Warren Gatland announced as Lions coach

First topic message reminder :

Apparently, according to Ian McGeechan anyway Gatland has been given the job again.

Bryne and Kearney were both very close to each other. Bryne was probably form 15 going into tour. Kearney was just breaking through as a top class player. Not surprised Bryne got the nod, not surprised Kearney did well when Bryne got injured.

propdavid_london wrote:So who would be in line for the bolter spots for the Lions?
My own definition of bolter being - someone that isn't a fully established international (possible fringe or minor international recognition).  Simon Zebo on the last tour.

He was on the last tour as a late replacement - But I would still class Christian Wade as a bolter.

For England I would consider - Dan Robson.
Who else is there that could be considered?

10 is going to be an interesting choice I feel. Paddy Jackson or Finn Russell may be the bolters there as I am not sure Sexton will be there if I am honest.

Captain will be a tough call but I would not be surprised to see Hartley Captain but I have this feeling Itoje is going to be the man in Charge for England sooner rather than later.

Sin é wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:I'd say Byrne was definitely the favourite for the 15 shirt (before injury), but Kearney did a fine job when he came in.

Byrne started the first Test anyway so surely he was 1st choice?

Surprise, surprise the British press select a British player for a position.

Rob Kearney was the form fullback that season if anyone bothered to look.

Irish press select Irish player for a position.... Those English papers don't like us Welsh btw.

He was 2nd to Byrne, but in the closing stages of the tour Kearney established himself as the best and was the best from that point forward. That's how it is, fact.

Byrne injured his ankle in the 6 Nations and played very little rugby prior to going on tour (2 starts in the PRO12). Meanwhile, Kearney had won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup and proved on tour that he should have been the starting fullback. Back then, when the kicking game was in vogue, he was the best fullback in the world for that aspect of the game.

So I dug out a bunch of pundits, all of whom bar one had Byrne at fullback. Keith Wood included.

Can you find me some evidence that Lee Byrne wasn't the favourite to start at 15 in the Test series in 2009, other than your own opinion of the matter?

I think my point still stands. Kearney was a Test XV outsider, albeit not much separating the two principal options (as is usually the case with the Lions).

In the end all coaches have favourites and a style of play which suits certain players... often their own national players are such and given they go through a lot with such players is it any surprise they trust home players over over those they don't know.

I can't see how a coach though would prefer playing his home players and lose the series over playing 15 players from the other 3 teams and win.

fa0019 wrote:Bryne and Kearney were both very close to each other. Bryne was probably form 15 going into tour. Kearney was just breaking through as a top class player. Not surprised Bryne got the nod, not surprised Kearney did well when Bryne got injured.

How can you judge Byrne being the form fullback going into the tour when the only rugby he played prior to the tour (between March & June)was about about 140 mins (v. Edinburgh & Dragons)?

I've no doubt that Byrne was selected on reputation rather than form.

The point that a coach will favour home players shouldn't really apply here though should it given he's going on an extended break to,presumably, scope his options and do his homework.

eirebilly wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:So who would be in line for the bolter spots for the Lions?
My own definition of bolter being - someone that isn't a fully established international (possible fringe or minor international recognition).  Simon Zebo on the last tour.

He was on the last tour as a late replacement - But I would still class Christian Wade as a bolter.

For England I would consider - Dan Robson.
Who else is there that could be considered?

10 is going to be an interesting choice I feel. Paddy Jackson or Finn Russell may be the bolters there as I am not sure Sexton will be there if I am honest.

Captain will be a tough call but I would not be surprised to see Hartley Captain but I have this feeling Itoje is going to be the man in Charge for England sooner rather than later.

Agreed on Wade. I'd certainly have him down as a potential bolter. I do think Paddy Jackson has a shot, plus I think Nathan Hughes will make a strong case.

From a Scotland perspective we don't really have many "fringe internationals" who I'd think stand a chance. As GC points out, Cornell Du Preez becomes SQ this season and is a tank (think CJ Stander) and, if you want a long long long shot, I'd put forward Stuart McInally at hooker.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:I'd say Byrne was definitely the favourite for the 15 shirt (before injury), but Kearney did a fine job when he came in.

Byrne started the first Test anyway so surely he was 1st choice?

Surprise, surprise the British press select a British player for a position.

Rob Kearney was the form fullback that season if anyone bothered to look.

Irish press select Irish player for a position.... Those English papers don't like us Welsh btw.

He was 2nd to Byrne, but in the closing stages of the tour Kearney established himself as the best and was the best from that point forward. That's how it is, fact.

Byrne injured his ankle in the 6 Nations and played very little rugby prior to going on tour (2 starts in the PRO12). Meanwhile, Kearney had won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup and proved on tour that he should have been the starting fullback. Back then, when the kicking game was in vogue, he was the best fullback in the world for that aspect of the game.

So I dug out a bunch of pundits, all of whom bar one had Byrne at fullback. Keith Wood included.

Can you find me some evidence that Lee Byrne wasn't the favourite to start at 15 in the Test series in 2009, other than your own opinion of the matter?

I think my point still stands. Kearney was a Test XV outsider, albeit not much separating the two principal options (as is usually the case with the Lions).

