1ST TEST

[Cameo]

Beirne has been far from his best, but at his best he has a very well rounded game with physicality, line out work, carrying, jackaling etc. and rugby brains. I do not think he has been quite so bad as made out. He has a lot of credit in the bank with Farrell. We know what he is capable of and he's due big game. Don't be too surprised if he has a blinder. If not he can always be dropped for the remaining games.

I don’t think anyone would be shocked by any player in this side having a blinder, they’re all fantastic, but it does feel a bit weird when form during the warmups ends up seeming so irrelevant.

Any of these players ‘at their best’ are good enough. It just feels like the guys in form should be first in the queue to show their ‘big game temperament’ (or whatever the phrase is) rather than giving others test matches to play themselves back in to form.

You could easily see a world where a 5/10 performance from Curry (or Beirne or Furlong or whoever) is enough to secure the win and they retain their spot for the series, while someone like Morgan may have had that exact same chance and missed out due to ‘credit in the bank’.

I’m sure Farrell knows what he’s doing, just doesn’t look quite like the form team (or most balanced pack) from outside.

I kinda agree when starting from a base line that they are all top players. But I might be biased in that I already preferred the players I see as the "form players".

Farrell may say that form in a couple of warmup matches isn't enough to change his mind as to who is most likely to have a big game come test match time. He has also seen training, rewatched games, and analysed the stats.

Basically, watching games and coming up with teams based on warmup games is fun, but it might be a bit of a fool's game except where the calls are very tight or someone has a shocker/blinder.

[Spiffy]

Beirne has been far from his best, but at his best he has a very well rounded game with physicality, line out work, carrying, jackaling etc. and rugby brains. I do not think he has been quite so bad as made out. He has a lot of credit in the bank with Farrell. We know what he is capable of and he's due big game. Don't be too surprised if he has a blinder. If not he can always be dropped for the remaining games.

I don’t think anyone would be shocked by any player in this side having a blinder, they’re all fantastic, but it does feel a bit weird when form during the warmups ends up seeming so irrelevant.

Any of these players ‘at their best’ are good enough. It just feels like the guys in form should be first in the queue to show their ‘big game temperament’ (or whatever the phrase is) rather than giving others test matches to play themselves back in to form.

You could easily see a world where a 5/10 performance from Curry (or Beirne or Furlong or whoever) is enough to secure the win and they retain their spot for the series, while someone like Morgan may have had that exact same chance and missed out due to ‘credit in the bank’.

I’m sure Farrell knows what he’s doing, just doesn’t look quite like the form team (or most balanced pack) from outside.

Yes, do do have a valid point, and I would have no complaints if Beirne were not picked. Just trying to read Farrell's mind a bit here. Like any coach he will have favourite players he feels he can trust in big games, based on past (but not too past) performances. If it is all about form then why is the plodding Owen Farrell, who played like a drain in Paris last season, anywhere remotely near the Lions Squad.

[Sandydragon]

Good luck on Saturday chaps. I’m backing the convicts. Would it be possible to petition commentators to not use the descriptor South Sea Islanders? It isn’t the 19th Century.

If they could eliminate justin Harrison from comms entirely that'd be fine with me

Could he sit in a trailer with a dummy set of microphones etc and just speak to himself? Better yet, he can have Will Greenwood to keep him company.

[Sandydragon]

Beirne has been far from his best, but at his best he has a very well rounded game with physicality, line out work, carrying, jackaling etc. and rugby brains. I do not think he has been quite so bad as made out. He has a lot of credit in the bank with Farrell. We know what he is capable of and he's due big game. Don't be too surprised if he has a blinder. If not he can always be dropped for the remaining games.

I don’t think anyone would be shocked by any player in this side having a blinder, they’re all fantastic, but it does feel a bit weird when form during the warmups ends up seeming so irrelevant.

Any of these players ‘at their best’ are good enough. It just feels like the guys in form should be first in the queue to show their ‘big game temperament’ (or whatever the phrase is) rather than giving others test matches to play themselves back in to form.

You could easily see a world where a 5/10 performance from Curry (or Beirne or Furlong or whoever) is enough to secure the win and they retain their spot for the series, while someone like Morgan may have had that exact same chance and missed out due to ‘credit in the bank’.

I’m sure Farrell knows what he’s doing, just doesn’t look quite like the form team (or most balanced pack) from outside.

Yes, do do have a valid point, and I would have no complaints if Beirne were not picked. Just trying to read Farrell's mind a bit here. Like any coach he will have favourite players he feels he can trust in big games, based on past (but not too past) performances. If it is all about form then why is the plodding Owen Farrell, who played like a drain in Paris last season, anywhere remotely near the Lions Squad.

