What Would you have Done Differently - Lions

Size=everything

Now with hindsight what would you have done differently to McGeechan?

Heres my list :

Rory Best would of been selected. The hookers on tour haven't been up to scratch in my opinion and Rory Best to me seemed the logical choice for back up to Flannery.

Armitage also would of toured instead of Earls. Armitage's versatility alone (I believe he can play centre,wing, full back) and performances in the 6 nations should of meant he travelled. The fact that our wingers (Williams, Fitzgerald and Moyne) failed to live up to expectations meant Armitage had a very strong chance of starting as well.

Paul O'Connell would not of been made captain. I know I'm not alone in thinking he was simply not the right man for the job and simply didn't lead on the pitch. The fact he was captain mean't he had to start every test and (dont shoot me) I believe he shouldn't of started on his performances in the warm ups and his test games. DOC-Shaw for me should of been the locks. O'Driscoll was the logical choice at captain.

Fitzgerald would of started the first test. He is simply better than Moyne and would adefinitely scored one of the two tries Moyne messed up.

Vickery would of been subbed a hell of a lot sooner in the first test. It was clear it wasn't going to be his day so why leave him on for 50minutes?? Baffling

I probably would of brought Thom Evans as well

Junior

Contradict yourself much ?

Trojan

Moderator note.

Junior wrote: »

Contradict yourself much ?

Infracted. Please contribute positively or not at all.

In future, please give more than just a glib attack on the previous post.

Amabokke

Better game plan.

Every team has a weakness and you just need to find it. In the first test we know it was the centres but that door was closed in the second. In the second I believe Jones should've gone for the high up and unders because Habana and Steyn was shakey under the high ball. Not just kick it into their territory but actually boot it as high and the follow up.

He had a great squad and bar injuries I wouldnt have changed to many players. I would've done things in similar way but paid more attention to the execution and finishing.

twinytwo

hindsight is a wonderfull thing

Stev_o

I think they did the best they could. Sadly injuries and the like went against them. You can never plan these tours to perfection it seems you either get lucky or you don't. Sadly we were unlucky this time. Hopefully by the time we go to Australia things will be better aligned for us.

thomond2006

Call up Stringer over Blair. I know people will say Stringer was in bad form but he would never have let the red jersey down imo.

Call up Best over Ford. That was a no-brainer tbh.

theKramer

thomond2006 wrote: »

Call up Stringer over Blair. I know people will say Stringer was in bad form but he would never have let the red jersey down imo.

Jesus Christ dude. I know he would have tried his best, but he would have gotten slaughtered out there. After having seen what happened to RoG, can you seriously recommend Stringer.

And I am a fellow Munster man, but now way would I EVER have taken Stringer out there. This is not a slight on the man, just the fact that the guy is only 12 stone. They woulda been picking bits of him up off the pitch for weeks after.....

Chucky the tree

danny Care or custier way before stringer. I think Care should of went originally, the fact he can cover SH and wing is a bonus and would give us more opitions on the bench which we badly lacked in the end.

Amazotheamazing

In hindsight, I don't know if it was a good idea to bring guys like Fitz and Earls, and later D'Arcy. Fitz and Earls are still more potential than anything else, and D'Arcy is still a little off since his injury. Thom Evans this year was a little like watching Simon Geoghan with Ireland, good winger on a bad team, maybe he deserved a chance to show what he could do, he's more of an out-and-out wing that Fitz. Would have brought Peel and maybe Armitage too.

I think the tactics and captain were right, a better winger and Jones not having a mare would have changed the first game.

remus808

Wrapped Stephen Ferris in cotton wool

:pac:

thomond2006

karmabass wrote: »

Wrapped Stephen Ferris, TOL, BOD and Flannery in cotton wool

:pac:

Changed that for you.

remus808

Chucky the tree wrote: »

danny Care or custier way before stringer. I think Care should of went originally, the fact he can cover SH and wing is a bonus and would give us more opitions on the bench which we badly lacked in the end.

I would have had Care in the test 22, definitely better than Ellis any day of the week, and Blair at the moment.