Keith Wood thought BOD should have started the 3rd test  I'd imagine most people are influenced by who the coaching staff are likely to pick as well, so its hardly surprising that Howley would have been pushing Byrne.

Byrne was selected on reputation, nothing else. Anyone who watched how the game was being played at the time would have known beforehand that Kearney was the man for the job.

By the way, as a BBC pundit, Woody knows who butters his bread

Bolters from England could be, Slade, Robson, Hughes, Genge, Hill, Daly and Mallinder.

Not suggesting they'll all make it but they're all capable of making huge strides this season.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:So who would be in line for the bolter spots for the Lions?
My own definition of bolter being - someone that isn't a fully established international (possible fringe or minor international recognition).  Simon Zebo on the last tour.

He was on the last tour as a late replacement - But I would still class Christian Wade as a bolter.

For England I would consider - Dan Robson.
Who else is there that could be considered?

10 is going to be an interesting choice I feel. Paddy Jackson or Finn Russell may be the bolters there as I am not sure Sexton will be there if I am honest.

Captain will be a tough call but I would not be surprised to see Hartley Captain but I have this feeling Itoje is going to be the man in Charge for England sooner rather than later.

Agreed on Wade. I'd certainly have him down as a potential bolter. I do think Paddy Jackson has a shot, plus I think Nathan Hughes will make a strong case.

From a Scotland perspective we don't really have many "fringe internationals" who I'd think stand a chance. As GC points out, Cornell Du Preez becomes SQ this season and is a tank (think CJ Stander) and, if you want a long long long shot, I'd put forward Stuart McInally at hooker.

Wade can't be a bolter as he has already toured with the Lions. A bolter is someone who is a young player starting out that has played very little international rugby, if any. Paddy Jackson and Wade are passed the bolter stage now. Wade was 2013, Keith Earls was 2009, don't know who was 2005, and ROG was 2001.

Only suggesting Irish players here because by the nature of the selection, they are fairly unknown yet (before anyone gets their knickers in a twist), but I'd say someone like Gary Ringrose at Leinster or Darren Sweetnam with Munster would be the kind of player that might make the tour as a bolter.

Wade still only has the one cap 4 years on.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Cyril wrote:I'd say Byrne was definitely the favourite for the 15 shirt (before injury), but Kearney did a fine job when he came in.

Byrne started the first Test anyway so surely he was 1st choice?

Surprise, surprise the British press select a British player for a position.

Rob Kearney was the form fullback that season if anyone bothered to look.

Irish press select Irish player for a position.... Those English papers don't like us Welsh btw.

He was 2nd to Byrne, but in the closing stages of the tour Kearney established himself as the best and was the best from that point forward. That's how it is, fact.

Byrne injured his ankle in the 6 Nations and played very little rugby prior to going on tour (2 starts in the PRO12). Meanwhile, Kearney had won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup and proved on tour that he should have been the starting fullback. Back then, when the kicking game was in vogue, he was the best fullback in the world for that aspect of the game.

So I dug out a bunch of pundits, all of whom bar one had Byrne at fullback. Keith Wood included.

Can you find me some evidence that Lee Byrne wasn't the favourite to start at 15 in the Test series in 2009, other than your own opinion of the matter?

I think my point still stands. Kearney was a Test XV outsider, albeit not much separating the two principal options (as is usually the case with the Lions).

Yikes! Byrne must have been pretty good back then

I honestly can't remember how well Kearney played in 2008-2009 versus Lee Byrne. I just remember that Byrne was the frontrunner and was selected for the Test XV, got himself injured and then Kearney came through and played very well......which was exactly the point I was making!!

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:So who would be in line for the bolter spots for the Lions?
My own definition of bolter being - someone that isn't a fully established international (possible fringe or minor international recognition).  Simon Zebo on the last tour.

He was on the last tour as a late replacement - But I would still class Christian Wade as a bolter.

For England I would consider - Dan Robson.
Who else is there that could be considered?

10 is going to be an interesting choice I feel. Paddy Jackson or Finn Russell may be the bolters there as I am not sure Sexton will be there if I am honest.

Captain will be a tough call but I would not be surprised to see Hartley Captain but I have this feeling Itoje is going to be the man in Charge for England sooner rather than later.

Agreed on Wade. I'd certainly have him down as a potential bolter. I do think Paddy Jackson has a shot, plus I think Nathan Hughes will make a strong case.

From a Scotland perspective we don't really have many "fringe internationals" who I'd think stand a chance. As GC points out, Cornell Du Preez becomes SQ this season and is a tank (think CJ Stander) and, if you want a long long long shot, I'd put forward Stuart McInally at hooker.

Wade can't be a bolter as he has already toured with the Lions. A bolter is someone who is a young player starting out that has played very little international rugby, if any. Paddy Jackson and Wade are passed the bolter stage now. Wade was 2013, Keith Earls was 2009, don't know who was 2005, and ROG was 2001.

Only suggesting Irish players here because by the nature of the selection, they are fairly unknown yet (before anyone gets their knickers in a twist), but I'd say someone like Gary Ringrose at Leinster or Darren Sweetnam with Munster would be the kind of player that might make the tour as a bolter.

