point is that at this late stage, Corbisiero's familiarity with Rowntree's scrummaging methods / techniques is a real bonus.

It's not Ryan Grant's fault that he doesn't have that familiarity, but nor is it Corbisiero's fault that he does.

It's always been a short tour, and always is, so following that logic they should have only picked English forwards and Welsh backs in the first place.

Which they very nearly did

Riskysports wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

red_stag wrote:Who is to say what the criteria is?

Maybe it is decided that Grant wouldn't have enough time to adapt to Rowantree's scrummaging methods in time to be effective whereas Cobisiero is used to it. Its likely given that he would have only 1-2 games to be match ready for the test games and may be required to feature. All other props have weeks of training already done.

This is the most sensible post on this thread. There's so little time between now and the first Test and it's a case of needs must. Ryan Grant has been excellent for Glasgow all season and there's no doubt that he was unlucky to miss out on a call-up in the first place, but the focus now, quite rightly, is on winning the fast-approaching Test series. I don't often quote Stone Cold Steve Austin, but that's the bottom line.

The problem is this does not really stack up, as Corbs will be playing with mosts likely Welsh front rows, who he has not played with before

If it was for the reason of familiarity, then James should have been called up (and I would have been happy with it as he has been on form and fit) - not someone who has started 3 games for a poor side in a year

Shocking nepatisum, which is as clear as day (IMO )

Well firstly there are more English front rows than any other (Cobisiero, Vunipola, Stevens, Youngs) nation. They also have an English scrum coach. The Welsh front rows who are there will not decide on scrum tactics. Rowantree will.

Adam Jones and Richard Hibbard have been now about a month in training with the Lions and will have been learning particular scrum techniques during that time.

Now that a last minute replacement is needed surely it is better to have a guy who will be on the same wavelength as the others rather than giving Grant a place and having him trying to catch up in completely unfamiliar settings. Not of the other front rows have ever worked with Grant.

The Lions is not about rewarding 6 Nations or league form. Its about picking a team who'll beat Australia. Form is an indicator of who might play well internationally but it is a vastly over rated commodity on its own.

I think its a strange call to pick a player who has played so few games. However there is no doubting Corbisiero's ability. I have to agree with other posters though that it's a risk and to me it would have made far more sense to pick between James, Grant and Sheridan.

From a Scottish viewpoint, I'm pretty happy Grant is staying with Scotland. I want us to have some stability within the side and Grant is a key player for us. Also we're going to have a fairly inexperienced backline (in terms of playing together) for this comp in SA so it would be nice to have him in place to help build a platform for our backs.

Its a shame for him, but he's still got time, he'll be 31 when the next Lions tour rolls round, so you never know he could tour then.

Corbisiero is a Lydiate type selection as when he has been fit he has been one of the best players in his position in the world. If all those available players were at their best and that includes James and Grant then Corbisiero would be the player that would bring the most to the team IMO. Therefore, this is the basis for the selection ie. if he's fit enough for England he's fit enough for the Lions and if he's at his best then I can understand it. With that said he has not had a great amount of rugby which of course can work both ways when you look at some of the walking wounded we have.

I also think the amount of Irish and Welsh support for the Corbs selection highlights how optimum the selection was, there aren't many non Scottish fans throwing their hands up, most non Grant/Corbs fans recognise why the decision has been made, so for me thats an indicator of the selection being good or bad.

The Lions' coaches, probably even more than the most committed fan on here, will be desperate to win the series. That will be their primary concern, far more than picking their mates or keeping individual nations happy. Every selection they make, regardless of what any of us think of it, will be made to try and ensure success in the tests.

At the end of the series, if they win, they won't care about anything else. They won't care if people say they could have won by more if they'd picked Grant/Brown/Robshaw/Care/Jones/Madigan . . .

Exactly right.

I would also just add that I really hope Corbisiero proves us all (the ones questioning his call up) wrong. As I said previously he is undoubtably a very good player and hopefully he'll do well. He wouldn't have been my first pick, but then I'm not coaching the lions (for very good reasons) so what do I know.

