How different would Lions squad be if picked now?

copacetic

I was surprised (but delighted) at how much the 1/4 finals of the Heineken Cup shaped the squad for the Lions. Munsters demolition of the Ospreys got Earls and Quinlan their seats at the very least imo. Cardiff weren't as clearly affected but possibly after yesterdays game the choices could have been different. As they went so much on 'form' you have to figure it would be different now.

If the squad was being picked today I personally think it would likely be 4 or 5 players different. I think they way Elsom in particular took the game to the Munster back row would have sent shivers down the spine of McGeehan. As he is most similar to the Boks back row.

I'm seriously Leinster biased of course, but I'd say Quinlan wouldn't go after the weekend (on rugby display, nothing else discussed please), O'Callaghan would be out as well I'd feel, the risk of him being as anonymouse for the games would make someone else worth the risk instead. Earls would still be ok I think, but Darcys display would put him right back in the mix. For Cardiff I'd say Powell would be out too.

There is no doubt imo that Croft would be in for Quinlan, I'd say Jennings would have a great chance of going on form ahead of Powell (even if it isn't a direct swap). O'Callaghan would likely not lose out to Cullen, but it would be hard to pick him after that display so Jones might have gone instead. You would probably weigh it up and see Earls still go, but he would be at risk based on a couple of defensive mistakes exposed by Leinster and by Darcys display. Likely Henson would have gone instead though.

I guess it's the risk of picking on form but it is interesting how different it could all have been.

danthefan

Quinlan would definitely be in trouble based on his performance.

DOC would be safe on the strength of his 6N and form with Munster to date. His performance was very worrying though, really outplayed.

Earls was always a bit of a gamble, he was up against possibly the best centre in the world and came out 2nd best. No shame there and he'd still be going imo.

tomby

Quinlan?? He has never featured in Irish Rugby....amm ever? He is a wimp to be gouging like that and he should get max penalty...what a knob. Don't rate him at all. Should not be lining out for munster, there are plenty of other guys on that squad that would beat him hands down in that position, but managers like him for some odd reason..Im afraid I dont see what he has to offer...he is slow and cumbersume..

danthefan

tomby wrote: »

Quinlan?? He has never featured in Irish Rugby....amm ever? He is a wimp to be gouging like that and he should get max penalty...what a knob. Don't rate him at all. Should not be lining out for munster, there are plenty of other guys on that squad that would beat him hands down in that position, but managers like him for some odd reason..Im afraid I dont see what he has to offer...he is slow and cumbersume..

Please keep the coversation to rugby ONLY, the Quinlan incident has been discussed, the thread was locked, and this one will only go the same way. Thanks.

Tomtom364

i dont think the lions would be picked much differently.

they were picked on form. not just the 1/4 finals.
one bad match dosnt cancel out a great season which is what quiney and earls have both had so IMO i think they would both still have gone.


also,
Darcy wouldnt be picked based on his performance in one match. though i think he is unfortunate as he had the injury, he has preformed to his usual standard untill the 1/2 final. and again, choices arnt made on one match alone.

Henson would not be going as he is currentally injured (i belive, open to correction)

jennings wouldnt be going to replace powell because jennings is a 7. which 7 would you replace. wallace or williams?... neither really, probly the two best 7s in the NH

MG

I think it ignores the vast experience of McGeechan to suggest that he would have allowed the squad to be picked on the basis of a single game.

danthefan

MG wrote: »

I think it ignores the vast experience of McGeechan to suggest that he would have allowed the squad to be picked on the basis of a single game.

Yeah but what does that one game say about some of the players? Leinster on Saturday were the best team Munster played this season, and they were found wanting. Quinlan was totally outplayed by his opposite number, who also happens to be the best 6 playing in Europe at the moment. He's grand in a pack doing well, but struggled badly on Saturday when Munster didn't have it their own way.

toomevara

Realistically there would be little difference.....two of the best teams in Europe played a game which would leave many internationals in the shade in terms of hype, attitude and commitment. The majority of the lions are culled from both those teams. Arguably the game and its result couldn't have been better from a lions perspective...

Leinster's brilliant performance will enhance the confidence and belief of the Blues contingent, while putting a well aimed and timely rocket up the arses of the Munster boys...tbh, from a purely Lions perspective that game can only be good (especially in that, somehow, all the players came through unscathed!)