It’s that argument over form va history that got Woodward into trouble. I don’t think the Aussies will hurt us the way the all blacks did in 05 so it won’t matter but the concept of basically picking your test team before you depart makes the tour pointless.

[pjm1]

But you always adapt to suit both the other team and the ref. Not to do that would be crazy and give you a massive disadvantage vs the oppo that does.

That’s not the same as negating your strengths for either - but in this case I think there is a very strong case for picking a different back row in test 1 vs test 2.

Sure, you do your homework on the ref and have a gameplan based on his interpretation, but actually picking players depending on the ref seems a bit... Too much.

To be fair, I’m probably not explaining my logic very well. It’s more about choosing your tactics to suit the ref and opposition, which then leads to selecting players best able to deploy those tactics.

Against this ref, I can see a stronger argument for having your flankers more active in link play rather than clearing the ensuing ruck. Both Beirne and Curry have been better and more effective passers of the ball in the tour games.

I think the tactics will change for test 2 and therefore justify different flankers (amongst other factors, potentially).

Hope that makes more sense!

[Donny osmond]

Mate, they've got another game on Tuesday and the 2nd Test next Saturday. The guys selected for tomorrow arent going ti play on Tuesday, even if Farrell thinks they will play the ref better. They aren't selecting players based on the opposition and the ref, they've selected their test team and their midweek team and if, for example, Morgan gets selected on Tuesday and goes well he still isn't going to be selected for test 2 because he's been judged as midweek team material. Unless Curry has a mare or gets injured. That's how Lions selections work.

[Tuco Ramirez]

I think Farrell has done a Sir Clive and known his team for a long time. Why else would he select non performing players? Trouble is, it wont get exposed because Australia are not strong enough. It makes a mockery of the tour though and I hope he can see this. Beirn plus Curry are picked on past performances rather than current form and that cannot be right. Conan to a lesser degree. It stinks.

[jngf]

I think Farrell has done a Sir Clive and known his team for a long time. Why else would he select non performing players? Trouble is, it wont get exposed because Australia are not strong enough. It makes a mockery of the tour though and I hope he can see this. Beirn plus Curry are picked on past performances rather than current form and that cannot be right. Conan to a lesser degree. It stinks.

Agree, Farrell will get away with it if he manages a test win - though if it goes like ‘89 where we lost the first test in part from selecting a back row of two 8s and a 6.5 ( White, Richards & F Calder ) - that post match press conference will be a tough gig! I will say though that Farrell did take full responsibility and ownership when side lost against Argentina - and didn’t try to spin it which is very much to his credit.

I also think Farrell was really banking on Doris being available and that not eventuating appears to have upset his vision somewhat.

[Cameo]

I think Farrell has done a Sir Clive and known his team for a long time. Why else would he select non performing players? Trouble is, it wont get exposed because Australia are not strong enough. It makes a mockery of the tour though and I hope he can see this. Beirn plus Curry are picked on past performances rather than current form and that cannot be right. Conan to a lesser degree. It stinks.

Woodward selected a squad, then team, of players who hadn't performed all year, Farrell has selected a couple of players who have been generally good this year but haven't been great on tour. There's a difference.

It would make a mockery of the tour if the idea was an x factor type competition where the best performer in each round gets through. It's not. He is allowed to rely on past performances.

I say this as someone who disagrees with at least two of the selections and agrees it takes some of the fun out of warmup games if the coach doesn't see them as central to selection.

[Tuco Ramirez]

I think Farrell has done a Sir Clive and known his team for a long time. Why else would he select non performing players? Trouble is, it wont get exposed because Australia are not strong enough. It makes a mockery of the tour though and I hope he can see this. Beirn plus Curry are picked on past performances rather than current form and that cannot be right. Conan to a lesser degree. It stinks.

Woodward selected a squad, then team, of players who hadn't performed all year, Farrell has selected a couple of players who have been generally good this year but haven't been great on tour. There's a difference.

It would make a mockery of the tour if the idea was an x factor type competition where the best performer in each round gets through. It's not. He is allowed to rely on past performances.

I say this as someone who disagrees with at least two of the selections and agrees it takes some of the fun out of warmup games if the coach doesn't see them as central to selection.

its hardly "x factor" picking your best performing players. Its meritocracy, a pillar any team should be built around.

[jngf]

[Tuco Ramirez]

so my take from that is it would have been Chessum and Morgan (correct choices on form) if either beirne or Curry were no selected. seems he is playing them as a pair.

[pjm1]

Mate, they've got another game on Tuesday and the 2nd Test next Saturday. The guys selected for tomorrow arent going ti play on Tuesday, even if Farrell thinks they will play the ref better. They aren't selecting players based on the opposition and the ref, they've selected their test team and their midweek team and if, for example, Morgan gets selected on Tuesday and goes well he still isn't going to be selected for test 2 because he's been judged as midweek team material. