Lions 2017

First topic message reminder :

I understand and respect all the arguments against this kind of post 18 months before but the proper journalists are all having a so we might as well. It happens after every tournament.

For what it's worth I'd pick:

1. Marler
2. Hartley
3. Nel
4. J. Gray
5. AW Jones
6. Faletau
7. Warburton
8. Vunipola
9. Webb
10. Sexton
11. North
12. Henshaw
13. Joseph
14. Watson
15. Hogg

16. McGrath
17. MacInally
18. Lee
19. Itoje
20. Stander
21. Youngs
22. Biggar
23. Halfpenny

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Nice team Funnyexiled......would perhaps need some loosehead cover on the bench though

Nah, Dickinson will break Franks and Du Plessis so I've suggested they go for a third option.

I hadn't actually thought of other SH teams. Nadolo could probably get onto the wing, and move Folau to fullback. Imhoff would be close and Ayerza probably is worth a shout on the bench.

Not actually a stellar cast of loosehead props in SH rugby.

But if you can pick from any SH side, shouldn't the Lions expand to take in France (Fofana), Italy (Parisse), Japan (Goromaru) etc? Now it's a completely different series anyway.

Would it be better to have a "World Series" type event? a 3 test series between NH vs SH one summer? As you have more countries to pull from, you could still have full tours for the national teams. Maybe even cap it as a maximum of 4/5 players from any one nation called up into the squad, you can only be called up to 1 World Series in your career etc, just to make it a bit more interesting.

Many people say player X should be picked.

It's the coaches' job to get the best out of the players available.

Someone like Hogg might be deemed the best full back but if Gatland is coach for example will he utilise him properly?

Gatland picked Davies because he was familiar with him and knew how to get the best out of him. It's still debatable whether it was fair on BOD but it worked.

Borthwick and Gustard in the 6 nations got the best out of Kruis and Itoje - is it that much of a surprise? Two very familiar players to those two coaches and to each other.

In the Lions gelling and combinations is even more important because of the lack of time together.

Murray-Sexton - good combo for example.

"Best" player does not mean most suitable. Some players perform better when partnered with other players, some struggle when circumstances are not in their favour etc.

A good unit of lesser players can beat a group of more talented individuals.

Lions will have the best of Britain and Ireland but making them gel - now that's not easy as you have 4 nations with different skills and players.

England were the best team in the 6 nations but not too many outstanding performers.

robbo277 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Nice team Funnyexiled......would perhaps need some loosehead cover on the bench though

Nah, Dickinson will break Franks and Du Plessis so I've suggested they go for a third option.

I hadn't actually thought of other SH teams. Nadolo could probably get onto the wing, and move Folau to fullback. Imhoff would be close and Ayerza probably is worth a shout on the bench.

Not actually a stellar cast of loosehead props in SH rugby.

But if you can pick from any SH side, shouldn't the Lions expand to take in France (Fofana), Italy (Parisse), Japan (Goromaru) etc? Now it's a completely different series anyway.

Would it be better to have a "World Series" type event? a 3 test series between NH vs SH one summer? As you have more countries to pull from, you could still have full tours for the national teams. Maybe even cap it as a maximum of 4/5 players from any one nation called up into the squad, you can only be called up to 1 World Series in your career etc, just to make it a bit more interesting.

A Frenchman playing for the Lions!! Never!!

We'd have to call them something different. The Northern Lights or something tacky like that.

robbo277 wrote:

Would it be better to have a "World Series" type event? a 3 test series between NH vs SH one summer? As you have more countries to pull from, you could still have full tours for the national teams. Maybe even cap it as a maximum of 4/5 players from any one nation called up into the squad, you can only be called up to 1 World Series in your career etc, just to make it a bit more interesting.

I like this idea

TJ wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

Would it be better to have a "World Series" type event? a 3 test series between NH vs SH one summer? As you have more countries to pull from, you could still have full tours for the national teams. Maybe even cap it as a maximum of 4/5 players from any one nation called up into the squad, you can only be called up to 1 World Series in your career etc, just to make it a bit more interesting.

I like this idea

The NH team would be interesting:

1.McGrath 2.Guirado 3.Nel 4.Itoje 5.Kruis 6.Gorgodze 7.SOB 8.Parisse 9.Rees 10.Biggar 11.North 12.Fofana 13.Tuilagi 14.Watson 15.Goromaru

16.Slimani 17.Hartley 18.Cole 19.AWJ 20.Vunipola 21.Gori 22.Sexton 23.DTH

Something like that.