Tomtom364

danthefan wrote: »

Yeah but what does that one game say about Munster? Leinster on Saturday were the best team Munster played this season, and they were found wanting. Quinlan was totally outplayed by his opposite number, who also happens to be the best 6 playing in Europe at the moment. He's grand in a pack doing well, but struggled badly on Saturday when Munster didn't have it their own way.

this discussion isnt "what does that one game say about Munster?"
this discussion is for "How different would Lions squad be if picked now?"

danthefan

Tomtom364 wrote: »

this discussion isnt "what does a single game say about munster"
this discussion is for "would the lions be picked differentally today"

That's true, phrased badly and edited.

copacetic

MG wrote: »

I think it ignores the vast experience of McGeechan to suggest that he would have allowed the squad to be picked on the basis of a single game.

Well he himself said that it was an incredibly marginal call to take Quinlan over Croft and they made it just after the 1/4s, Gatland said he was the most unlucky not to go. He was a test possibility which Quinlan isn't imo

It wasn't one game that was the basis for the decisions, but it was the deciding factor. Howley said that Jones was told he needed to perform in that game to go for instance.

@tomtom, I didn't say it was a direct replacement, but Jenning showed how a proper ground game can get you places, which the current Lions squad may be lacking. They already have plenty of people just to run it up the middle.

Tomtom364

post was edited to use actual phrases used by other posters.
badly phrased post, probly. im not much of a morning person.


and i know you didnt mean a direct replacement, however, if you wish to bring jenning you must replace a 7 already on the tour. so would would it be, wallace or williams?

madds

copacetic wrote: »

Well he himself said that it was an incredibly marginal call to take Quinlan over Croft and they made it just after the 1/4s, Gatland said he was the most unlucky not to go. He was a test possibility which Quinlan isn't imo

I got the distinct impression that the Sky commentary team talked up Croft at every opportunity yesterday. Granted he had a good game and figured prominently in the loose but methinks it was a canvassing job should Quinlan get some bad news.

copacetic

Tomtom364 wrote: »

post was edited to use actual phrases used by other posters.
badly phrased post, probly. im not much of a morning person.


and i know you didnt mean a direct replacement, however, if you wish to bring jenning you must replace a 7 already on the tour. so would would it be, wallace or williams?

You don't have to do that, drop Powell, bring Jennings, Wallace could cover both positions.

Tomtom364

copacetic wrote: »

You don't have to do that, drop Powell, bring Jennings, Wallace could cover both positions.

two 7s and a player who is primarly a 7 that can cover 8 is just too many 7s really. i still feel fo jenning to be picked, wallace or williams would need to be replaced. if powell wasnt going then id say croft or haskell would be there instead
EDIT: or leamy for that matter

danthefan

Agreed, there isn't room for Jennings in the squad. Croft for me would be the next backrow in line to go, he does get hyped up a lot but if you can ignore that and just watch his performances he's a good player.

It's a pity the Hask has gone downhill so badly. About 12 or 15 months ago he was absolutely brilliant.

copacetic

Tomtom364 wrote: »

two 7s and a player who is primarly a 7 that can cover 8 is just too many 7s really. i still feel fo jenning to be picked, wallace or williams would need to be replaced. if powell wasnt going then id say croft or haskell would be there instead
EDIT: or leamy for that matter

I already have croft in for quinlan! You could be right, but personally I'd lean toward 7 rather than 8.

Crash

madds wrote: »

I got the distinct impression that the Sky commentary team talked up Croft at every opportunity yesterday. Granted he had a good game and figured prominently in the loose but methinks it was a canvassing job should Quinlan get some bad news.

Hehehe I got that feeling as well. Bit of an impression that they saw the opportunity for blood there from Quinnies performance yesterday, and never stopped talking him up for two seconds. Got VERY annoying after a while.

curts82

Leinster deserved there win on Sat but to bring Jennings on the Lions tour would be a farce!! I'd have Neil Ronan ahead of him. Jennings is not a great player and besides Shaggy yer worse player on sat.
DOC is in big trouble yes! I cant see him makin mid week teams!!

danthefan

curts82 wrote: »

Jennings on the Lions tour would be a farce!! I'd have Neil Ronan ahead of him. Jennings is not a great player and besides Shaggy yer worse player on sat.