That's your definition. I'll stick with the original one proposed by propdavid-London, as it was he who put forward the question for debate.

I think people need to forget about bolters. Those days have gone with the end of the amateur era.

The gap between test and domestic rugby are now so vast it makes any true bolter as unlikely. In the past it wasn't such a step up. Playing well vs. Bath, Leinster is one thing but then putting it together vs. NZ is on another planet.

Robinson in 2001 was different given he had been a top class pro league player for 8 years by then. Keith Earls... man, I be the still has nightmares about that tour.

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Bryne and Kearney were both very close to each other. Bryne was probably form 15 going into tour. Kearney was just breaking through as a top class player. Not surprised Bryne got the nod, not surprised Kearney did well when Bryne got injured.

How can you judge Byrne being the form fullback going into the tour when the only rugby he played prior to the tour (between March & June)was about about 140 mins (v. Edinburgh & Dragons)?

I've no doubt that Byrne was selected on reputation rather than form.

6 Nations? AI series? All that same season... Byrne went off injured against you btw, his ankle injury that would eventually end his career in rugby union. Wales made a mistake by not having Halfpenny in the team that day, the one-dimensional Mark Jones was selected instead.

fa0019 wrote:I think people need to forget about bolters. Those days have gone with the end of the amateur era.

The gap between test and domestic rugby are now so vast it makes any true bolter as unlikely. In the past it wasn't such a step up. Playing well vs. Bath, Leinster is one thing but then putting it together vs. NZ is on another planet.

Robinson in 2001 was different given he had been a top class pro league player for 8 years by then. Keith Earls... man, I be the still has nightmares about that tour.

I'm not so sure. If you define it as propdavid_London did, then I think it's plausible that a player outside/on the fringe of international rugby (or not in his home nations XV) could make the tour (and who knows from there). Plenty countries make a hash of team selection, leaving some very talented players on the sidelines.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Bryne and Kearney were both very close to each other. Bryne was probably form 15 going into tour. Kearney was just breaking through as a top class player. Not surprised Bryne got the nod, not surprised Kearney did well when Bryne got injured.

How can you judge Byrne being the form fullback going into the tour when the only rugby he played prior to the tour (between March & June)was about about 140 mins (v. Edinburgh & Dragons)?

I've no doubt that Byrne was selected on reputation rather than form.

6 Nations? AI series? All that same season... Byrne went off injured against you btw, his ankle injury that would eventually end his career in rugby union. Wales made a mistake by not having Halfpenny in the team that day, the one-dimensional Mark Jones was selected instead.

The AI's om 2008 he was standout if I recall. I can't remember much complaints at the time over his selection. Not sure why its being used as an example as he was in his pomp at the time.

Every nation can be seen as having favoritism. Every nation can be seen as having nightmare players on tour i.e. Vickery, Bryne, Earls, Powell, Hook, Peters, Wright, Wallace

But Bryne vs. Kearney.... hardly clear cut.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

fa0019 wrote:I think people need to forget about bolters. Those days have gone with the end of the amateur era.

The gap between test and domestic rugby are now so vast it makes any true bolter as unlikely. In the past it wasn't such a step up. Playing well vs. Bath, Leinster is one thing but then putting it together vs. NZ is on another planet.

Robinson in 2001 was different given he had been a top class pro league player for 8 years by then. Keith Earls... man, I be the still has nightmares about that tour.

I'm not so sure. If you define it as propdavid_London did, then I think it's plausible that a player outside/on the fringe of international rugby (or not in his home nations XV) could make the tour (and who knows from there). Plenty countries make a hash of team selection, leaving some very talented players on the sidelines.

We're not talking guys who are 30 cap vets who are no longer being considered i.e. Matt Perry vs. Iain Balshaw in 2001 right.... but newbies aged <23 with <5 caps. If so it would be a very very small list.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Bryne and Kearney were both very close to each other. Bryne was probably form 15 going into tour. Kearney was just breaking through as a top class player. Not surprised Bryne got the nod, not surprised Kearney did well when Bryne got injured.

How can you judge Byrne being the form fullback going into the tour when the only rugby he played prior to the tour (between March & June)was about about 140 mins (v. Edinburgh & Dragons)?

I've no doubt that Byrne was selected on reputation rather than form.

6 Nations? AI series? All that same season... Byrne went off injured against you btw, his ankle injury that would eventually end his career in rugby union. Wales made a mistake by not having Halfpenny in the team that day, the one-dimensional Mark Jones was selected instead.

Wales were 4th in the 6Ns. So now you are saying Byrne was selected even though he wasn't fit! It just gets better.

For the record, has Byrne ever been on the winning side v. a Southern Hemisphere team? I note that Byrne has never been on any side that beat South Africa, whereas Kearney has won 75% of his matches v. SA when playing for Ireland.

Agree, and I think it is a very small list. I'm not sure I'd go by age to determine a "bolter", but certainly someone who is currently on the periphery of international rugby (e.g. Christian Wade, Gary Ringrose, James Davies, Cornell Du Preez).

I listed Stuart McInally previously, but that's probably cheating. He's Scotland's second choice hooker having successfully made the transition from number 8 to hooker. He's also co-captain of Edinburgh. I mentioned him on the basis that all Scots ought to be considered "bolters" there days!!