Problem for me is I struggle to get behind a British and Irish side, I'm not sure about supporting an entire hemisphere!

It would be an interesting game, but more in the spirit of the Barbarians and probably not taken massively seriously. The Barbarians is almost solely (ageing) SH players these days.

Cyril wrote:Problem for me is I struggle to get behind a British and Irish side, I'm not sure about supporting an entire hemisphere!

It would be an interesting game, but more in the spirit of the Barbarians and probably not taken massively seriously. The Barbarians is almost solely (ageing) SH players these days.

I'm sure that's right. Plenty Lions sceptics out there already (who despite their scepticism will spend hours talking about the Lions, watch all the games, buy the DVDs and weigh in regularly on team selection).

rainbow-warrior wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Cyril wrote:He's a 'Londoner of Welsh heritage'

A Cockney who once ate a leek?

So delighted when all those English players with Welsh heritage (eg North, Cuthbert) make the Lions?

"Heritage" ??  bit like Kiwi Irishmen is it?

Fanster is an Englishman with Welsh heritage and supports Wales rather than England.

Similar situation would be a Kiwi with English heritage supporting England rather than the country he was brought up in or lives.

I am english born with an english name and accent - but having lived 35 years in scotland support scotland

TJ wrote:I am english born with an english name and accent - but having lived 35 years in scotland support scotland

Far more qualified than half the team then.

Or Shingler for that matter.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

One of those he "missed" was when Roberts Crashed through him at full tilt from 1 meter out. Name a player in the world who can stop Roberts from that range.

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/rugby/sam-underhill-flanker-who-flattened-jamie-roberts-is-england-s-next-big-hope-a3210011.html

[If this post seems a bit of a non sequitur, it's because I had it open in my browser for ages without getting around to submitting. This thread has moved well on from the point I wanted to make, but I'm far too stubborn to just ditch this effort after having bothered to write it]

I think there's often something of a selective memory syndrome about the Lions. Over the course of the last forty-odd years, the concept has been thoroughly trashed, and then mended again, on several occasions.

The furthest back most board members would go is the seventies, and that's where a lot of the modern folklore about the Lions really began. (The sixties was a pretty ropey decade for the team). Taking that as the starting point:

1971 - The great success. We took it to the New Zealanders, and showed them a higher standard of rugby than they were offering at the time, capped off with that great Barbarians match back home with many of the same players.

1974 - The Unbeatables. Many of the best stories about life on tour come from 1974 ("About these police - will there be many of them?" etc) and it was another success. However, we probably shouldn't have been going to South Africa by then. That's not historical hindsight: John Taylor refused to tour and suffered selection snubs as a result.

1977 - The let-down tour. Many of the same great players, and a close series, but lost 3-1. We had the team to win the series - despite missing JPR Williams, Gerald Davies and Gareth Edwards - and perhaps should at least have drawn it, so this always feels like one which got away. We had by far the stronger pack, and played attacking rugby, but the management was criticized for being humourless, which gave a generally unhappy tone to a poor tour.

1980 - The tour no-one remembers, or everyone prefers to forget. We definitely shouldn't have been touring South Africa by this time, and the Lions were outplayed for the first time since the 1960s

1983 - A dismal tour at the Tests ending in a complete whitewash. Home Nations rugby was at a bit of a low ebb. The decision to leave Peter Wheeler at home, largely because Ciaran Fitzgerald was chosen as captain, was an early example of the public selection controversies which would crop up later. After the first Test defeat, John Carleton said "I'll tell you now, we'll lose this test series 4-0. There's so much already wrong about this tour I can't see any other possible outcome". The press didn't immediately report those kind of comments back then, so it didn't become a public flame war. Three straight losing tours was not a good look.

1989 - A tour of redemption. Australia had shown with their 1984 Grand Slam, that they had a Test side worthy of a dedicated tour. This is also the tour where Donal's Donuts really established the value of a supportive midweek side. The series victory was sweet, since it was the first since 1974, and also required coming from behind.