Four-Percent

Brought Armitage instead of Earls, and would have played the test team at least once before the tests.di

As a side note, it's "would have" not "would of".


edit:would have brought stringer instead of ellis.Maybe he would get slaughtered but he surely wouldn't be as slow as ellis was

thomond2006

I think for the other wingers (especially Fitzgerald), it must have been extremely frustrating for them to see Shane Williams get so many chances to prove himself and be consistently drivel, including this week.

If I was one of them, I would feel unappreciated to be honest.

Although he's hardly been mentioned, I think Shanklin was a huge loss to the tour as a backup to Roberts and BOD in the centre. I am a big Tom Shanklin fan.

remus808

I would have made the following changes to the squad:

Out: Matthew Rees
In: Rory Best

Out: Joe Worsely
In: Alisdair Strokosch

Out: Harry Ellis
In: Danny Care

Out: Andy Powell
In: Ryan Jones/Nick Easter

Out: Keith Earls
In: Delon Armitage

Racing Flat

Change the whole structure.

Not play 10 odd games in SA before the test.

Play a probables v possibles type match, then play Italy, France and maybe Argentina beforehand. Then go and play 3 tests.

remus808

Racing Flat wrote: »

Change the whole structure.

Not play 10 odd games in SA before the test.

Play a probables v possibles type match, then play Italy, France and maybe Argentina beforehand. Then go and play 3 tests.

No way - the provincial games are a key part of a Lions tour. Games against local teams are something badly missing from the pro era.

Amazotheamazing

karmabass wrote: »

I would have made the following changes to the squad:

Out: Matthew Rees
In: Rory Best

I really don't think Best would have added much to be honest, Flannery was a huge loss, the gap between him and the next in line hooker is massive.

remus808

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I really don't think Best would have added much to be honest, Flannery was a huge loss, the gap between him and the next in line hooker is massive.

Balls to that, Flannery and Best have always been neck and neck. No Irish rugby pundit worth their salt will argue that you lose out when you change one for the other. Best has more caps by the way.

And whatever about Fla Vs Rory, Best is undoubtably better than either of Rees and Ford. I'd have had all 3 irish hookers on the Lions before I'd taken either of those mugs. Ford is good in the loose though.

Amazotheamazing

karmabass wrote: »

Balls to that, Flannery and Best have always been neck and neck. No Irish rugby pundit worth their salt will argue that you lose out when you change one for the other. Best has more caps by the way.

And whatever about Fla Vs Rory, Best is undoubtably better than either of Rees and Ford. I'd have had all 3 irish hookers on the Lions before I'd taken either of those mugs. Ford is good in the loose though.

Nah, I just don't see it. Best is an honest player but he's a crap thrower and nowhere near dynamic enough in the loose. If he was from anywhere else but Ireland, no one here would be screaming for his inclusion. I know we'll always be biased towards our own players, but honestly, take of the green tinted glasses for a second.

Racing Flat

karmabass wrote: »

No way - the provincial games are a key part of a Lions tour. Games against local teams are something badly missing from the pro era.

Sorry, maybe I should clarify - they are changes I would make to increase the chances of winning the series, as opposed to improving the tour or maintaining tradition.

anonymous_joe

Hmmm.

First - less games, less players.

Next;

Rory Best needed a call up. As did someone like Strokosch, who was unlucky to get left out. (And it's not often you say that about a Scottish player these days.)

Armitage deserved a call up, his omission was bizarre, the same could be said of someone like Mark Cueto. A good season was ignored basically.

Then;

Starting team for me, in an ideal world;

15. Rob Kearney
14. Tommy Bowe
13. BOD
12. Roberts
11. Undecided. Monye as an experiment almost worked. Fitz wasn't bad either, but offers a lot on the bench as a 22. Something Monye can't. The likes of Cueto might even have merited the nod.

10. Anyone but ROG. Nothing against him, but we all knew he'd be targeted if played, and he was. Thus it'd have been Stephen Jones with Hook on the bench.
9. Philips was good. Faster than O'Leary in terms of distribution, and similar skill set. Powerful, fasta nd threatening.