Sin é wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Bryne and Kearney were both very close to each other. Bryne was probably form 15 going into tour. Kearney was just breaking through as a top class player. Not surprised Bryne got the nod, not surprised Kearney did well when Bryne got injured.

How can you judge Byrne being the form fullback going into the tour when the only rugby he played prior to the tour (between March & June)was about about 140 mins (v. Edinburgh & Dragons)?

I've no doubt that Byrne was selected on reputation rather than form.

6 Nations? AI series? All that same season... Byrne went off injured against you btw, his ankle injury that would eventually end his career in rugby union. Wales made a mistake by not having Halfpenny in the team that day, the one-dimensional Mark Jones was selected instead.

Wales were 4th in the 6Ns. So now you are saying Byrne was selected even though he wasn't fit! It just gets better.

For the record, has Byrne ever been on the winning side v. a Southern Hemisphere team? I note that Byrne has never been on any side that beat South Africa, whereas Kearney has won 75% of his matches v. SA when playing for Ireland.

That settles it.

For a bolter - how about Peter Horne? Very elusive runner and great footballer who has not had the recognition he deserves.

TJ wrote:For a bolter - how about Peter Horne?  Very elusive runner and great footballer who has not had the recognition he deserves.  

Not a daft shout, and he played well under pressure in the World Cup, but I think the 10/12 slot will be relatively settled already (barring a miracle).

I'd expect Biggar and Farrell to both go (with Farrell covering 12), and I think George Ford will go as well. I don't see any other 10s making it, unless Jackson really pushes hard to go instead of Ford. I think we'll then see a couple of players who can play both 12 and 13, like Henshaw, S Williams, Dunbar and Tuilagi, with perhaps a specialist 12 (e.g. Roberts/McCloskey) and a specialist 13 (e.g. Joseph/Bennett).

It would be lolz if Gatland picked a Welsh lad that Howley had overlooked for the 6 nations

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:So who would be in line for the bolter spots for the Lions?
My own definition of bolter being - someone that isn't a fully established international (possible fringe or minor international recognition).  Simon Zebo on the last tour.

He was on the last tour as a late replacement - But I would still class Christian Wade as a bolter.

For England I would consider - Dan Robson.
Who else is there that could be considered?

10 is going to be an interesting choice I feel. Paddy Jackson or Finn Russell may be the bolters there as I am not sure Sexton will be there if I am honest.

Captain will be a tough call but I would not be surprised to see Hartley Captain but I have this feeling Itoje is going to be the man in Charge for England sooner rather than later.

Agreed on Wade. I'd certainly have him down as a potential bolter. I do think Paddy Jackson has a shot, plus I think Nathan Hughes will make a strong case.

From a Scotland perspective we don't really have many "fringe internationals" who I'd think stand a chance. As GC points out, Cornell Du Preez becomes SQ this season and is a tank (think CJ Stander) and, if you want a long long long shot, I'd put forward Stuart McInally at hooker.

Wade can't be a bolter as he has already toured with the Lions. A bolter is someone who is a young player starting out that has played very little international rugby, if any. Paddy Jackson and Wade are passed the bolter stage now. Wade was 2013, Keith Earls was 2009, don't know who was 2005, and ROG was 2001.

Only suggesting Irish players here because by the nature of the selection, they are fairly unknown yet (before anyone gets their knickers in a twist), but I'd say someone like Gary Ringrose at Leinster or Darren Sweetnam with Munster would be the kind of player that might make the tour as a bolter.

That's your definition. I'll stick with the original one proposed by propdavid-London, as it was he who put forward the question for debate.

Suit yourself, but I'll stick with how the Lions actually do it.

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Bryne and Kearney were both very close to each other. Bryne was probably form 15 going into tour. Kearney was just breaking through as a top class player. Not surprised Bryne got the nod, not surprised Kearney did well when Bryne got injured.

How can you judge Byrne being the form fullback going into the tour when the only rugby he played prior to the tour (between March & June)was about about 140 mins (v. Edinburgh & Dragons)?

I've no doubt that Byrne was selected on reputation rather than form.

6 Nations? AI series? All that same season... Byrne went off injured against you btw, his ankle injury that would eventually end his career in rugby union. Wales made a mistake by not having Halfpenny in the team that day, the one-dimensional Mark Jones was selected instead.

The AI's om 2008 he was standout if I recall. I can't remember much complaints at the time over his selection. Not sure why its being used as an example as he was in his pomp at the time.

Every nation can be seen as having favoritism. Every nation can be seen as having nightmare players on tour i.e. Vickery, Bryne, Earls, Powell, Hook, Peters, Wright, Wallace

But Bryne vs. Kearney.... hardly clear cut.

Because like Keith Wood, Sin hates Wales.

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:So who would be in line for the bolter spots for the Lions?
My own definition of bolter being - someone that isn't a fully established international (possible fringe or minor international recognition).  Simon Zebo on the last tour.

He was on the last tour as a late replacement - But I would still class Christian Wade as a bolter.

For England I would consider - Dan Robson.
Who else is there that could be considered?