1993 - A divisive tour off the pitch. The midweek side fell apart. None of the second choice players pressed for a place either because they were useless, or couldn't shine in a weak team. It's almost as if management just assumed the midweek players didn't need to be managed. The Tests were more competitive, and could even have gone the tourists way, but for a controversial penalty in the First. Anyone who wants to talk about the Lions ethos in selection has to address this tour because English players dominated the starting XV. The final two Tests saw eleven English starters. ELEVEN! In an era during which the bench went largely unused.

1997 - The first Lions series of the professional era, and the first that really registered for a lot of today's supporters. Not only did the Lions win, the documentary magnificently captured the highs and lows of touring at a time when players had no social media presence, and little experience of being on camera.

2001 - A fractious tour, made worse by the show of public dissent by Dawson and Healey. This was a series which should have been won but instead showed how hard it is to bring a squad together. Graham Henry's reputation took a hit but the Lions brand prospered. The sea of red at the first Brisbane Test showed the strength of the touring support. Media thrived on the constant off-field gossip, as well as onfield incidents like McRae's assault of O'Gara. As one which got away, this tour resembled 1977, but the closest counterpart is 1983, with the same kinds of internal disputes this time played out in public.

2005 - By some accounts, the worst modern Lions tour. Personally, I'd give that accolade to 1983, but what makes 2005 such a black mark, is the high profile rugby was enjoying at the time, and the growing importance of the Lions brand to rugby's fragile professional era financial structure. It was also the first time we really saw strident criticism of the tour from outside the camp, with supporters, journalists and former players all taking turns to have a crack. By the end of the tour, the Lions brand looked broken. Top players like BoD and Wilkinson had been on two tours now and enjoyed neither. For the first time, there were questions about whether it was all worth the hassle.

2009 - Redemption again. Hang on, didn't we lose? Yes, but it was competitive, and you could see the players bringing out the best in each other. Brian O'Driscoll said he finally understood what this Lions thing was all about. It was a series which brought the feelgood factor back to for players and supporters. World Rugby breathed a huge sigh of relief that one of its key money spinners was still in rude health.

2013 - Success! Hooray! Except, this tour is unique in recent history on not being a universally celebrated win. Usually, the Lions have disappointed by not winning when they should have done (1977, 2001), or going down too easily (1983 & 2005). No other successful Lions squad has been criticized for not winning well enough. Perhaps the spiralling rise of social media is a factor. Twitter and Facebook were around in 2009, but 2013 was the first tour to experience the special brand of vitriol which online interactions now foment. That's not necessarily good for the Lions brand, but the 2013 tour was largely scandal-free, which is important in keeping all stakeholders happy for now.

Top marks Rugby Fan!

97 and 2009 the stand out tours for me. The documentaries showing just how close the group had bonded which is what makes the Lions special in my opinion.

1997 and 2013 would be my favourites, for obvious reasons.

1997 would the best for me though, largely because the Lions were massive underdogs and because of the coaching and man management of McGeechan and Telfer who extracted every last ounce of potential from that group. It also launched/enhanced the international careers of some great players: Smith, Wood, Johnson, Hill, Back, Dallaglio, Dawson and Gibbs all arrived as good players but left as giants. Players like Townsend and Greenwood also benefitted hugely from it. It just seemed to launch NH rugby in the Pro era.

And on all those tours I bet there were players left behind that other fans thought should of gone or that they thought the coaches got wrong.

Also the majority f those tours have been dominated by one National side player wise, they don't have a quota the coaches pick who THEY think (not us keyboard warriors) will do the job.

Actually 1997 had a pretty decent balance to it.

First Test XV:

Welsh - 3
Scots - 3
Irish - 3
English - 6

I'd wager that Rob Howley would have played instead of Dawson had he been fit making it even more balanced.

One of the big shocks in 1997 was Jason Leonard and Dai Young not making the Test XV. Prior to the Tour all the talking heads had them pencilled in, but Telfer went with the lower scrummaging option of Wallace and Smith.

bedfordwelsh wrote:And on all those tours I bet there were players left behind that other fans thought should of gone or that they thought the coaches got wrong.

Also the majority f those tours have been dominated by one National side player wise, they don't have a quota the coaches pick who THEY think (not us keyboard warriors) will do the job.

