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.

GLove39 wrote:Anyone for a packet of 'rowntree's randoms'..!

We make jokes but I want the Lions to do well. Corbs is a fine player but he isn't a fit one. Having played only 3 games this season and no test matches... It's another abortive decision by the Lions coaches.

Really gutted and annoyed about that one. I thought Grant really deserved this call up. He has been a model of consistency for the past year. He has put in shift after shift - Summer tour, Pro 12, Heineken Cup, 6N; in all of those competitions he has been very very good and barely missed a game. And he gets completely overlooked by a guy who has hardly played a game.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:We make jokes but I want the Lions to do well. Corbs is a fine player but he isn't a fit one. Having played only 3 games this season and no test matches... It's another abortive decision by the Lions coaches.

In their defence the 2 big questionable decisions in Hartley and Vunipola from England haven't exactly been proved wrong, Vunipolas been ok and Best has been average.

In fairness we want a succesfull tour, not a fair tour

thebluesmancometh wrote:Not sure Grant has been 'robbed' it is very early for him in his debut season remember.

But obviously not too 'early' for England's scrummaging coach on Lions duty to originally select the vastly experienced Vunipola, who has played how much int'l rugby exactly? If you cannot see bias in this, then there's nothing I can do to help

thebluesmancometh wrote:In fairness we want a succesfull tour, not a fair tour

True, but in favour for Grant is that he has had a whole season of playing very, very well. I am biased because I support Glasgow, but he has really been consistently excellent in a usually dominant scrum. Corbisiero is a vey good player, but this season he has been injured for the vast majority and played only 3 games. How that is a marker for Lions selection I don't know. Paul James can feel aggrieved as well.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:Not sure Grant has been 'robbed' it is very early for him in his debut season remember.

But obviously not too 'early' for England's scrummaging coach on Lions duty to originally select the vastly experienced Vunipola, who has played how much int'l rugby exactly? If you cannot see bias in this, then there's nothing I can do to help

What? Vunipola was a risky decision, when did I say it wasn't, but he was selected for his mobility, something Grant can't compete with and something that has started with a bang.

Take it you didn't see Grant against the O's or Leinster in the last couple of games in the Pro12? He was a wrecking machine. Coming from a front rower there are 2 better choices for the vacating Healy. Neither of them are English.

what do people think about Healy being cited?

Looked to me that the aussie was trying to drive his forearm into Healy's face who was trapped on the ground. Deliberate foul play by the Force scrum half I thought.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Has Corbs actually been called up?

Heared on the radio Corbs as been called up as cover for Healey.

As some one been done for biting?

i imagine when they hear Healey was also cited they relaised there must be VT evidence so his tour is done either way.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Take it you didn't see Grant against the O's or Leinster in the last couple of games in the Pro12? He was a wrecking machine. Coming from a front rower there are 2 better choices for the vacating Healy. Neither of them are English.

Oh jees, so let me get this straight, Grant can scrummage like Adam Jones (as stated previously) and is as mobile as Vunipola???

Come on, he's had a good season and held his own at a young age which is very impressive, he hasn't excelled on the int stage at anything yet, but is showing the potential to be a top LH in a few seasons!

Isnt Grant like 27? Not that young

thebluesmancometh wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Take it you didn't see Grant against the O's or Leinster in the last couple of games in the Pro12? He was a wrecking machine. Coming from a front rower there are 2 better choices for the vacating Healy. Neither of them are English.

Oh jees, so let me get this straight, Grant can scrummage like Adam Jones (as stated previously) and is as mobile as Vunipola???

Come on, he's had a good season and held his own at a young age which is very impressive, he hasn't excelled on the int stage at anything yet, but is showing the potential to be a top LH in a few seasons!

Eh?

Its potentially a great shame about Healy as he is a seriously good player. If he is done for biting - well the whole incident sounds a lot like Hartley/Ferris tbh.

I'd agree with Bluesman that Vunipola is looking a pretty inspired selection so far, however I disagree with the decision to pick Corbisiero ahead of Ryan Grant. That is simply Rowntree picking a player he's familiar with, rather than looking for the best player in that position.

The big scrum call which I think it still wrong is Matt Stevens. Clearly the Lions are going with 3 specialists on either side, so I still don't understand the case for Stevens at tighthead (supposedly versatile) ahead of Ross or Murray. That for me remains the most odd selection. Jones and Cole streets ahead of the rest, but in Australia, against those flimsy scrums, Ross and Murray would have made hay, whereas Stevens can't capitalise.

