Ryan Grant spills the beans on his exclusion from 2013 Lions 2nd Test Match

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40437419

"Grant, a member of Glasgow's Pro12-winning squad of 2015, was called up by Gatland to join the victorious 2013 tour of Australia, after rivals Cian Healy and Gethin Jenkins suffered injuries.

The Scot was named as a substitute for the second Test - which the Lions lost - but with starting loose-head Mako Vunipola tiring, he was not introduced, and left out of the squad for the series-deciding third international.

"It's a tough pill to swallow even now, to be so close and to really feel like the team could have benefited from me coming on," Grant added. "Mako was clearly wrecked and we were under the pump, and a bit of fresh legs would have benefited the team. It kind of made it a bit worse that the scrum wasn't going particularly well.

"I kind of avoided [forwards coach] Graham Rowntree for a few days after that because I was bitterly disappointed and if we spoke sooner, I would probably say something stupid.

"So I let it cool down for a couple of days, went and spoke to him, and he just kind of said to me that he hadn't seen enough of me and he wasn't sure he could trust me in a Test match like that, and it was the one they lost.

"I just had to say, 'listen, I totally disagree with you, and if you'd watched any of the Six Nations games you'd know I could handle myself, so we'll agree to disagree' - I don't think we've said a single word to each other since.

"Mako was cramping up and he was down every two minutes, so it was kind of an extra kick in the face. But it is what it is - it was four years ago now."

From the BBC

Very intriguing and quite frankly shocking to hear!

Mako was being handed his backside on a plate that day. It was quite frankly a disgrace that Grant didn't get on, but not surprising given Rowntrees form.
For Rowntree, a key member of the coaching staff, to say that he hadn't seen enough of Grant is also a disgrace. I'd have thought that acquainting himself with the players was point number 1 on the job description of any of the coaching staff.

That to me is criminal. Rowntree was with england at the time so why wasn't he doing his homework and knowing the opposition inside and out.

Second point is that he was only one of the assistant coaches and shouldn't have the overall say on selections or subs. Comes back to my bug bear of what on earth was gatland doing on his breaks from wales? He should be able to advise Rowntree on all the players possibly available to the lions as he should have been on it full time for months!

Third point vunipola was under rated as a scrumager. He's never going to be great but holds his own which is ok if that's your tactics but he was clearly knackered in that match and out on his feet. Fresh guys are going to be better in that situation even if you have slight questions over them.

Perhaps it was the start of Gats policy of calling up players merely to be bench cover for injuries, which reached its zenith on Tuesday?

It does make you wonder why Grant was even called up (never mind selected for a Test squad) if he clearly wasn't rated by the coaches. This tactic appears to be commonplace now though. At least the coaches probably knew his name (even if they hadn't seen him play).

You have to ask the question why is any player called up if the coaches don't think he can play in a test match for the lions!!!!!!!!
The fact I think Grant would have done a great job is irrelevant.

EVERY player selected to the Lions squad for a tour should be able to be a starter and coaches should have no fears throwing them on at any time in a game....simple as that!

Poor showing by Rowntree there!

Lots of fans and pundits (including me) had Grant marked for a touring spot. As it turned out Corbs (which remember caused absolute outrage at the nepotism) was the first replacement, so effectively Grant was 5th choice. That the coaches then preferred to keep an ailing Mako on the pitch was still a poor decision.

Perhaps Rowntree deemed his explanation as less unpleasant than saying "Now that I have seen you, I think you are crap"?

Admittedly this story does not look good, but I usually prefer to hear both sides before calling for a lynching.

A crazy story, if they hadn't seen enough of him to trust him why was he called up or picked at all to be on the bench? Why wasn't that place given to someone else?

GeordieFalcon wrote:You have to ask the question why is any player called up if the coaches don't think he can play in a test match for the lions!!!!!!!!
The fact I think Grant would have done a great job is irrelevant.

EVERY player selected to the Lions squad for a tour should be able to be a starter and coaches should have no fears throwing them on at any time in a game....simple as that!

Poor showing by Rowntree there!

My Thoughts exactly! Regardless of nationality etc.. very strange reasoning if it is in fact what he said to Grant

LondonTiger wrote:Lots of fans and pundits (including me) had Grant marked for a touring spot. As it turned out Corbs (which remember caused absolute outrage at the nepotism) was the first replacement, so effectively Grant was 5th choice. That the coaches then preferred to keep an ailing Mako on the pitch was still a poor decision.

Perhaps Rowntree deemed his explanation as less unpleasant than saying "Now that I have seen you, I think you are crap"?