Good point. Take the 1982 Tour. Summary above:

1983 - A dismal tour at the Tests ending in a complete whitewash. Home Nations rugby was at a bit of a low ebb. The decision to leave Peter Wheeler at home, largely because Ciaran Fitzgerald was chosen as captain, was an early example of the public selection controversies which would crop up later. After the first Test defeat, John Carleton said "I'll tell you now, we'll lose this test series 4-0. There's so much already wrong about this tour I can't see any other possible outcome". The press didn't immediately report those kind of comments back then, so it didn't become a public flame war. Three straight losing tours was not a good look.

Alternative view:
Ireland won the Triple Crown that year (captained by Ciaran Fitzgerald). Ireland beat England 25-15. Peter Wheeler (admits himself) that he had a poor season.  British press & public wanted Wheeler to be captain so had it in for Fitzgerald. Colin Deans was the 2nd hooker on tour, who was also preferred over Wheeler. Telfer was coach and he wanted his fellow Scot Deans as starting hooker. He was fairly public about this. The NZ press got wind of this and went to town on Fitzgerald. The narrative from Ireland is that Fitzgerald was scapegoated and treated very poorly by Telfer and the British contingent. Hugo MacNeill who was on that tour said that he regrets very much that he didn't stand up for Fitzgerald.

edit: I should have added. Willie John McBride wanted to coach the Lions, but instead they made him Tour Manager with Telfer as coach. I don't think they gelled.

Oh and my squad for 2017

LH Props

Mcgrath
Evans
Mako Vunipola

Rory Best
Jamie George
Dylan Hartley

Samson Lee
WP Nel
Cole

Jones
Kruis
Itoje
Gray

Stander
O Brien
Warburton
Hardie
Faletau
Billy Vunipola

Murray
Webb
Davies

Farell
Sexton
Slade

Roberts
Henshaw
Joseph
Davies

North
Hogg
Williams
Watson
Seymour

GavinDragon wrote:Oh and my squad for 2017

LH Props

Mcgrath
Evans
Mako Vunipola

Rory Best
Jamie George
Dylan Hartley

Samson Lee
WP Nel
Cole

Jones
Kruis
Itoje
Gray

Stander
O Brien
Warburton
Hardie
Faletau
Billy Vunipola

Murray
Webb
Davies

Farell
Sexton
Slade

Roberts
Henshaw
Joseph
Davies

North
Hogg
Williams
Watson
Seymour

I am very surprise you chose Slade as the third 10, rather Than Biggar to be honest.

If you don't pick Biggar you'll end up with Jiffy on TV "doing a Keith Wood": bottom lip quivering, tears streaming down his face weaping some guff about the "ethos of the Lions".

Imagine if you didn't pick Lydiate on top of that

BamBam wrote:Imagine if you didn't pick Lydiate on top of that

I'm a huge Lydiate fan but his game if defence orientated and whilst we will certainly need defence in NZ we have to look at other options from defence first.

Also I think Moriarty might edge him out of the Welsh set up soon.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Actually 1997 had a pretty decent balance to it.

First Test XV:

Welsh - 3
Scots - 3
Irish - 3
English - 6

I'd wager that Rob Howley would have played instead of Dawson had he been fit making it even more balanced.

One of the big shocks in 1997 was Jason Leonard and Dai Young not making the Test XV. Prior to the Tour all the talking heads had them pencilled in, but Telfer went with the lower scrummaging option of Wallace and Smith.

True though the initial pre conception of the squad was it was going to be English dominated and as you said Leonard and Young were pre tour faves for the prop slots.

Sin é wrote:Alternative view:
Ireland won the Triple Crown that year (captained by Ciaran Fitzgerald). Ireland beat England 25-15. Peter Wheeler (admits himself) that he had a poor season.  British press & public wanted Wheeler to be captain so had it in for Fitzgerald. Colin Deans was the 2nd hooker on tour, who was also preferred over Wheeler. Telfer was coach and he wanted his fellow Scot Deans as starting hooker. He was fairly public about this. The NZ press got wind of this and went to town on Fitzgerald. The narrative from Ireland is that Fitzgerald was scapegoated and treated very poorly by Telfer and the British contingent. Hugo MacNeill who was on that tour said that he regrets very much that he didn't stand up for Fitzgerald.

edit: I should have added. Willie John McBride wanted to coach the Lions, but instead they made him Tour Manager with Telfer as coach. I don't think they gelled.