This the same Jennings who had David Wallace in his pocket for 80 minutes? Your opinion is laughable, smacks of bitterness. Hope you enjoyed the game on Saturday.

Serenity Now!

madds wrote: »

I got the distinct impression that the Sky commentary team talked up Croft at every opportunity yesterday. Granted he had a good game and figured prominently in the loose but methinks it was a canvassing job should Quinlan get some bad news.

He's a given for the spot should it be opened. Should have been picked in the first place. As good as Ferris and almost as skillful.

Serenity Now!

danthefan wrote: »

This the same Jennings who had David Wallace in his pocket for 80 minutes? Your opinion is laughable, smacks of bitterness. Hope you enjoyed the game on Saturday.

If you re-watch the game, you'll find that the player who was in Wallace's face the most on saturday was actually Rocky Elsom.

anonymous_joe

I don't think it makes a huge difference to the squad.

Guys like Geordan Murphy and Shane Jennings had very good weekends, but that's not really enough to guarentee a place. (And I'm a huge fan of both of them.)

The two players who'd be less likely to tour this week are Earls and Quinlan. They were picked on the basis of Munster's form. Such a thing can be deceptive.

Take Earls, a less emotive subject than Quinlan - he looked dangerous in broken play, but with Mafi shut down he was all of a sudden receiving significantly less space than usual and his defensive immaturity was shown a few times. He was against the world's best 13 (well, one of them) and while normally I'd say Earls being outplayed by O'Driscoll doesn't really reflect badly on the kid, this is a Lions tour. South Africa will tear a kid like Earls apart unless he gets a bit of protection.

Quinlan didn't do too badly. He was his usual unpleasant self on the rugby pitch, harrying, infringing, basically cheating but never really being caught infringing the rules. I have a memory in my head from the second half of Leinster stopping Munster about 5 yards out and Quinlan standing up in the Leinster defensive line and refusing to move for just a few seconds. That's what McGeechan picked him for.

Regarding Leinster players, I felt Leo and Mal outshone PoC and DOC. I rate the Munster two as the second best parternship (or maybe third actually, NZ are good too) in the second row in the world. But in my mind Leo was a lion in the second row, and the outstanding player there. He definitely does enough to merit a place in the Ireland squad, but he'd never unseat either incumbents, for one thing they've a magnificent partnership, so he'd never get the call. All he really did was damage their reputation. (I've no doubts in my mind they'll be able to restore that reputation before South Africa.)

D'Arcy might merit a call, in that he's shown not only his skill of old, but also some very immediate form. He's been missed, and he was very good yesterday.

danthefan

Serenity Now! wrote: »

If you re-watch the game, you'll find that the player who was in Wallace's face the most on saturday was actually Rocky Elsom.

When he was on the ball, sure, but Jennings was the better 7 on display. We won the battle of the breakdown, which was vital to the win, and Jennings had a huge part in that and Wallace could do nothing about it.

copacetic

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I don't think it makes a huge difference to the squad.

Guys like Geordan Murphy and Shane Jennings had very good weekends, but that's not really enough to guarentee a place. (And I'm a huge fan of both of them.)

The two players who'd be less likely to tour this week are Earls and Quinlan. They were picked on the basis of Munster's form. Such a thing can be deceptive.

Take Earls, a less emotive subject than Quinlan - he looked dangerous in broken play, but with Mafi shut down he was all of a sudden receiving significantly less space than usual and his defensive immaturity was shown a few times. He was against the world's best 13 (well, one of them) and while normally I'd say Earls being outplayed by O'Driscoll doesn't really reflect badly on the kid, this is a Lions tour. South Africa will tear a kid like Earls apart unless he gets a bit of protection.

Quinlan didn't do too badly. He was his usual unpleasant self on the rugby pitch, harrying, infringing, basically cheating but never really being caught infringing the rules. I have a memory in my head from the second half of Leinster stopping Munster about 5 yards out and Quinlan standing up in the Leinster defensive line and refusing to move for just a few seconds. That's what McGeechan picked him for.