10 is going to be an interesting choice I feel. Paddy Jackson or Finn Russell may be the bolters there as I am not sure Sexton will be there if I am honest.

Captain will be a tough call but I would not be surprised to see Hartley Captain but I have this feeling Itoje is going to be the man in Charge for England sooner rather than later.

Agreed on Wade. I'd certainly have him down as a potential bolter. I do think Paddy Jackson has a shot, plus I think Nathan Hughes will make a strong case.

From a Scotland perspective we don't really have many "fringe internationals" who I'd think stand a chance. As GC points out, Cornell Du Preez becomes SQ this season and is a tank (think CJ Stander) and, if you want a long long long shot, I'd put forward Stuart McInally at hooker.

Wade can't be a bolter as he has already toured with the Lions. A bolter is someone who is a young player starting out that has played very little international rugby, if any. Paddy Jackson and Wade are passed the bolter stage now. Wade was 2013, Keith Earls was 2009, don't know who was 2005, and ROG was 2001.

Only suggesting Irish players here because by the nature of the selection, they are fairly unknown yet (before anyone gets their knickers in a twist), but I'd say someone like Gary Ringrose at Leinster or Darren Sweetnam with Munster would be the kind of player that might make the tour as a bolter.

That's your definition. I'll stick with the original one proposed by propdavid-London, as it was he who put forward the question for debate.

Suit yourself, but I'll stick with how the Lions actually do it.

What on earth are you talking about?? We're having a private forum debate with the terms of that debate being set by one of the posters, to which we are responding.

Stephen Jones has put Ruaridh Jackson in his 'current' pick for Lions no. 10s (no Sexton or Ford).

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Bryne and Kearney were both very close to each other. Bryne was probably form 15 going into tour. Kearney was just breaking through as a top class player. Not surprised Bryne got the nod, not surprised Kearney did well when Bryne got injured.

How can you judge Byrne being the form fullback going into the tour when the only rugby he played prior to the tour (between March & June)was about about 140 mins (v. Edinburgh & Dragons)?

I've no doubt that Byrne was selected on reputation rather than form.

6 Nations? AI series? All that same season... Byrne went off injured against you btw, his ankle injury that would eventually end his career in rugby union. Wales made a mistake by not having Halfpenny in the team that day, the one-dimensional Mark Jones was selected instead.

The AI's om 2008 he was standout if I recall. I can't remember much complaints at the time over his selection. Not sure why its being used as an example as he was in his pomp at the time.

Every nation can be seen as having favoritism. Every nation can be seen as having nightmare players on tour i.e. Vickery, Bryne, Earls, Powell, Hook, Peters, Wright, Wallace

But Bryne vs. Kearney.... hardly clear cut.

Because like Keith Wood, Sin hates Wales.

Keith Wood picked Byrne to start though, as did all the pundits I could find with the exception of one. Odd, given Sin e is telling us that Kearney was a shoe-in presumptive Test XV starter.

Cyril wrote:Stephen Jones has put Ruaridh Jackson in his 'current' pick for Lions no. 10s (no Sexton or Ford).

That is absurd.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Cyril wrote:Stephen Jones

That is absurd.

True story

offload wrote:Everything to play for over the next six months but I will be amazed if Gatland chooses Warburton as his captain because I don't see Wales improving enough this season.

Why is Warburton's captaincy conditional on Wales being the best team in the 6N, or even just "nearly" the best? Nevertheless, last season they finished 2nd in the 6N, and got as far as any NH team did in the RWC, significantly further than England. They're perhaps underachieving at the moment, but that's a testament to the fact that they have a crop of first team players who are very good indeed, and perhaps a handful who could be described as World Class. Whilst that probably means there won't be masses of Welsh players going on Tour (which is reasonable, I don't think many are arguing for the same number as the 2013 Tour), why does the captain have to be from the 'best' (most attractive, most talented, yet not necessarily the one who wins the title) NH team? Or even worse, the one who wins the 6N in the season of the Tour? What a truly superficial and dubious criterion to justify a captain's selection.

Don't forget, a season is a long time: England are currently being hailed as the second best team in the World, without the caveat that it might not be as fixed a status as the actions and assertions of some would have you believe. Don't forget what England were doing less than a year ago. Furthermore, don't conflate the merits of an individual player with the most recent form and results of the team he plays in. Class and pedigree shouldn't be discounted for form, or the perception of form. There has to be a reciprocal relationship in analysing players.

I don't disagree with much of your analysis, but I just think you've fallen into the trap many fans fall into of being a bit short term in their judgement of things, and not really considering enough factors that will come into play when selection (of the squad, and captaincy) is made. That's why top level coaches get the big money, because those factors (not just in terms of selection) become second nature, and they get them right more often that not, until they no longer do, and they stop getting the big bucks.