I wouldn't disagree with anything there. Fitzgerald comes across as a fundamentally decent bloke who was dealt a poor hand. It made little sense to appoint a coach who didn't want the squad captain in his team. Especially when everyone thought the team manager was being lined up for the job. Telfer went on to enjoy success with the Lions in 1997, but it didn't go well for him in 1983. He approached his job a bit like Graham Henry in 2001, beasting the players in training with little respite. That contributed to a run of injuries and unhappiness in the camp.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Sin é wrote:Alternative view:
Ireland won the Triple Crown that year (captained by Ciaran Fitzgerald). Ireland beat England 25-15. Peter Wheeler (admits himself) that he had a poor season.  British press & public wanted Wheeler to be captain so had it in for Fitzgerald. Colin Deans was the 2nd hooker on tour, who was also preferred over Wheeler. Telfer was coach and he wanted his fellow Scot Deans as starting hooker. He was fairly public about this. The NZ press got wind of this and went to town on Fitzgerald. The narrative from Ireland is that Fitzgerald was scapegoated and treated very poorly by Telfer and the British contingent. Hugo MacNeill who was on that tour said that he regrets very much that he didn't stand up for Fitzgerald.

edit: I should have added. Willie John McBride wanted to coach the Lions, but instead they made him Tour Manager with Telfer as coach. I don't think they gelled.

I wouldn't disagree with anything there. Fitzgerald comes across as a fundamentally decent bloke who was dealt a poor hand. It made little sense to appoint a coach who didn't want the squad captain in his team. Especially when everyone thought the team manager was being lined up for the job. Telfer went on to enjoy success with the Lions in 1997, but it didn't go well for him in 1983. He approached his job a bit like Graham Henry in 2001, beasting the players in training with little respite. That contributed to a run of injuries and unhappiness in the camp.

So it's not just Gatland that favours his own players - strange that.

I have always said that is the problem with having a current National coach in charge as if there is a tight call he will in the most plump for the player he knows better.

bedfordwelsh wrote:...So it's not just Gatland that favours his own players - strange that....

Of all the problems which did occur in 1983, Telfer favouring Scottish players was not one of them. He didn't rate Fitzgerald above Deans (or even Wheeler) but Fitzgerald started all four Tests as hooker and captain. There were plenty of selection controversies but the squad was fairly evenly split between the four Home Nations.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Actually 1997 had a pretty decent balance to it.

First Test XV:

Welsh - 3
Scots - 3
Irish - 3
English - 6

I'd wager that Rob Howley would have played instead of Dawson had he been fit making it even more balanced.

One of the big shocks in 1997 was Jason Leonard and Dai Young not making the Test XV. Prior to the Tour all the talking heads had them pencilled in, but Telfer went with the lower scrummaging option of Wallace and Smith.

The first test was more even FES but the squad & the 2 other tests were dominated by the English with 50%.
I agree great series though!

Ps if 50% can be construed as dominated

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:..The first test was more even FES but the squad & the 2 other tests were dominated by the English with 50%.
I agree great series though!

Ps if 50% can be construed as dominated

I keep banging on about this, but McGeechan selected 17 English players for his 30 man tour party in 1993. The main selection controversy was that he didn't choose more English, in particular Jeff Probyn. If any nation seemed overrepresented, it was probably Scotland, since it was some of their forwards who were most heavily criticized for their midweek performances.

Rugby Fan wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:...So it's not just Gatland that favours his own players - strange that....

Of all the problems which did occur in 1983, Telfer favouring Scottish players was not one of them. He didn't rate Fitzgerald above Deans (or even Wheeler) but Fitzgerald started all four Tests as hooker and captain. There were plenty of selection controversies but the squad was fairly evenly split between the four Home Nations.

The Lions was run by committee back then. I don't think the coach would have selected the captain or the touring team. Telfer was also coaching the backs (as if they were forwards) as there was no backs coach. Ciaran Fitzgerald said that Telfer used think that the only function of the Captain was to do the coin toss which wasn't Fitzgerald's style (as an army officer, he was used to taking a leadership role and Telfer was not happy about this). Telfer was public about how he didn't rate Fitzgerald and didn't want him on the team. That did not help the cohesion of the group.

The split from various nations would be fairly even to keep the blazers happy (though both England and Scotland had a very poor 5Ns so why they should have expected to have equal representation I don't know ) It should have been mainly Irish and Welsh going on that.

Who would be everyones choice as a neutral non-current coach?

bedfordwelsh wrote:Who would be everyones choice as a neutral non-current coach?

Probably Gok Wan.

We're going to get kicked in the nuts anyway so we might as well look great whilst we're doing it.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Who would be everyones choice as a neutral non-current coach?

Its not their nationality, its whether they are coaching a national team at the moment.

I'd go for Martin Johnson with Townsend and maybe Vern Cotter as assistants. Shaun Edwards as defence coach.

Sin é wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:Who would be everyones choice as a neutral non-current coach?

Its not their nationality, its whether they are coaching a national team at the moment.

I'd go for Martin Johnson with Townsend and maybe Vern Cotter as assistants. Shaun Edwards as defence coach.

That's what i meant, never mentioned Nationality

Sin é wrote:The Lions was run by committee back then. I don't think the coach would have selected the captain or the touring team.

Exactly. It was up to the committee to make sure the coach and captain they selected were compatible, and they clearly weren't. I don't know what kind of coach McBride would have made, but he surely would have worked better with Fitzgerald.

I wouldn't have had a problem with more Welsh and Irish players in 1983, so long as the coaches knew how to get the best from them. Having said that, when the All Blacks toured north later that year, England (captained by Wheeler) beat them, and Scotland held them to a draw. Certainly, it was a relatively poor touring side, but Wales and Ireland would both acknowledge that New Zealand are never an easy side to beat.

The form of players in a Five or Six Nations tournament preceding a Lions test is not the only metric to use to select a side, and may not even be the best one. One of the reasons Scotland got a better representation in 1993 is because they were the highest ranked Home Nations side in that year's Five Nations. The fault lines were in the squad from the start.

On the other side, there have been clear problems when the Lions have gone for class over form. Phil Bennett had a terrible run in 1977, and McGeechan erred along similar lines with his first Test selection in 1989. The most egregious example is Woodward. England had lost a series in NZ just the year before so, while they had the best record against the southern hemisphere, that was already in the rear view mirror.

One of the best things about the 2009 tour was seeing a lot of in-form players getting selected, and blending so well with those from other sides. BOD and Roberts!

Some players who may not be considered the best thrive in a Lions environment with players of higher standard around them, others who think they belong and are the best in their position realise they are not and get found out.

Sin é wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:...So it's not just Gatland that favours his own players - strange that....

Of all the problems which did occur in 1983, Telfer favouring Scottish players was not one of them. He didn't rate Fitzgerald above Deans (or even Wheeler) but Fitzgerald started all four Tests as hooker and captain. There were plenty of selection controversies but the squad was fairly evenly split between the four Home Nations.

The Lions was run by committee back then. I don't think the coach would have selected the captain or the touring team. Telfer was also coaching the backs (as if they were forwards) as there was no backs coach. Ciaran Fitzgerald said that Telfer used think that the only function of the Captain was to do the coin toss which wasn't Fitzgerald's style (as an army officer, he was used to taking a leadership role and Telfer was not happy about this). Telfer was public about how he didn't rate Fitzgerald and didn't want him on the team. That did not help the cohesion of the group.

The split from various nations would be fairly even to keep the blazers happy (though both England and Scotland had a very poor 5Ns so why they should have expected to have equal representation I don't know  ) It should have been mainly Irish and Welsh going on that.

You've spent this thread complaining about the the fact that there were so many Welsh players on the last tour and that it goes against the ethos of the lions and that there should be equal representation amongst all nations. Now you're making a point about the 1983 tour that it was unfair it was split evenly and there should be mainly Irish players on that tour.

The reality is unless the lions are filled with Irish players, you'll never be happy

The comment about 'there should have been more Irish and Welsh' was tongue in cheek.

I had no issue with so many Welsh going on the last Lions. just that in some cases they didn't deserve to be starting TEst matches and the only reason they were was down to Gatland favouritism.

JD2 .

Sin é wrote:The comment about 'there should have been more Irish and Welsh' was tongue in cheek.

Sorry mate, That's my fault. I'll hold my hand up and admit my reply to you didn't indicate I knew you were taking the pee. I did! I did! Honest!

Sin é wrote:The comment about 'there should have been more Irish and Welsh' was tongue in cheek.