Admittedly this story does not look good, but I usually prefer to hear both sides before calling for a lynching.

I thought the second paragraph could be true. Grant played 80 minutes against Rowntree's England that year in the Six Nations, 73 minutes against Dan Cole and 7 minutes against Davey Wilson.

Couldn't tell you either way, but either Grant handled himself well, or he didn't. Either way, Rowntree would know whether Grant could handle himself against a very strong scrummaging tight head, let alone Ben Alexander.

Rowntree would have known, and obviously didn't rate Grant. Right or wrong, he didn't rate him. I don't believe he honestly wouldn't have had the information.

Perhaps he meant 'I haven't seen enough from you'?

But would agree you don't pick him on the bench in that case.

IIRC Gatland wanted to pick him for the original squad but Rowntree vetoed it

I agree with the comments that something could be lost in translation here. Rowntree might simply not have thought Grant was up to it, but didn't want to put it quite like that. Mako had actually turned the scrum round in the second half but by the 70th minute he was visibly screwed and struggling even to get back into the defensive line, though, so it's hard to see how he could have thought it was better leaving him on. I do remember Grant struggling in the scrum in his mid-week performance though (vs Brumbies perhaps?).

TJ - That's correct going by the Lions Raw dvd. There's a moment in the selection meeting where Gatland just mentions Grant as first replacement in passing and Rowntree replies firmly with "No. Corbisiero." Hard to argue he was wrong about that even if what went on in the second test was poor.

Scottrf wrote:Perhaps he meant 'I haven't seen enough from you'?

But would agree you don't pick him on the bench in that case.

With Corbs injured he was the only available LH (didn't they call up Tom Court as extra cover?). The other option would have been Matt Stevens.

LondonTiger wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Perhaps he meant 'I haven't seen enough from you'?

But would agree you don't pick him on the bench in that case.

With Corbs injured he was the only available LH (didn't they call up Tom Court as extra cover?). The other option would have been Matt Stevens.

Yeah, he had Grant, Court or Stevens. Aren't the latter two predominantly tight-heads? Not sure how much loose-head either would have played since 8 man benches came in?

Court was a loosehead. He had the misfortune to come on at tighthead against England in 2012 when Corbisiero was at his absolute peak and before 8-man benches. The footage is highly enjoyable from an England perspective, but you have to feel for the guy.

Stevens was primarily a tighthead but played plenty at loosehead.

And people have the termacity to call Brown a cry baby?


My favourite bit of the article is the opening statement where its suggested that he was called up in 2013 for what he did in 2015.

Yep Court was only a LH - when he was brought on against England he hadn't played TH for years.

Other than his first year, of a 8 year career at Ulster, he did not play a single game as a TH

Gooseberry wrote:And people have the termacity to call Brown a cry baby?


My favourite bit of the article is the opening statement where its suggested that he was called up in 2013 for what he did in 2015.

marty2086 wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:And people have the termacity to call Brown a cry baby?


My favourite bit of the article is the opening statement where its suggested that he was called up in 2013 for what he did in 2015.

Yep bit of a howler there Gooseberry

geoff999rugby wrote:Yep Court was only a LH - when he was brought on against England he hadn't played TH for years.

Other than his first year, of a 8 year career at Ulster, he did not play a single game as a TH

There's a great video on Youtube where there's just scrum after scrum and then the referees whistle, signalling a penalty to England.

Now that's rugby. NZ take note.

Thanks for all the corrections on Court. Although I guess if he was 6th, he was even less rated. Still, both are test match players and would probably be better than a fully spent Mako Vunipola.

Court was only called up because he was visiting family in Australia

LondonTiger wrote:Court was only called up because he was visiting family in Australia

Hartley is trying the same right now.

At least he was in Australia - on this tour Gatland calls a bunch of second string Welshman and never plays them, even though better players are just as accessible

Anyone who hasn't heard it, Court spoke on being called up on the Rugby Pod

https://www.facebook.com/therugbypod/videos/vb.356612477832156/749816301845103/?type=2&theater

He's pretty honest about it all

LondonTiger wrote:Perhaps it was the start of Gats policy of calling up players merely to be bench cover for injuries, which reached its zenith nadir (hopefully) on Tuesday?

FTFY

The sad this was Grant was in really good form, he was really having a good season.

He never really came back the same and he did not seem to be able to adapt to the new scrum laws, but in the season before the Lions he was quite a strong performer

Hey ho - it seems Gatland just does not want to cap Scottish players, and I expect he is relived that Hogg was injured so he did not have to face that decision

This tour is really getting close to be worst that 2005

Interesting that 4 years on, the it is more of the same from the anti Lion Gatland

https://www.606v2.com/t45900-why-did-gatland-not-bring-ryan-grant-on

Depressing that you could also re-quote all these comments again (Out of form, injured players, ignoring players playing well)

R!skysports wrote:The sad this was Grant was in really good form, he was really having a good season.

He never really came back the same and he did not seem to be able to adapt to the new scrum laws, but in the season before the Lions he was quite a strong performer

Hey ho - it seems Gatland just does not want to cap Scottish players, and I expect he is relived that Hogg was injured so he did not have to face that decision

This tour is really getting close to be worst that 2005

He was having a fantastic season and was fully deserving of his callup - it is pure ignorance for Rowntree to say he hadn't seen enough of him (indeed if that is what was said).

R!skysports wrote:The sad this was Grant was in really good form, he was really having a good season.

He never really came back the same and he did not seem to be able to adapt to the new scrum laws, but in the season before the Lions he was quite a strong performer

Hey ho - it seems Gatland just does not want to cap Scottish players, and I expect he is relived that Hogg was injured so he did not have to face that decision

This tour is really getting close to be worst that 2005

I think you'll find it was Rowntree who put the kibosh on Grant. Gatland, it would seem, was keen to pick him. Guess that doesn't fit in with your own version of events though!

Griff wrote:

R!skysports wrote:The sad this was Grant was in really good form, he was really having a good season.

He never really came back the same and he did not seem to be able to adapt to the new scrum laws, but in the season before the Lions he was quite a strong performer

Hey ho - it seems Gatland just does not want to cap Scottish players, and I expect he is relived that Hogg was injured so he did not have to face that decision

This tour is really getting close to be worst that 2005

I think you'll find it was Rowntree who put the kibosh on Grant. Gatland, it would seem, was keen to pick him. Guess that doesn't fit in with your own version of events though!

So head coach has no say

Really - you defend him like you are related

R!skysports wrote:

Griff wrote:

R!skysports wrote:The sad this was Grant was in really good form, he was really having a good season.

He never really came back the same and he did not seem to be able to adapt to the new scrum laws, but in the season before the Lions he was quite a strong performer

Hey ho - it seems Gatland just does not want to cap Scottish players, and I expect he is relived that Hogg was injured so he did not have to face that decision

This tour is really getting close to be worst that 2005

I think you'll find it was Rowntree who put the kibosh on Grant. Gatland, it would seem, was keen to pick him. Guess that doesn't fit in with your own version of events though!

So head coach has no say

Really - you defend him like you are related

Not defending him. Just correcting you. I can't stand Gatland to be honest.

Griff wrote:

R!skysports wrote:

Griff wrote:

R!skysports wrote:The sad this was Grant was in really good form, he was really having a good season.

He never really came back the same and he did not seem to be able to adapt to the new scrum laws, but in the season before the Lions he was quite a strong performer

Hey ho - it seems Gatland just does not want to cap Scottish players, and I expect he is relived that Hogg was injured so he did not have to face that decision

This tour is really getting close to be worst that 2005

I think you'll find it was Rowntree who put the kibosh on Grant. Gatland, it would seem, was keen to pick him. Guess that doesn't fit in with your own version of events though!

So head coach has no say

Really - you defend him like you are related

Not defending him. Just correcting you. I can't stand Gatland to be honest.

If Gatland relied entirely on Rowntree to make all front row selection and substitution decisions, then that's on him as head coach. Since Gatland is a former hooker himself, it's hard to believe that's what he actually did.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Griff wrote:

R!skysports wrote:

Griff wrote:

R!skysports wrote:The sad this was Grant was in really good form, he was really having a good season.

He never really came back the same and he did not seem to be able to adapt to the new scrum laws, but in the season before the Lions he was quite a strong performer

Hey ho - it seems Gatland just does not want to cap Scottish players, and I expect he is relived that Hogg was injured so he did not have to face that decision

This tour is really getting close to be worst that 2005

I think you'll find it was Rowntree who put the kibosh on Grant. Gatland, it would seem, was keen to pick him. Guess that doesn't fit in with your own version of events though!

So head coach has no say

Really - you defend him like you are related

Not defending him. Just correcting you. I can't stand Gatland to be honest.

If Gatland relied entirely on Rowntree to make all front row selection and substitution decisions, then that's on him as head coach. Since Gatland is a former hooker himself, it's hard to believe that's what he actually did.

