What if?

pappyodaniel

Hypothetical Story: Brian O'Driscoll gets injured. Can't be selected for The Lions Tour. Who would you replace him with?

My own opinion is knock at Jonny Wilkinson's door and beg him to join the tour.

If this does not happen who would you replace him with?

GiftofGab

Obviously John Hayes

its_phil

pappyodaniel wrote: »

Hypothetical Story: Brian O'Driscoll gets injured. Can't be selected for The Lions Tour. Who would you replace him with?

My own opinion is knock at Jonny Wilkinson's door and beg him to join the tour.

If this does not happen who would you replace him with?

Beg Jonny Wilkinson to replace a second center? Where is the sense in that?

Morf

Johnny Wilkinson is a smashing chap and a great goal/drop goal kicker but he's about as creative as an Aldi eco-friendly shopping bag.

The Lions have 3 13's as it is. What they really need is a 12 in case The Walking Chin gets injured again.

razorblunt

Ollie Smith.

Joke, he'd never ever get picked for the Lions .... right?

If a hypothetical situation like that occurrred I would prefere a winger to need replacing and have a Zebo/Wade esque player brought along, some one that will just ignite the tour. At the moment it looks only Maitland may be in that category.

SebBerkovich

Why not Madigan/Zoidberg?

Buer

I'd be happy with Wilkinson given the genuine lack of options. I think the idea of bringing two outhalves was foolish to begin with. Farrell has plenty of experience at 12 which is more required than 13 (where we already have Davies and Tuilagi). Wilkinson comes in as a game closer and a steady older hand, Farrell plays more as a 12 covering 10 and we've a much better squad balance to the midfield.

Ollie Smith only toured on the recommendation of BOD interestingly enough, by the way.

andrewdcs

It'd be Madigan (as a 12 to cover 10 etc.) or Marshall.

sydthebeat

pappyodaniel wrote: »

Hypothetical Story: Brian O'Driscoll gets injured. Can't be selected for The Lions Tour. Who would you replace him with?

My own opinion is knock at Jonny Wilkinson's door and beg him to join the tour.

If this does not happen who would you replace him with?

O Driscoll could be fully fit AND still not be selected for a test game.... that snot beyone the bounds of possibility when it comes to gatland.

As far as the question goes, i dont see the logic in replacing possibly the best 13 we have with a fly half.

As the lions have three 13's and one 12... the obvious thing to do would be to bring in the next best 12... probably twelvetrees or barritt.

andrewdcs

andrewdcs wrote: »

It'd be Madigan (as a 12 to cover 10 etc.) or Marshall.

Summer off to recover from 3 concussions within a month. Hopefully that's enough.

I wouldn't be averse to a Hodgson / Beck / Wallace (Fofana in disguise) / SmallForrest type of player travelling to cover inside centre if BOD was injured.

I think that Gatland has missed a trick in having a distributor option at 12 and a bashem at 13 as well as the obvious Kevin Maggs types with BOD outside them.

Pudsy33

I'd definitely be in favour of 36 going if one of the centres went down.

Buer

sydthebeat wrote: »

As far as the question goes, i dont see the logic in replacing possibly the best 13 we have with a fly half.

As the lions have three 13's and one 12... the obvious thing to do would be to bring in the next best 12... probably twelvetrees or barritt.

With Farrell having played at only centre in the Premiership since March, the question for me would be, who will perform better for the Lions, Wilkinson at 10 or Twelvetrees, Barritt at 12? Wilkinson every time for me at the moment. Farrell is more than capable of playing at centre given it's where he has played the bulk of his recent rugby. It would offer more cover to the squad overall and deal with the issue of only having the two outhalves.

bilston

Billy Twelvetress, Brad Barritt or Matt Scott. My preference is for 36 or Scott but I'm not sure they suit Gattyball.

I expect Wilkinson will go on tour irrespective of injuries.

sydthebeat

Buer wrote: »

With Farrell having played at only centre in the Premiership since March, the question for me would be, who will perform better for the Lions, Wilkinson at 10 or Twelvetrees, Barritt at 12? Wilkinson every time for me at the moment. Farrell is more than capable of playing at centre given it's where he has played the bulk of his recent rugby. It would offer more cover to the squad overall and deal with the issue of only having the two outhalves.

but it does nothing to answer the dilema.

at the moment we have 2 out halves, one 12 and three 13's.
If BOD didnt tour and johnny came in.

we have 3 out halves, possibly two 12's and two 13's.

However we are not going to start with sexton play and johnny and farrell on the bench. So if we bench farrell as cover for 10 and 12 we negate the reason for wilkison being there. If we bench johnny we've no cover at 12 other than expecting the 21 to cover both centre spots.

Theres as much to argue about bring twelvetrees to cover 12 and 10 if needed... hed be more competent than hogg anyway.

In all honest, i can still see another 10 being asked over anyway regardless, most probably johnny.

vienne86

I'd think 12trees would be the obvious choice. I'd love Madigan to get a punt, but I don't think that would happen. Best of all would be for BOD to stay fit!

Buer

sydthebeat wrote: »

but it does nothing to answer the dilema.

at the moment we have 2 out halves, one 12 and three 13's.
If BOD didnt tour and johnny came in.

we have 3 out halves, possibly two 12's and two 13's.

However we are not going to start with sexton play and johnny and farrell on the bench. So if we bench farrell as cover for 10 and 12 we negate the reason for wilkison being there. If we bench johnny we've no cover at 12 other than expecting the 21 to cover both centre spots.

Of course it does something to answer the dilemma. An additional player comes in at outhalf which allows Farrell to be used as a 12 where he has played as much of his rugby this year. It's not solely 3 outhalves nor would many see it as such if Wilkinson was brought out. I fully expect Farrell to play at centre in one of the warm up games already.

There's no negating having an additional 10 there. You can't look at a 10 match tour at the end of the season and think solely in terms of a test 23. There are going to be other matches, injuries etc. It will be as cover and to provide options. Wilkinson can play 12 also and has even started a Lions test there (although some time ago).`

There's flexibility in the other players also. Hogg has played centre. Tuilagi has played 12 and 13 internationally. Bowe has played centre. The positions will be covered.

sydthebeat

Buer wrote: »

Of course it does something to answer the dilemma. An additional player comes in at outhalf which allows Farrell to be used as a 12 where he has played as much of his rugby this year..

you miss the crux of the argument....

on a test day theres no way the team will line out with sexton playing, and wilkinson at 20 and farrell at 21... leaving a third sub to cover 13, 11, 14 and 15 !!!!!

i agree completely that 3 outhalfs are required for the tour, but there will only ever be 2 of the 3 named on match day, barring serious injury crisis.

the question is not should johnny be brought, thats a no brainer and i think he will be anyway, the question is if BOD didnt make it would the best replacement be Johnny... and no, clearly not.
one (and a half) 12s and two 13's on the whole tour is not enough.
If, and a big if, BOD couldnt tour, he would have to be replaced with a dedicated centre.
and ive already argued that it should be more of a 12 than 13.

the baby bull elephant

Beck big guy but has playmaking ability.

Buer

sydthebeat wrote: »

the question is not should johnny be brought, thats a no brainer and i think he will be anyway, the question is if BOD didnt make it would the best replacement be Johnny... and no, clearly not.
one (and a half) 12s and two 13's on the whole tour is not enough.
If, and a big if, BOD couldnt tour, he would have to be replaced with a dedicated centre.
and ive already argued that it should be more of a 12 than 13.

Not missing the point at all. I'm arguing that Farrell, as a dedicated 12 (not a half 12, a dedicated 12 that can cover 10), is a better option than Twelvetrees or BB (who is underrated himself) and it also strengthens the touring party overall with Wilkinson coming in.

That gives you your two outhalves, two inside centres and two outside centres with significant versatility.

sydthebeat

Buer wrote: »

Not missing the point at all. I'm arguing that Farrell, as a dedicated 12 (not a half 12, a dedicated 12 that can cover 10), is a better option than Twelvetrees or BB (who is underrated himself) and it also strengthens the touring party overall with Wilkinson coming in.

That gives you your two outhalves, two inside centres and two outside centres with significant versatility.

ok, understood...


but absolutely do not agree.

Farrell is not england international standard 12, never mind lions standard.....