Rowntree can do one.

Grant has had an excellent season and couldn't have done more to merit inclusion.

Instead they've gone with a guy who's barely played any rugby this season but knows the coach.

Fuming.

funnyExiledScot wrote:I'd agree with Bluesman that Vunipola is looking a pretty inspired selection so far, however I disagree with the decision to pick Corbisiero ahead of Ryan Grant. That is simply Rowntree picking a player he's familiar with, rather than looking for the best player in that position.

The big scrum call which I think it still wrong is Matt Stevens. Clearly the Lions are going with 3 specialists on either side, so I still don't understand the case for Stevens at tighthead (supposedly versatile) ahead of Ross or Murray. That for me remains the most odd selection. Jones and Cole streets ahead of the rest, but in Australia, against those flimsy scrums, Ross and Murray would have made hay, whereas Stevens can't capitalise.

Have to agree with this, Stevens looks awfull and everything he does makes me shudder, when he came on today I only noticed as he rounded the wrong side of a maul, got shouted at then ran the wrong way back, then at the following ruck he just flopped on top of a ruck that was clearly won, and i'm thinking what exactly could he offer to a test team?!

Rowntree probably has had influence with selecting Corbisiero, but all the front row options are English/Welsh and he is undenyably a quality player! I'm not saying it's the correct call, but in the 50/50 calls coaches will go with what they know

How could it be a 50-50 call when you compare him to James, Grant or even Sheridan. They have all played excellently and consistently at the highest levels for club and or country all season long.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:His could it be a 50-50 call when you compare him to James, Grant or even Sheridan. They have all played excellently and consistently at the highest levels for club and or country all season long.

Same argument can be applied to Lydiate, Wilkinson, Stevens and POC though, injuries and non int duty could have ruled them out easily, but he has decided on known and trusted quality, and is willing to risk third choice options on what could be as opposed to what probably will be.

I personally wouldve taken James, covering for Stevens useless ness at TH, but Grant wouldve been next on my list.

To be honest, with Corbisiero's injury record, they'll be needing another replacement in short order.

Reputation over form
Sound familiar?

sickofwendy wrote:Reputation over form
Sound familiar?

reputation? or proven quality?

Blah blah whine whine...

The decision would of been made by all the coaches not just rowntree

3 games all season! 4/6 props are now English, and if Hartley hadn't been banned the front row would be 6/9 English. This is jobs for the boys. There is no possible justification for picking a player who has played 3 ruddy games all season. Form and fitness my bum. Gatland is a liar.

The only players he should have considered are Grant and James.

It's really really difficult to support the Lions when it's apparent the coaches only want to pick their national favourites, despite being injured or not playing all season. Geech was impartial, he never gave unfair favour to Scots - quite the opposite.

What fans from other nations don't get (because you've never experienced it) is that it's a slap in the face, it says that we're not welcome and shouldn't bother. I'm one of the biggest fans of the Lions but for the first time in my life I'm actually starting to think we should pull out and save our pride. We're not wanted or respected. I doubt Rowntree has even watched Grant play this season, if he had there's no way he would make this ridiculous decision.

Rant over

madmaccas wrote:3 games all season! 4/6 props are now English, and if Hartley hadn't been banned the front row would be 6/9 English. This is jobs for the boys. There is no possible justification for picking a player who has played 3 ruddy games all season. Form and fitness my bum. Gatland is a liar.

The only players he should have considered are Grant and James.

It's really really difficult to support the Lions when it's apparent the coaches only want to pick their national favourites, despite being injured or not playing all season. Geech was impartial, he never gave unfair favour to Scots - quite the opposite.

What fans from other nations don't get (because you've never experienced it) is that it's a slap in the face, it says that we're not welcome and shouldn't bother. I'm one of the biggest fans of the Lions but for the first time in my life I'm actually starting to think we should pull out and save our pride. We're not wanted or respected. I doubt Rowntree has even watched Grant play this season, if he had there's no way he would make this ridiculous decision.

Rant over

madmaccas wrote:3 games all season! 4/6 props are now English, and if Hartley hadn't been banned the front row would be 6/9 English. This is jobs for the boys. There is no possible justification for picking a player who has played 3 ruddy games all season. Form and fitness my bum. Gatland is a liar.