One thing I do agree with you over is AWJ, who faces a real test to start against the All Blacks at lock, and one that probably discounts him from being captain. He'll be in the leadership team, no doubt, and he's been effectively the shouty, stereotypical captain alongside Warburton's more measured leadership for Wales. I'd expect him to be that for the Lions, regardless of the opponent, even if it's the midweek team (where he may well be made the captain from time to time). But it would be too big a call to make him Tour captain, there are too many locks who are all at the same sort of level, but who bring different things to the table. One major positive in Hartley's favour is that he does seem to be front runner at hooker at this stage. Who else is behind him? At this point, I think only Ken Owens stands a good chance of touring, purely because he has an ability in the loose like no other hooker has in the NH. However, he's been far more effective off the bench for Wales, and has only really nailed the starting shirt during the NZ tour. Rory Best? Any Scottish hooker? So yeah, Hartley stands a good chance to start in the Test as long as he's still picked to start by Eddie Jones, because I expect England's second choice to go too. That said, I'm not sure that makes up to shortfall he has on Warburton, put it does put him in a very good position.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:its been a long time since Warburton has come close to the 3 performances Haskell put in against Australia just recently.

This is the mistake so many people make though, particularly when the idea of "best" comes into analysing players in the same position. Haskell, under his second wind, is in fantastic form, arguably the form of his life. He's a genuinely effective player, and I'd have him in the squad. However, let's consider a few things. Haskell's playing behind a very dominant pack, which is both strong, and now mobile and dynamic, something England haven't always been. It's making it very hard for other teams at the breakdown, and it seems to have taken a lot of sides by surprise almost. Australia were also a shadow of the team that beat England in the World Cup. I'm not saying it counts for nothing, but it's not the best barometer to judge against Warburton, who played a NZ team head and shoulders better than the Australians. Warburton was, for me, the only Welsh player to keep up with the intensity of the All Blacks, and- despite not being in the form of his life- played pretty well, and was still a nuisance at the breakdown for them.

Here's the crux of the matter, who is the better 7 when in good form? Warburton, surely. Now, he may not be there at the moment, but equally, nor may Haskell by the time the Lions Tour comes around next Summer. It is also perhaps a false judgement to base his recent proficiency at openside when playing behind such a dominant pack at the breakdown, for several reasons: one is that there will be second season syndrome, whereby coaches will have been able to work out some of Eddie Jones' tactics, and the effectiveness would be decreased. Secondly, is it useful to judge an openside when behind a dominant pack when he will be playing NZ in NZ? It will be a whole different ball game having to dominate the breakdown when playing a team that is so proficient at it, and will likely be winning more of the contestable rucks than they lose.

Now, that doesn't mean Haskell is a bad player. It merely means that, using the evidence of history, I don't think Haskell at 7 would be the best option for the Lions down in NZ. I think they need someone who's better at the breakdown. Warburton has never had a bad game for Wales, genuinely, but part of his apparent lack of the headline stealing stuff in latter seasons is the way he is marked out of the game. Team, particularly Ireland I notice, double and triple up on him at ruck time, effectively sacrificing their own players at the next ruck in order to nullify Warburton's impact, such is his threat. He's still absolutely devastating when he gets in and around the ball, and although Wales are unfortunately hit and miss at exploiting the extra attention he receives, I hope the Lions wouldn't be, such is the calibre available to them.

Again, I would take Haskell, but I still see him as a versatile back row player. He's a better 8, and probably a better 6, than Warburton, and I feel his versatility could see him make the bench for the Test team.

Finally, whether you agree or disagree with this stance, Gatland is much more likely to select 'component part' players, rather than good all rounders (Haskell, Robshaw etc.) for his team. That has its benefits, and it certainly has its limitations. I've seen it work well for Wales, but also seen it hamper the team when players like Cuthbert and Lydiate are picked because of their one exceptional function, yet it is their weaknesses elsewhere that are exposed. It's another notch in favour of Warburton over Haskell though, in addition to my own analysis of the two players' respective merits above.

mikey_dragon wrote:I'm struggling to understand why James Davies is so highly rated? A decent prospect yes but he's not even the second best open-side in Wales. Have a few of you been hanging out with Turks?

That's Josh Navidi, right? Because he looks good playing in the Pro12, whereas Tipuric hasn't made the same impact off the bench for the Lions & Wales.

Guys, we're straying into the dangerous territory of proper analysis here.

TJ wrote:warburton is a good leader no doubt - but the captain must be an automatic pick as the best in his position and warburton simply isn't right now.

What a really bad way to select a captain. As the gap between the NH teams continues to decrease due to the professionalism of rugby, it's only going to be more the case that there's lots of split decisions in most positions. Until there's a once in a generation type player, like Shane Williams, or Brian O'Driscoll, it's never going to be the case that there is an "automatic" pick for the Test team. So what do you do? Do you make that automatic pick captain? It worked with BoD, but that was because of all his other attributes. I hope you wouldn't advocate having Shane Williams, or Jason Robinson, as Tour captain for the Lions on the same basis?

funnyExiledScot wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Bryne and Kearney were both very close to each other. Bryne was probably form 15 going into tour. Kearney was just breaking through as a top class player. Not surprised Bryne got the nod, not surprised Kearney did well when Bryne got injured.

How can you judge Byrne being the form fullback going into the tour when the only rugby he played prior to the tour (between March & June)was about about 140 mins (v. Edinburgh & Dragons)?

I've no doubt that Byrne was selected on reputation rather than form.

6 Nations? AI series? All that same season... Byrne went off injured against you btw, his ankle injury that would eventually end his career in rugby union. Wales made a mistake by not having Halfpenny in the team that day, the one-dimensional Mark Jones was selected instead.