It's on the Lions DVD. Preserved for eternity, like a mosquito in amber!

Griff wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Griff wrote:

R!skysports wrote:

Griff wrote:

R!skysports wrote:The sad this was Grant was in really good form, he was really having a good season.

He never really came back the same and he did not seem to be able to adapt to the new scrum laws, but in the season before the Lions he was quite a strong performer

Hey ho - it seems Gatland just does not want to cap Scottish players, and I expect he is relived that Hogg was injured so he did not have to face that decision

This tour is really getting close to be worst that 2005

I think you'll find it was Rowntree who put the kibosh on Grant. Gatland, it would seem, was keen to pick him. Guess that doesn't fit in with your own version of events though!

So head coach has no say

Really - you defend him like you are related

Not defending him. Just correcting you. I can't stand Gatland to be honest.

If Gatland relied entirely on Rowntree to make all front row selection and substitution decisions, then that's on him as head coach. Since Gatland is a former hooker himself, it's hard to believe that's what he actually did.

It's on the Lions DVD. Preserved for eternity, like a mosquito in amber!

Just like Gatland's playbook

Including making subs though? The second they've gone with grant on the bench and you saw vunipola struggling in the latter stages surely it comes down to gatland on whether to bring him on.

Griff wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Griff wrote:

R!skysports wrote:

Griff wrote:

R!skysports wrote:The sad this was Grant was in really good form, he was really having a good season.

He never really came back the same and he did not seem to be able to adapt to the new scrum laws, but in the season before the Lions he was quite a strong performer

Hey ho - it seems Gatland just does not want to cap Scottish players, and I expect he is relived that Hogg was injured so he did not have to face that decision

This tour is really getting close to be worst that 2005

I think you'll find it was Rowntree who put the kibosh on Grant. Gatland, it would seem, was keen to pick him. Guess that doesn't fit in with your own version of events though!

So head coach has no say

Really - you defend him like you are related

Not defending him. Just correcting you. I can't stand Gatland to be honest.

If Gatland relied entirely on Rowntree to make all front row selection and substitution decisions, then that's on him as head coach. Since Gatland is a former hooker himself, it's hard to believe that's what he actually did.

It's on the Lions DVD. Preserved for eternity, like a mosquito in amber!

To be fair that scene looked like a complete set up and almost scripted!

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Griff wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Griff wrote:

R!skysports wrote:

Griff wrote:

R!skysports wrote:The sad this was Grant was in really good form, he was really having a good season.

He never really came back the same and he did not seem to be able to adapt to the new scrum laws, but in the season before the Lions he was quite a strong performer

Hey ho - it seems Gatland just does not want to cap Scottish players, and I expect he is relived that Hogg was injured so he did not have to face that decision

This tour is really getting close to be worst that 2005

I think you'll find it was Rowntree who put the kibosh on Grant. Gatland, it would seem, was keen to pick him. Guess that doesn't fit in with your own version of events though!

So head coach has no say

Really - you defend him like you are related

Not defending him. Just correcting you. I can't stand Gatland to be honest.

If Gatland relied entirely on Rowntree to make all front row selection and substitution decisions, then that's on him as head coach. Since Gatland is a former hooker himself, it's hard to believe that's what he actually did.

It's on the Lions DVD. Preserved for eternity, like a mosquito in amber!

To be fair that scene looked like a complete set up and almost scripted!

You'll see what you want to see, RDW!

Ah come on Griff do you really think that was a genuine fly on the wall recording of a selection meeting? All the comments at the time we're how awkward and forced it was for the cameras!

You really think Gatland, a straight talking bloke who suffers no fools, asked the film crew in to film while he and Rowntree acted out a scripted role in order to dupe the rugby public into believing that it was Rowntree and not Gatland who wanted to snub Grant. Do you realise how ridiculous and paranoid that sounds?! If Gatland doesn't want a player he just doesn't pick them. As has been pointed out many many many times this tour. Why would grant get the special 'acting' treatment? Why would Gatland want to act that one out but not others who he didn't pick? Why would Rowntree agree to be the fall guy and collude in a way that would make him look bad?

When did I ever say it was scripted to specifically show that Gatland favoured Ryan Grant?? I was meaning the whole thing looked staged (or at least very selectively edited) so I don't think you can use it as proof for anything really - whether for or against Gatland.

Apologies RDW, when you said it looked scripted and a setup I assumed you meant false/lies.