8. Powell (if, and only if, McGeechan or Gatland or someone took him aside and told him to vary his game. He's a decent defender, has ok hands, fast and a good strike runner.) That'd be the battering ram approach. That or put Heaslip at 8 and give him a platform to play.
7. Martyn Williams. Only not. I'd say Shane Jennings for the laugh, but seriously, the performance of Brussow indicated the desperate need of a team for someone to dominate the breakdown. Wallace couldn't.
6. Argh. Tough one. Ryan Jones quite possibly. Croft hasn't the raw power of a Ferris to terrify teams.
5. POC
4. I'd never have been smart enough to put Shaw in. Hindsight rocks.
3. Adam Jones.
2. Rory Best (or maybe just make it all Welsh and have Best on the bench)
1. Gethin Jenkins.

Etc. Surrendering the breakdown cost us the tests. Ergo the need to replace the likes of Wallace and Croft who played well, but not in that role.

Other than that, South Africa and New Zealand have both looked weak this season. Australia are solid but lack the depth of those two. The SH hasn't been weaker in ages, and yet they're dominating us.

South Africa needed to be attacked. The Lions were in my mind better defenders. They also had a lot in attack. The Lions centres vastly outclassed their opponents, and while Bowe/Kearney/Fitz don't have the attacking fizz and verve of Pietersen and Habana they can't be targetted as easily. Habana in particular is someone you should shower with up and unders etc. He gets annoyed too, and could be liable to get the odd yellow card. There was no sense of a plan of attack such as that.

Meanwhile, in the forwards, Schalk Burger was horrendously off form, Pierre Spies can't play rugby (he can score great tries, and is physically verging on genuinely scary, but his defence is poor and he's easily kept out of a game.) meaning that that Boks, great as it is, was also there to be challenged. Having watched Leinster base their entire season on a great backrow, it seemed bizarre that the Lions didn't try and do something similar. Meanwhile, the likes of Bakkies Botha looked outgunned by Shaw, Mtawawira seems poor when he can't prop against someone tall and the likes of Smit are a lil old. Only Matfield truly outshone his opponent, and that's like being outshone by O'Driscoll, or Pelé or whatever. It happens.

By using such conservative tactics, the Lions gave South Africa a chance to ignore their own problems. I can see that South African side being slaughtered by the Aussies or New Zealanders if they put cohesive teams together and target the Boks backrow (immeasurably strengthened since Burger's ban), target Pienaar which scares him and drives him deep killing the Boks backplay and bombard Habana/Pietersen and run at Steyn. Meanwhile the Boks centre pairing is not as strong as I'd have expected.

nerophis

Racing Flat wrote: »

Change the whole structure.

Not play 10 odd games in SA before the test.

Play a probables v possibles type match, then play Italy, France and maybe Argentina beforehand. Then go and play 3 tests.

I really think you're on to something there. I watched all the provincial matches and the feeling I got was I was watching out of obligation rather than any real interest. When SA starters are pulled out of it it becomes irrelevant. Nobody teams with no chance.

It would add a lot of spark to the proceedings to have a series of challenge games against meaningful opposition. I really like the idea of a probable vs possible match. The other approach is that the home team has to be obliged to field a best team but you'll find lots of starters will have "small injuries that we don't want to risk". The Lions were under-cooked going into the 1st Test and tactically they were not at the races at all. Hindsight is great but plenty of us armchair pundits questioned whether they were putting the best team out. The Lions can take a test match approach to every game (maybe five games) or it looks to me they will have very little chance of beating 3N team in the future.

Amabokke

Racing Flat wrote: »

Change the whole structure.

Not play 10 odd games in SA before the test.

Play a probables v possibles type match, then play Italy, France and maybe Argentina beforehand. Then go and play 3 tests.

The only issue is that these countries were also playing at the same time against other countries so full first squads are not quaranteed. Also, the distance for travelling between these countries are not ideal and I believe the jetlag will be too much.

Racing Flat

nerophis wrote: »

I watched all the provincial matches and the feeling I got was I was watching out of obligation rather than any real interest.

Exactly. The last time I remember getting any joy out of the build-up matches was in 97. Perhaps the tail-end of the amateur era. But I can't see what the Lions get out of these matches. They are expected to win, so it's kind of a lose lose situation. Win and we say they should have scored more points, win by loads and we say the opposition wasn't good enough, losing not an option. But mainly, because they are not tests, the preparaion isn't good enough for test rugby.