The AI's om 2008 he was standout if I recall. I can't remember much complaints at the time over his selection. Not sure why its being used as an example as he was in his pomp at the time.

Every nation can be seen as having favoritism. Every nation can be seen as having nightmare players on tour i.e. Vickery, Bryne, Earls, Powell, Hook, Peters, Wright, Wallace

But Bryne vs. Kearney.... hardly clear cut.

Because like Keith Wood, Sin hates Wales.

Keith Wood picked Byrne to start though, as did all the pundits I could find with the exception of one. Odd, given Sin e is telling us that Kearney was a shoe-in presumptive Test XV starter.

I responded to your comment :.

Examples of outsiders becoming key players in the Test XV:

1997 - Jeremy Davidson, Tom Smith
2001 - Rob Henderson, Martin Corry
2005 - Ryan Jones
2009 - Matthew Rees, Tom Croft, Rob Kearney
2013 - JD2

As a fullback that had just won a Six Nations and a Heineken Cup, and the nature of the way rugby was being played at the time, I disagree with you that Kearney should have been considered as an outsider (though I suppose you have to make allowances of the mainly Welsh management team).

I didn't argue that he was a shoe-in for fullback. I even said that Stuart Hogg should have been given a better chance.

Mieow - yes I would say the captain has to be a definite starter in his position and nailed on at that. We have all too often seen the consequences of picking a captain then having to find them a place in the team.

TJ wrote:If Hogg had been welsh he would have started every test.

If Hogg had been Welsh, you'd have to question whether he'd even be playing international rugby. Gatland held Liam Williams back for years because of his style of play, and the fact Halfpenny was so integral to kicking the points Wales gleaned from other teams' breakdowns and scrums during that period.

TJ wrote:there is no way on earth that the last lions tour should have had so many welsh in it if picked on merit.  Gatland went with what he knew and was comfortable with unless someone else forced their way in.  Now maybe you can justify that on the grounds they knew the tactics and Gatland knew them but that lions party was not the best of the home nations.

1. Why, other than a platitude about the globe, should it not have so many Welsh players?
2. Why is a coach selecting players he is more certain can perform the task he will ascribe them to a negative?
3. Why should the Lions be the 'best', which I'm going to assume means most talented players, from the Home Nations? Do you advocate Cipriani and Henson going next Summer? The coach selects the squad that perform the "best" for him, and that's what Gatland did (and won).

This was not Wales plus, the input of the other three nations' players was integral.

TJ wrote:Anyway we will see when the team is selected but I have come round to the view I don't really want any scots to go. Last tour damaged those scots who went as they were ignored for the test side no matter what they did. I don't want that happening again.

That's fine. I wonder what the Scotland players who went last time, and those who will be selected this time, would say to such a proposal.

Cyril wrote:Stephen Jones has put Ruaridh Jackson in his 'current' pick for Lions no. 10s (no Sexton or Ford).

Nuttier than squirrel pellets.

Just to clear up any misconceptions about who this is:

  
    Ruaridh Jackson          A sad, homeless man

Sin é wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Because Lee Byrne was the starter?

Why would he have been regarded as the starter? He had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup! He was the one who was expected to start (particularly with Luke Fitz & Tommy Bowe on the wings).

Oh and I forgot - the indulgence that a totally out of form Shane Williams was ridiculous on the 2009 tour.

Here you go. Next.

Sin é wrote:Mike Phillips was injured and very off form and selected ahead of the inform Conor Murray whose national half back partner Sexton was the outhalf.

Yeah.

Sin é wrote:Tommy Bowe was rushed back too quickly (and hasn't been the same player since).

Yeah, although arguable if he had been the Tommy Bowe of old in the two seasons leading up to the Lions

Sin é wrote:An inform Sean O'Brien should have been starting ahead of Warburton.

Na

Sin é wrote:Alex Cuthbert should not have been a starting Lion with plenty of other backs who would have been well up to it, but they were not big lumps so were only there to hold tackle bags (which most of them didn't mind because they were well paid for it).

Two things. Cuthbert is in no way picked because he's a big lump in the traditional sense. He's powderpuff. The man's strength belies his size. He was picked because, despite the fact he is deficient in almost all rugby playing skills, with ball in hand and some space to get up to speed, he's one of the best finishers in World Rugby. He doesn't have a step, he doesn't have a hand off, he has something of a swerve, but he can score some incredible tries. Probably shouldn't have been picked though. I'd let go the idea that Gatland just wants 6" 5' thugs from 1 to XV though. It's a rather limited understanding of his tactics.

I'd also query whether already very well paid men really "don't mind" selection apparently made contrary to merit, purely because they're being paid well by the Lions. Sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Because Lee Byrne was the starter?

Why would he have been regarded as the starter? He had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup! He was the one who was expected to start (particularly with Luke Fitz & Tommy Bowe on the wings).

Oh and I forgot - the indulgence that a totally out of form Shane Williams was ridiculous on the 2009 tour.

Here you go. Next.

Fitzgerald was a complete joke of a selection. I don't even think an Irish fan could have claimed as such.