Congratulations Corbs

A very tough selection between a number of very good players.

He's had a injury plagued year, but his ability can't be questioned. Unlucky for those that missed out.

jelly wrote:The Lions' coaches, probably even more than the most committed fan on here, will be desperate to win the series. That will be their primary concern, far more than picking their mates or keeping individual nations happy. Every selection they make, regardless of what any of us think of it, will be made to try and ensure success in the tests.

At the end of the series, if they win, they won't care about anything else. They won't care if people say they could have won by more if they'd picked Grant/Brown/Robshaw/Care/Jones/Madigan . . .

I understand what you mean, BUT think about the Lions team with NON of your countrymen in the team - which could happen to us in the tests due to performance (and did in 2005 up until 10 mins in the last test)

It would certainly lose some of its interest (not all, but some)

It is very easy for people to point and say get behind the Lions when you have a large representation to follow - you are in a completely different position

For us, it is almost like a tri nations match - with less for us to get stupiddly passionate about

I still support the lions, but this is my personal position

Think it is premature to bring in Corbs (Healy might be fine anyway though) as he has been injured so recently and I am worried that we already have so many recently injured and long-term injured players on Tour - one or tow would be fine but there are a lot! Corbs on form is class and a beast in the scrum and a force in the loose too but I think the better option would have been Ryan Grant. Or James, as Jenkins and Vunipola already add impact in the loose so an out and out scrummager would have been nice against an Aussie front row I feel many are underestimating.

There is clearly no anti-Scottish conspiracy, the numbers are the same as when a Scot has been in charge of the Tour, though Brown and Grant would have Toured if I had picked the squads

Risky - When Wales have had 1 or 2 players in the Test team I have lost all but any interest - That's just the way I feel about it so I can empathise on that one

How would you feel like we did in 2005 when we won the Grand Slam and then watched Woodward take 20 english players which he filled his team with

RubyGuby wrote:Risky - When Wales have had 1 or 2 players in the Test team I have lost all but any interest - That's just the way I feel about it so I can empathise on that one

How would you feel like we did in 2005 when we won the Grand Slam and then watched Woodward take 20 english players which he filled his team with

As annoyed as we were in 2005 at the unbalanced squad - Even most English I know were annoyed at it

Riskysports wrote:

jelly wrote:The Lions' coaches, probably even more than the most committed fan on here, will be desperate to win the series. That will be their primary concern, far more than picking their mates or keeping individual nations happy. Every selection they make, regardless of what any of us think of it, will be made to try and ensure success in the tests.

At the end of the series, if they win, they won't care about anything else. They won't care if people say they could have won by more if they'd picked Grant/Brown/Robshaw/Care/Jones/Madigan . . .

I understand what you mean, BUT think about the Lions team with NON of your countrymen in the team - which could happen to us in the tests due to performance (and did in 2005 up until 10 mins in the last test)

It would certainly lose some of its interest (not all, but some)

It is very easy for people to point and say get behind the Lions when you have a large representation to follow - you are in a completely different position

For us, it is almost like a tri nations match - with less for us to get stupiddly passionate about

I still support the lions, but this is my personal position

I totally get that but my point is that the coaches are not picking favourites, they are picking the team they think will get them the best result. If all the players were from one nation, in the entire squad, I think they would want to pick that if they felt it gave them the best chance of winning. There are arguments for and against Grant/James/Sheridan/Corbs but the coaches will have agreed on the one they think will give them the best result. If they felt Grant was the best choice, he would be in the team. You can clearly argue about any of the choices but I honestly don't think you can argue that the motives for the choice are about anything other than ensuring the Lions have the best chance to win the Test series, everything else is irrelevant to the coaches.

Now, if that ends up with Gatland picking an entire team of Welshmen (think Tipuric can play fly half judging by some of the comments on here) then I would find it harder to support the Lions. One of the best parts of the 97 team was the likes of Wallace and Smith getting the prop berths when it wasn't predicted by many in advance, it helps to have the variety that takes it away from the expected norm. I hope that there are a few surprises in the Test team, players that have forced their way in by their performances in the build up games. It would be great, for the Lions, if Parling/O'Brien/Maitland/Hogg/Vunipola/Whoever force their way in but, equally, you have to acknowledge that they have probably got to do more than O'Connell/Warburton/North/Halfpenny/Jenkins because on any 50/50 call you would expect the coaches to go with what they know.