Fair enough Italy and France had games this time, but with scheduling it could be sorted out. Jetlag can also be managed - they only need to get to each place a week in advance or so. But in the professional era, the tour is way too long, with way too many matches. It sets the opposition up perfectly for the win if you ask me.

redmca

With so many Irish on the tour not to mention those who got injured/banned etc, we have a gilt edged opportunity to put some of our hindsight into practice when we play the Boks in Croke Park on 28 November.
The only question mark for Ireland is at half back, but I would still fully expect us to repeat the defeat we gave them the last time they visited Dublin.

Amabokke

Racing Flat wrote: »

But in the professional era, the tour is way too long, with way too many matches. It sets the opposition up perfectly for the win if you ask me.

If the Lions don't get enough game time together before a big test then people will challenge that too. The issue is keep the same lenght of the tour but to increase your player pool. No wonder Woodward took 45 players in 2005 (althought he used the same 22 everytime) but I believe injuries will be reduced with more players so everyone gets a good rest inbetween.

I believe the Aussies wants the next Lions tour extended with more matches.

subfreq

Agree that Rory Best should have been taken once Flannery was injured.

I think you are all selecting the wrong Armatige. When Ferris was injured I would have brought Steffon Armatige in. I think he has a fantastic aggression and low body attack in the maul much like Brussouw. I think he would have suited the conditions.

Would not have selected Monye in the initial squad. I think Kearney would have been a better option as cover there and an extra midfielder would have been a better choice.

I think Earls was the correct selection and have no problems there.

I can't change the selection with the first test because it's almost cheating now with hindsight but Vickery would not have come back on in the second half.

Hook would have been on the bench in the second test instead of ROG. That is not knee jerk as I have said it all along. I think the way they rearranged the back line in the second test when the injuries hit was poorly done.

Happy with POC as captain. Don't think changing it to BOD would have made a single difference. You could see all the senior players having an input in the games.

Would not have played a rush defense.

Racing Flat

Amabokke wrote: »

If the Lions don't get enough game time together before a big test then people will challenge that too.

How much game time do Ireland get before the 6 Nations? 2 or 3 tests in the Autumn?

stephen_n

karmabass wrote: »

No way - the provincial games are a key part of a Lions tour. Games against local teams are something badly missing from the pro era.

The level of opposition that provincial sides give is no where near good enough to prepare a team made up of four countries to gell together for test match's against the world champions if the lions are to win the series they need to play against a much higher quality of opposition prior to the games provincial teams could still be played in between the tests but before they leave europe they should have played against the likes of France and Italy and maybe the saxons!

Amabokke

Racing Flat wrote: »

How much game time do Ireland get before the 6 Nations? 2 or 3 tests in the Autumn?

Bringing 4 nations together with different coaches, structures, gameplay is very different. Most of the Irish players just like Welsh, Eng, etc. have been playing together for while and have the same coach.

Stev_o

Racing Flat wrote: »

How much game time do Ireland get before the 6 Nations? 2 or 3 tests in the Autumn?

2 weeks. 1 week for GP players.

anonymous_joe

Amabokke wrote: »

Bringing 4 nations together with different coaches, structures, gameplay is very different. Most of the Irish players just like Welsh, Eng, etc. have been playing together for while and have the same coach.

Yup.

Unfortunately I can't see there being any further tours really. Probably one or two warm ups and three tests and that's about it. And basically you'll have red Barbarians.

Racing Flat

Amabokke wrote: »

Bringing 4 nations together with different coaches, structures, gameplay is very different. Most of the Irish players just like Welsh, Eng, etc. have been playing together for while and have the same coach.

Brininging 4 provinces together with different coaches, structures, gameplay happens all the time. And with a new coach in Declan Kidney it didn't go too badly off the back of just a few test games in the Autumn, did it?

anonymous_joe

Racing Flat wrote: »

Brininging 4 provinces together with different coaches, structures, gameplay happens all the time. And with a new coach in Declan Kidney it didn't go too badly off the back of just a few test games in the Autumn, did it?

That's a bit silly though...

The international side get together a few times a year. The Lions once every four.

Also, you'll often find provincial groupings in the national team, i.e. Leinster centres, Munster half-backs and so on. Makes it easier to pull a team together.