Regarding Leinster players, I felt Leo and Mal outshone PoC and DOC. I rate the Munster two as the second best parternship (or maybe third actually, NZ are good too) in the second row in the world. But in my mind Leo was a lion in the second row, and the outstanding player there. He definitely does enough to merit a place in the Ireland squad, but he'd never unseat either incumbents, for one thing they've a magnificent partnership, so he'd never get the call. All he really did was damage their reputation. (I've no doubts in my mind they'll be able to restore that reputation before South Africa.)

D'Arcy might merit a call, in that he's shown not only his skill of old, but also some very immediate form. He's been missed, and he was very good yesterday.

Good post, I didn't actually mean for this to turn into a Munster v Leinster thread, reminds me why I keep away from the rugby forum though! It was meant more about the vagaries of picking on form and how not playing at all can enhance your test place prospects while playing poorly or average can harm them a lot.

Possibly I should have started one more on are you less or more confident for the Lions prospects after the weekend. I'm a fair bit less I have to say, I was delighted at the time but now am a little worried about O'Gara, he was run over a fair bit on Saturday and it's an area the Boks will target. I'm pretty sure he won't start the tests, hes stuck with it over a up and down season and he pulled through for Ireland but it just doesn't seem to be coming together for him. I also think the partnership at lock will be broken now, with O'Connell + A.N. and possibly Heaslip at 8 the only Irish in the test side pack and just O'Driscoll and Fitzgerald in the backs.

Of course there is still a fair bit to play, picking on form if they stick with it will see some more variations as the season finishes up.

anonymous_joe

copacetic wrote: »

Good post, I didn't actually mean for this to turn into a Munster v Leinster thread, reminds me why I keep away from the rugby forum though! It was meant more about the vagaries of picking on form and how not playing at all can enhance your test place prospects while playing poorly or average can harm them a lot.

Possibly I should have started one more on are you less or more confident for the Lions prospects after the weekend. I'm a fair bit less I have to say, I was delighted at the time but now am a little worried about O'Gara, he was run over a fair bit on Saturday and it's an area the Boks will target. I'm pretty sure he won't start the tests, hes stuck with it over a up and down season and he pulled through for Ireland but it just doesn't seem to be coming together for him. I also think the partnership at lock will be broken now, with O'Connell + A.N. and possibly Heaslip at 8 the only Irish in the test side pack and just O'Driscoll and Fitzgerald in the backs.

Of course there is still a fair bit to play, picking on form if they stick with it will see some more variations as the season finishes up.

Well I watched the Leicester-Cardiff game on an awful stream so hard to draw too many conclusions from it. So t'was inevitable a bit of Leinster v Munster would creep in, but so long as that's objective and not driven by one-upmanship it's not unhealthy.

Again the Englanders will all be chomping at the bit for Quinlan to be banned and Croft called up, he had a decent enough game as far as I could work out. The Welsh players for Cardiff had an awful day in the scrum, while the backs did well, but only when Leicester were down to 13. So some cause for concern there, but c'est la vie.

The most crucial games left however are the pre-Test games I think. One or two players will have a bit to prove, notably O'Gara, maybe even David Wallace and Martyn Williams, neither of whom had weekends to remember.

Again you're talking about guys who've had maybe one bad weekend during strong seasons. Hard to imagine it having an overwhelming effect on the process.

sm.org

Crash wrote: »

Hehehe I got that feeling as well. Bit of an impression that they saw the opportunity for blood there from Quinnies performance yesterday, and never stopped talking him up for two seconds. Got VERY annoying after a while.

What annoyed me the most was when they started saying "he got Crofted" everytime he tackled a player. They failed to mention that he only played half the 6N's games and was anonymous in the quarter against Bath.

I dont think the Munster/Ospreys game was the sole basis for picking so many Munster players rather it was a confirmation of the form shown throughout the 6N's. Similarly I wouldn't be getting carried away with the performances against Leinster.

Its probably not the worst thing that there will be only 5 lions out of action for the start of the tour instead of the 12 that would have been missing if the two favourites had won.

MG

danthefan wrote: »

When he was on the ball, sure, but Jennings was the better 7 on display. We won the battle of the breakdown, which was vital to the win, and Jennings had a huge part in that and Wallace could do nothing about it.