I had no issue with so many Welsh going on the last Lions. just that in some cases they didn't deserve to be starting TEst matches and the only reason they were was down to Gatland favouritism.

Out of interest then what would your test team have been for that last test.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Sin é wrote:The comment about 'there should have been more Irish and Welsh' was tongue in cheek.

I had no issue with so many Welsh going on the last Lions. just that in some cases they didn't deserve to be starting TEst matches and the only reason they were was down to Gatland favouritism.

Out of interest then what would your test team have been for that last test.

Hard to do now, because I've forgotten who was injured back then. I'd imagine if Warburton was fit, he would have started ahead of Sean O'Brien.

My main issue with the BOD dropping was I thought it was very poor from Gatland to wheel BOD out for a press conference that week whereever assumed he was going to be captain and then just drop him out of the 23.

In that selection I would have started BOD & Roberts because up to then, JD was the one who was not performing well and BOD already had played well with Roberts on the '09 Tour. Even at that, I don't know why he had to drop BOD out of the 23 and bring in Tualagi.

Instead of Cutbert/unfit Tommy Bowe, I'd have moved North to the right wing and put Zebo on the left. The most criminal selection though was how he kept picking and unfit Mike Phillips when it was just so obvious that Conor Murray (who was used to playing with both Sexton & Heaslip), didn't get to start a Test when he was playing out of his skin.

If they were injured then that's hardly the coaches fault.

I agree about Phillips over Murray and did do at the time, BOD wasn't in the great form were as JD had been very good IMO and that's the main issue it's all about opinions but at the end of the day it's the coaches decision that matters not ours.

I doubt if everyone will ever agree 100% with any coaches decision as we all think we know better and have our opinions.

bedfordwelsh wrote:If they were injured then that's hardly the coaches fault.

I agree about Phillips over Murray and did do at the time, BOD wasn't in the great form were as JD had been very good IMO and that's the main issue it's all about opinions but at the end of the day it's the coaches decision that matters not ours.

I doubt if everyone will ever agree 100% with any coaches decision as we all think we know better and have our opinions.

I think the Guardian gave JD 4/10 in their Player Ratings for the 2nd Test. Going on form, JD should have been the one dropped. Perhaps Tualagi might have been tried there instead of Gatland persisting with JD or was he afraid that he might have made it difficult for him to get both JD & Roberts onto the pitch together if BOD & Tualagi clicked?

What do you think of Gatland wheeling BOD out for a press conference the week of the 3rd Test and then dropping him from the 23?

I don't want to get into inter-country bickering before the thing has even started in earnest but 1997 was also my favorite tour.

Genuine mix of nations, lack of obvious egos and the whole squad greater than the sum of its parts. Wonderful - I had just turned 20 and really appreciated every moment.

The only disappointing things on these threads is anyone being disingenuous and pretending that it doesn't matter to them of their nation is not fairly represented. Of course it matters and any whiff of favoritism is the most poisonous thing of all given the competition for places. 2005 was such a foul jamboree of spin, nepotistic selection stitch-ups and bad feeling that I was delighted to see it fall on its arse.

Tuilagi was part crocked at the time so wasn't really/ should not have been an option although he had played very well alongside BOD earlier in the tour.

As has often been said (and seemingly often forgotten) dropping BOD for JD wasn't the decisive factor in the 3rd test

I am amazed BODGate is still being discussed.

Perhaps if Irish fans could accept he was not playing well enough and Welsh fans could accept the manner in which Gatloand chose to drop him, while lookingblike a smug Tory politician announcing massive job cuts in Port talbort, was unnaceptable - well then we could move on.

I got know problems admitting Gatland sometimes has poor man management skills, its mean noted before the tour and since and will happen again but fact is he made the decision and the record books will show he won a Lions tour.

bedfordwelsh wrote:... the record books will show he won a Lions tour...

They certainly will, and a win is always to be celebrated. However, one peculiarity about Lions tours is that they are always remembered for more than the result. That's one reason 2009 is remembered fondly despite being a loss. Gatland's tour is an oddball in that success on the pitch still left some supporters unhappy.

I watched some scenes from this tour earlier where Hibbard gave Zebo a fine - the one where he had to call Rob Penney and talk about the Munster captaincy. It was then that it clicked for me, that Sin was a massive liar when he said the Welsh players weren't being sociable on tour.