In 1997 the backline first choice was

Howley (2nd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)
Townsend (3rd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)
Tait (3rd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)
Gibbs (2nd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)
Guscott (1st of home nations in 5N with 6 points)
Evans (2nd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)
Jenkins (2nd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)

3 Welsh after the won a single game, 1 Englishman after they won 3 (and he was a sub throughout the tournament), 2 Scots after they too won a single game.

Sometimes the best players aren't the ones coming from the best teams at the time.

Sin é wrote:Would JD2 been a starter for the final test if he wasn't a Welsh player?

Do you mean solely because of his nationality? Because of his lineage, birthplace, and where he grew up?

Or do you mean because of his comfort and depth of understanding with the Welsh coach's demands in such high pressure environments? Due to his understanding of his Welsh teammates in the same environment?

Add that to high class rugby playing ability, and good form, then yes, I suppose his Welshness may well have got him selected for the final test, in what must have been such a marginal and hard decision to make.

fa0019 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Because Lee Byrne was the starter?

Why would he have been regarded as the starter? He had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup! He was the one who was expected to start (particularly with Luke Fitz & Tommy Bowe on the wings).

Oh and I forgot - the indulgence that a totally out of form Shane Williams was ridiculous on the 2009 tour.

Here you go. Next.

Fitzgerald was a complete joke of a selection. I don't even think an Irish fan could have claimed as such.

In 1997 the backline first choice was

Howley (2nd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)
Townsend (3rd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)
Tait (3rd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)
Gibbs (2nd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)
Guscott (1st of home nations in 5N with 6 points)
Evans (2nd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)
Jenkins (2nd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)

3 Welsh after the won a single game, 1 Englishman after they won 3 (and he was a sub throughout the tournament), 2 Scots after they too won a single game.

Sometimes the best players aren't the ones coming from the best teams at the time.

Shout it from the rooftops!

funnyExiledScot wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Because Lee Byrne was the starter?

Why would he have been regarded as the starter? He had just won a Grand Slam and a Heineken Cup! He was the one who was expected to start (particularly with Luke Fitz & Tommy Bowe on the wings).

Oh and I forgot - the indulgence that a totally out of form Shane Williams was ridiculous on the 2009 tour.

Here you go. Next.

Fitzgerald was a complete joke of a selection. I don't even think an Irish fan could have claimed as such.

In 1997 the backline first choice was

Howley (2nd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)
Townsend (3rd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)
Tait (3rd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)
Gibbs (2nd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)
Guscott (1st of home nations in 5N with 6 points)
Evans (2nd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)
Jenkins (2nd of home nations in 5N with 2 points)

3 Welsh after the won a single game, 1 Englishman after they won 3 (and he was a sub throughout the tournament), 2 Scots after they too won a single game.

Sometimes the best players aren't the ones coming from the best teams at the time.

Shout it from the rooftops!

only chance we've got right.

miaow 15 tries in 42 appearances for Cuthbert for Wales.

Strike rate of 36% makes Cuthbert one of the best finishers in world rugby really?

On the contrary I would say that Wales with stuck with him for too long.

Whatever you do, don't mention Wayne Barnes - otherwise Sin will bring up how he's biased after spending a few months at school in Wales' least welsh town .

miaow wrote:

Sin é wrote:Would JD2 been a starter for the final test if he wasn't a Welsh player?

Do you mean solely because of his nationality? Because of his lineage, birthplace, and where he grew up?

Or do you mean because of his comfort and depth of understanding with the Welsh coach's demands in such high pressure environments? Due to his understanding of his Welsh teammates in the same environment?

Add that to high class rugby playing ability, and good form, then yes, I suppose his Welshness may well have got him selected for the final test, in what must have been such a marginal and hard decision to make.

Paul O'Connell said last week that Gatland was a good coach for the Lions because the Welsh gameplan was simple which everyone got within 3 days so a lot of training before the tour wasn't necessary.

Bearing in mind what POC just said, I'd be surprised if at the end of the tour most players would have known the gameplan inside out, though JD2 looked decidedly out of kilter when he was playing inside centre for the Lions due to Roberts injury.

Sin é wrote:I didn't have a problem with BOD being dropped - what I object to is the humiliating way Gatland went about it.

What was humiliating? The press conference seems to be the only bone of contention, but there could be several conditions there. The first is that the coaching staff still hadn't come to a definitive conclusion in that position. It's possible. However, more likely is the fact they used a well respected, well spoken, senior and intelligent player to deal with the press in a testing week. Who is a better ambassador for the Lions than BoD? It's devastating for him that he didn't play, I'm sure, but you can see the justification behind it, as you can see why choosing Tuilagi on the bench- in what could have been a tight final quarter in need of someone able to make one big play- was made as well.

Sin é wrote:My problem is that out of form/unfit Welsh players were shoehorned into the team when better options were available.

Alternatively, they were picked on their pedigree and the way they fit Gatland's demands, until the point whereby they had played their way back into fitness and form. Your assertion that there were 'better' options, is, of course, your own subjective opinion. That's fine. Gatland disagreed, and won a Test series against all the odds the Lions face, as many posters regularly allude to in an attempt to demonstrate that it is a hiding to nothing and should be disbanded.