But do you pick a player on the basis of one game or on the basis of the season? Wallace was probably the best back row in the six nations and has consistenty shown what he can do. Jennings has a history of playing in fits and starts, outstanding one day, poor the next.

As I say, McGeechan is wily enough to know that. As for Croft, it was a tough call but I am reminded of a scene from Band of brother that for me sums up why Quinlan got the nod.

"The scene ends with a quiet conversation between Lipton and the new company commander, Spiers, the object of so many rumors. Spiers says Roman general Terseus was probably dogged by rumors that he lopped off the heads of a couple centurions, a tacit recognition of the stories that he had gunned down the German prisoners on D-Day. Lipton wonders why Spiers doesn't put an end to the rumors. He replies:

“Maybe Terseus believed there was some value to the men believing he was the meanest, toughest son of a bitch in the whole Roman legion.”"

That's why Quinlan is in. McGeechan knows the value of having the toughest son of a bitch in the Northern Hemisphere in the squad.

danthefan

MG wrote: »

But do you pick a player on the basis of one game or on the basis of the season? Wallace was probably the best back row in the six nations and has consistenty shown what he can do. Jennings has a history of playing in fits and starts, outstanding one day, poor the next.

As I say, McGeechan is wily enough to know that. As for Croft, it was a tough call but I am reminded of a scene from Band of brother that for me sums up why Quinlan got the nod.

"The scene ends with a quiet conversation between Lipton and the new company commander, Spiers, the object of so many rumors. Spiers says Roman general Terseus was probably dogged by rumors that he lopped off the heads of a couple centurions, a tacit recognition of the stories that he had gunned down the German prisoners on D-Day. Lipton wonders why Spiers doesn't put an end to the rumors. He replies:

“Maybe Terseus believed there was some value to the men believing he was the meanest, toughest son of a bitch in the whole Roman legion.”"

That's why Quinlan is in. McGeechan knows the value of having the toughest son of a bitch in the Northern Hemisphere in the squad.

I already said there's no place for Jennings in the Lions squad (first post on this page), I was just replying to someone who bizzarely tried to say Jennings had a bad game.

outwest

dan. jennings had one good game this year. wallace has been consitent in his play. and in my opinion sob will we be leinster number 7 next season.

it was elsom that was turning over the munster backrow. jennings was good for ONE game but still he has had a bad season.

danthefan

outwest wrote: »

dan. jennings had one good game this year.
.
.

jennings was good for ONE game but still he has had a bad season.

Facepalm.

Edit - I do wonder how we managed to get to the HEC final with so many not-very-good players. Mystifying.

outwest

no just one bad player jennings.

o and horgan so that two bad players.

yee got to the final cos yee wanted it more.

danthefan

outwest wrote: »

no just one bad player jennings.

o and horgan so that two bad players.

yee got to the final cos yee wanted it more.

You're clueless, and on ignore. Hope you enjoyed Saturday.

outwest

i did actually. i was supporting leinster.

how am i clueless. i think most people would agree that shoaggy isnt the player he was two years ago.
and jennings isnt the player he was leicster.

[Jackass]

I don't think there would be any major difference in personnell.

D'Arcy may have played his way in, Quinlan (who I don't think should have been there in the first place) would be out. I'm sure after O'Garas performance McGeehan may have thought twice about bringing only 2 out halfs but the most CRUCIAL of it all, is that O'Driscoll, for some strange bizzare reason, was not selected as captain, and this game proved he is by far, without touching distance, the best man to captain the Lions.

In the 6 nations he was ALWAYS on the front line, no matter what, he was our best player in the competition and visibly the best leader in every game. Also, be it for Leinster or Ireland, he NEVER goes missing in games - even on the back of a big defeat O'Driscoll will be sniping, putting in big hits, turning over ball - I've never seen him disapear like O'Connell, and it has to be said (such as world cup 2007 when O'Driscoll was phenominal in a team that was shockingly poor) O'Connell tends to go missing when needed the most - when his team are in trouble.

That's the biggest call - but I suppose the media love in for Munster over the last while has earned certain players god like status - a taste of reality every now and then does wonders to clear clouded judgement. But O'Driscoll certainly made his point on Saturday about who the greatest player and leader in Irish (and world) rugby is.

As for the squad, there wouldn't be any massive changes. Most players are there on merrit over a couple of seasons worth of performance.