I've said it before, but the first Lions tour I watched was the 1989 tour to Australia and there were three Welshmen in the Test side (four in the first Test, I think). I wouldn't have cared if there had been none, I was just so excited (I was 11) at watching the Lions playing the Wallabies down under.

I won't lie, I'd be gutted / angry if I saw quality Welsh players overlooked for Lions selection, just as I quite often get the hump when promising Dragons players get overlooked for Wales callups; but I still support Wales just the same, and I'd support the Lions just the same. They still represent me, us.

I respect that Luckless

For me however watching Wales does insane things to my heart and the blood in my body pumps around my veins as if I had been injected with kryptonite. Watching the Lions, even with 6-7 welshmen is exciting but incomparable. That's just me. Guess I'm more welsh than British; no harm in that

Oh, watching Wales is in a different league, I agree. But I still love the Lions, and for me that's never been based on / dictated by how many Welshmen are on the field.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Oh, watching Wales is in a different league, I agree. But I still love the Lions, and for me that's never been based on / dictated by how many Welshmen are on the field.

I love watching the Lions too, I just wish Scotland were better represented. As I said earlier I think 5 would have been the right ammount of tourists for us.

I'm behind them 100% and I think we have the players to win the test series, but Gatland and co. need to pick the best guys... not their favourites.

To the poster earlier that said something like 'if corbs plays really well I'm going to laugh in your face' - grow up. We'll all get behind him fully once he's out there and I wish him all the best. No Scotland fan will want to see him fail, because might mean the lions fail.

It was a very immature and ignorant thing to say all round really.

I do appreciate why some Scottish posters are angry at Ryan Grant / Kelly Brown being overlooked - I'd have taken Greig Laidlaw, too.

The best thing the players can do is go into the tournament in South Africa and show Gatland what he's missing.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I do appreciate why some Scottish posters are angry at Ryan Grant / Kelly Brown being overlooked - I'd have taken Greig Laidlaw, too.

The best thing the players can do is go into the tournament in South Africa and show Gatland what he's missing.

Good post.

Agreed, what's done is done. I could understand the Kelly Brown decision (and I wouldn't have taken Laidlaw personally), but the Ryan Grant call is a rough call I think.

For what it's worth, given form and injuries this season, you could argue that Richie Gray was a tad fortunate to tour ahead of the likes of Launchbury and Donnacha Ryan, and there were plenty of candidates with a strong claim to tour ahead of Maitland.

I'm not aggrieved as a Scots fan, and I love and will always support the Lions regardless (I even managed to fully support the England "has been" XV in 2005). You win some and you lose some. This was a bad call from a Scots perspective, but I don't think the overall representation is particularly "unfair", particularly given the performance of Scotland over the last couple of years.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Agreed, what's done is done. I could understand the Kelly Brown decision (and I wouldn't have taken Laidlaw personally), but the Ryan Grant call is a rough call I think.

For what it's worth, given form and injuries this season, you could argue that Richie Gray was a tad fortunate to tour ahead of the likes of Launchbury and Donnacha Ryan, and there were plenty of candidates with a strong claim to tour ahead of Maitland.

I'm not aggrieved as a Scots fan, and I love and will always support the Lions regardless (I even managed to fully support the England "has been" XV in 2005). You win some and you lose some. This was a bad call from a Scots perspective, but I don't think the overall representation is particularly "unfair", particularly given the performance of Scotland over the last couple of years.

Agreed fEs, I too don't think that we Scots fans can feel too hard done by - I would have brought Wade ahead of Maitland, but taken Brown over Lydiate, for example. But on a personal level, I do feel really sorry for Ryan Grant, he could not have done more this season. Anyway, good luck Corbisiero, there is no doubt he is an excellent player when fully fit.