The only players he should have considered are Grant and James.

It's really really difficult to support the Lions when it's apparent the coaches only want to pick their national favourites, despite being injured or not playing all season. Geech was impartial, he never gave unfair favour to Scots - quite the opposite.

What fans from other nations don't get (because you've never experienced it) is that it's a slap in the face, it says that we're not welcome and shouldn't bother. I'm one of the biggest fans of the Lions but for the first time in my life I'm actually starting to think we should pull out and save our pride. We're not wanted or respected. I doubt Rowntree has even watched Grant play this season, if he had there's no way he would make this ridiculous decision.

Rant over

Well said

Well Sheridan has to be considered also!

I can understand a frustration, as I wouldve taken Brown and Laidlaw but I'm not sure the case for Grant is as strong as many think. He has started well, and had a decent first season, but he doesn't really have attributes that others excel in, similarly like James of Wales and Ross of Ireland.

I think the cases for Brown, and Laidlaw who either excelled in a certain area or provided utility are far stronger.

The difference between Vunipola and Grant, Vunipola has a mobility and power unrivalled by most props and as a third choice was selected as a bit of a wild card, Grant can't boast a strnegth unparalleled by the other options we have.

I wouldn't take it to heart, but it is a case of trust at times, Rowntree is obviously lobbying for forwards he knows and trusts, and you can't really blame him for that, we want to win a series, not be fair and risk the loss.

Corbisiero also started out as a tighthead. No idea if Grant can cover both sides.

HammerofThunor wrote:Corbisiero also started out as a tighthead. No idea if Grant can cover both sides.

Oh feic me, now we've got another "versatility" selection!

I am not going to defend the decision to call Corbisiero up as cover. Irrespective of the claims of others, for his own sake I feel he shoul dhave been left in Argentina where he was actually going to play, rather than flying to Australia as a just in case.

I will however defend the right of the cioaches to make the choices they have. The accusation is being levelled that they are picking people because of their nationality. They are not. they are picking people they know inside out. People whose strengths they know, and whose character they know. It can be argued that this is lazy, maybe it is - but everyone does it.

Yes everyone, even McGeechan. Last tour he called up a loosehead that he knew very well as a mid tour replacement. A man he had worked with for the last 4 years. Mr Tim Payne.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Corbisiero also started out as a tighthead. No idea if Grant can cover both sides.

Oh feic me, now we've got another "versatility" selection!

Maybe not but Paul James can and has done at top level.

LondonTiger wrote:I am not going to defend the decision to call Corbisiero up as cover. Irrespective of the claims of others, for his own sake I feel he shoul dhave been left in Argentina where he was actually going to play, rather than flying to Australia as a just in case.

I will however defend the right of the cioaches to make the choices they have. The accusation is being levelled that they are picking people because of their nationality. They are not. they are picking people they know inside out. People whose strengths they know, and whose character they know. It can be argued that this is lazy, maybe it is - but everyone does it.

Yes everyone, even McGeechan. Last tour he called up a loosehead that he knew very well as a mid tour replacement. A man he had worked with for the last 4 years. Mr Tim Payne.

London tiger - so you're saying Gatland would be perfectly justified to pick Shane Williams over Tim visser because he knows him, irrespective of the top level rugby exposure he's had this season?

To clarify I'd have no problem if he picked James over Grant because he knows him - James has justified his selection this year - but to try and claim that it is justified to pick someone who has played 3 games ALL season is truly ridiculous

How much rugby had Richie Gray played in the build up to selection?

They have the right to pick whoever they like, and we have the right to argue about it. Comaprison with Shane is not appropriate. More appropriate would be if they select Priestland to replace Kearney.

Personally I believe the decision to call up Corbs (again I repeat as cover - he may be on the plane back to England without playing) is wrong.

But I defend the coaches right to select him if they believe he is better than the alternatives.

thebluesmancometh wrote:Well Sheridan has to be considered also!

I can understand a frustration, as I wouldve taken Brown and Laidlaw but I'm not sure the case for Grant is as strong as many think. He has started well, and had a decent first season, but he doesn't really have attributes that others excel in, similarly like James of Wales and Ross of Ireland.

I think the cases for Brown, and Laidlaw who either excelled in a certain area or provided utility are far stronger.