I am starting to really struggle with so many threads on here that can be described as nothing more than anti Gatland.
 Yes, people are entitled to their opinions, however I fail to see how just regurgitating and repeating that attitude every second day adds to the merits of the opinion.

aucklandlaurie wrote:I am starting to really struggle with so many threads on here that can be described as nothing more than anti Gatland.
 Yes, people are entitled to their opinions, however I fail to see how just regurgitating and repeating that attitude every second day adds to the merits of the opinion.

I think a lot of people are just frustrated that Gatland hasn't selected the best players available to him and isn't getting the best out of those selected. Add that to the mess of the recent call-ups. The whole 'Four Nations, One Team' is wearing a little thin.

Would you want him as NZ head coach?

Cyril wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:I am starting to really struggle with so many threads on here that can be described as nothing more than anti Gatland.
 Yes, people are entitled to their opinions, however I fail to see how just regurgitating and repeating that attitude every second day adds to the merits of the opinion.

I think a lot of people are just frustrated that Gatland hasn't selected the best players available to him and isn't getting the best out of those selected. Add that to the mess of the recent call-ups. The whole 'Four Nations, One Team' is wearing a little thin.

Would you want him as NZ head coach? 

Probably not, but I doubt they'd want Gregor Townsend, Eddie Jones, Ian McGeechan or whoever else is being championed as an alternative Lions coach to Gatland either!

Griff wrote:

Cyril wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:I am starting to really struggle with so many threads on here that can be described as nothing more than anti Gatland.
 Yes, people are entitled to their opinions, however I fail to see how just regurgitating and repeating that attitude every second day adds to the merits of the opinion.

I think a lot of people are just frustrated that Gatland hasn't selected the best players available to him and isn't getting the best out of those selected. Add that to the mess of the recent call-ups. The whole 'Four Nations, One Team' is wearing a little thin.

Would you want him as NZ head coach? 

Probably not, but I doubt they'd want Gregor Townsend, Eddie Jones, Ian McGeechan or whoever else is being championed as an alternative Lions coach to Gatland either!

They want Eddie, but they'll never admit it! 

Griff wrote:

Cyril wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:I am starting to really struggle with so many threads on here that can be described as nothing more than anti Gatland.
 Yes, people are entitled to their opinions, however I fail to see how just regurgitating and repeating that attitude every second day adds to the merits of the opinion.

I think a lot of people are just frustrated that Gatland hasn't selected the best players available to him and isn't getting the best out of those selected. Add that to the mess of the recent call-ups. The whole 'Four Nations, One Team' is wearing a little thin.

Would you want him as NZ head coach?[/quote]

Probably not, but I doubt they'd want Gregor Townsend, Eddie Jones, Ian McGeechan or whoever else is being championed as an alternative Lions coach to Gatland!

 Griff, sure I would not see Gatty getting the top job down , but that only because we have other options available.

 I only have one question mark over the squad he selected (Hartley), but whats done is done. all the British (and Irish.. sh1t nearly forgot) supporters should be getting in and supporting the team, and you can not do that if you dont respect the coach.

 Its a bit like the Democrats telling us that Trumpy shouldnt be  President, six months after the election.

Griff wrote:Apologies RDW, when you said it looked scripted and a setup I assumed you meant false/lies.

We're not all tinfoil hat wearers!

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Griff wrote:

Cyril wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:I am starting to really struggle with so many threads on here that can be described as nothing more than anti Gatland.
 Yes, people are entitled to their opinions, however I fail to see how just regurgitating and repeating that attitude every second day adds to the merits of the opinion.

I think a lot of people are just frustrated that Gatland hasn't selected the best players available to him and isn't getting the best out of those selected. Add that to the mess of the recent call-ups. The whole 'Four Nations, One Team' is wearing a little thin.

Would you want him as NZ head coach?[/quote]

Probably not, but I doubt they'd want Gregor Townsend, Eddie Jones, Ian McGeechan or whoever else is being championed as an alternative Lions coach to Gatland!

 Griff, sure I would not see Gatty getting the top job down , but that only because we have other options available.

 I only have one question mark over the squad he selected (Hartley), but whats done is done. all the British (and Irish.. sh1t nearly forgot) supporters should be getting in and supporting the team, and you can not do that if you dont respect the coach.

 Its a bit like the Democrats telling us that Trumpy shouldnt be  President, six months after the election.

Difference is, nobody out here got the chance to vote for Gatland (or anyone else). I appreciate that most of the other candidates ruled themselves out pretty sharpish. There's no law that you have to respect the Lions coach, as SCW found out.