RuggieBear

danthefan wrote: »

You're clueless, and on ignore. Hope you enjoyed Saturday.

debate the posts and not the poster please.

danthefan

RuggieBear wrote: »

debate the posts and not the poster please.

Apologies. I won't be debating with that particular poster in future anyway.

Stev_o

Croft would certainly be in, hell Murphy could just scrape the 15 spot. Leigh Halfpenny would be sure to start for his kicking abilities and Andy Powell would be left home.

jayteecork

Leigh Halfpenny is already on the plane, we're not talking about the test 15 here.

D'arcy would probably been on the plane I think after yesterday's performance.
However as was pointed out in the English press after he made himself unavailable for selection in the 2005 tour he really buggered himself for future Lions tours.

bleg

would be the same i'd say. looking at it from another angle would you expect less leinster players to go if the squad was picked after the thomond park game, i wouldn't.

Blut

Quinlan out Croft in, Earls out D'Arcy in, BOD possibly captain. Thats about it I'd say.

[Jackass]

I dont think D'Arcy would be in at the expense of Earls. Earls actually did ok in the match. Made one nice break at the start that would have been a try only rocky crusified Dowling in the resulting break down and Leinster turned it over. That was a real turning point as well.

9 times out of 10 you would have said that was 7 - o Munster - a couple of minutes later they were 3 - 0 down.

I don't think Earls "earned" his place as he hasn't put in the performances at the highest level often enough to "deserve" a lions spot ahead of consistant performers over the years, but he certainly has the talent to be there on merrit. I think D'Arcy was unlucky not to be included in the first place.

chupacabra

[Jackass] wrote: »

I dont think D'Arcy would be in at the expense of Earls. Earls actually did ok in the match. Made one nice break at the start that would have been a try only rocky crusified Dowling in the resulting break down and Leinster turned it over. That was a real turning point as well.

9 times out of 10 you would have said that was 7 - o Munster - a couple of minutes later they were 3 - 0 down.

I don't think Earls "earned" his place as he hasn't put in the performances at the highest level often enough to "deserve" a lions spot ahead of consistant performers over the years, but he certainly has the talent to be there on merrit. I think D'Arcy was unlucky not to be included in the first place.

True true. I would have Darcy over Earls on the plane to SA any day of the week, Earls has never proved himself a good defender and again on saturday made a bad decision to come out of the line which led to Nacewas break and then missed a tackle on Darcy in the same phase to concede the try. He's been doing this all season.

smythire

it was shocking the bod was over looked for the top spot in the lions. he has always been the leader on the pitch, but why should he be bothered with all meeting with the press and bla bla. but as we seen after the match on saturday, it was him who gave the interview explaining why it means to win. As the tour unfolds in SA we see who ready leads on the pitch.

smythire

paul is always good for the donkey work

Chucky the tree

chupacabra wrote: »

True true. I would have Darcy over Earls on the plane to SA any day of the week, Earls has never proved himself a good defender and again on saturday made a bad decision to come out of the line which led to Nacewas break and then missed a tackle on Darcy in the same phase to concede the try. He's been doing this all season.

You do realise both player's play different positions? Talking about Jennings getting on the plane ahead of Powell and now D'arcy ahead of earls Earls will never be asked for fill in at Inside centre and D'arcy wont be their to cover the 13 spot either. If you want to discuss D'arcy's inclusion compare his performance with Jamie Roberts or Riki Flutey. IF Flannery gets injured and misses out maybe we should talk about replacing him with Ciprianni or Hook since we only brought two OH's?

jayteecork

Hook really should go for his versatility.

Dev7

Harry Ellis wouldn't go- cant get ahead of Dupuy. He's just a poorer O leary anyway. Any of Peel Blair or even Care would be better

danthefan

Dev7 wrote: »

Harry Ellis wouldn't go- cant get ahead of Dupuy. He's just a poorer O leary anyway. Any of Peel Blair or even Care would be better

Did Ellis get on at all against Cardiff?

Stev_o

danthefan wrote: »

Did Ellis get on at all against Cardiff?

Last 10 minutes, in fairness they had Dupuy kicking so they would of been reluctant to take him off.

nacho libre

Croft will get to go instead of Quinlan. He was outstanding for Leicester on Sunday.