The difference between Vunipola and Grant, Vunipola has a mobility and power unrivalled by most props and as a third choice was selected as a bit of a wild card, Grant can't boast a strnegth unparalleled by the other options we have.

I wouldn't take it to heart, but it is a case of trust at times, Rowntree is obviously lobbying for forwards he knows and trusts, and you can't really blame him for that, we want to win a series, not be fair and risk the loss.

Vunipola to me was the correct choice ahead of Grant, I am not arguing otherwise. On a hard track he has shown that he was an excellent selection. What I am arguing about is that the coaches have picked a player, irrespective of if they know him or not, who has only played three times this season. That, in my opinion, is not the way to go about picking a player who is fit and ready to compete for a place on a Lions tour.

Grant, Sheridan or James, who have been excellent this season, deserved the call.

In a way I mthink Corbs has been benefiting by his absence, the English scrum hasn't been the same and Rowntree has clearly used his absence as the reason, similarly POC, Grey, Lydiate and Sexton in the 6N

RDW_Scotland wrote:London tiger - so you're saying Gatland would be perfectly justified to pick Shane Williams over Tim visser because he knows him, irrespective of the top level rugby exposure he's had this season?

Shane will come in for the third test and score a second half hat-trick to win the series

You heard it here first

Can see the point people are making here and agree that Grant is unlucky.

That said, a cursory check shows that Corbs has played 5 times (3 starts and 2 off the bench) since his return from injury in mid April. Saw him at Welford Rd when Irish played Tigers last month and he looked fit to me. Always going to be a risk with his injury record but I can understand the decision to take him.

If the coaches are justified in picking one of their players - irrespective of whether they've been playing international rugby or not - then what the hell is the point in the British and Irish lions.

If we needed yet another demonstration why national coaches should be kept away from the Lions, then here it is on a plate - whether it's McGeechan selecting Payne (poor selection) or FatMan/Rowentree selecting Corbisero simply on the basis of familiarity, it is a lazy and biased choice

I think a few people on here need to go and have a lay down for a bit, i will laugh in your faces if Corbs ends up playing and is one of the stars of the tour!

nathan wrote:I think a few people on here need to go and have a lay down for a bit, i will laugh in your faces if Corbs ends up playing and is one of the stars of the tour!

You're welcome to do that (or try), but it still doesn't justify his selection

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

nathan wrote:I think a few people on here need to go and have a lay down for a bit, i will laugh in your faces if Corbs ends up playing and is one of the stars of the tour!

You're welcome to do that (or try), but it still doesn't justify his selection

skype?

Your criteria of what justifies a call up might not be the same as the lion coaches and no offence but they know what they're doing more than you...

nathan wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

nathan wrote:I think a few people on here need to go and have a lay down for a bit, i will laugh in your faces if Corbs ends up playing and is one of the stars of the tour!

You're welcome to do that (or try), but it still doesn't justify his selection

skype?

Your criteria of what justifies a call up might not be the same as the lion coaches and no offence but they know what they're doing more than you...

Skype it can be. I don't think you need to be an international rugby coach to hold the view that form at the appropriate level and quality are necessary criteria - if you prefer familiarity, that's entirely your call

RDW_Scotland wrote:If the coaches are justified in picking one of their players - irrespective of whether they've been playing international rugby or not - then what the hell is the point in the British and Irish lions.

Ahem POC, ahem Lydiate, ahem Sexton, ahem Stevens, ahem Grey...

Should I go on, there are literally hundreds of players who weren't playing int rugby that have travelled and been succesfull on the lions, the list above didn't play 6N rugby either!

Lets get one thing straight, there is always a case of form over quality (although I'm not convinced Grants form has been as good as Scots think) but there is also a case of form being temporary...

Grant has been watched assessed analysed and deemed not worthy by the coaching set up, well so far anyway.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

nathan wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

nathan wrote:I think a few people on here need to go and have a lay down for a bit, i will laugh in your faces if Corbs ends up playing and is one of the stars of the tour!

You're welcome to do that (or try), but it still doesn't justify his selection

skype?

Your criteria of what justifies a call up might not be the same as the lion coaches and no offence but they know what they're doing more than you...

Skype it can be. I don't think you need to be an international rugby coach to hold the view that form at the appropriate level and quality are necessary criteria - if you prefer familiarity, that's entirely your call

i said nothing at all about familiarity.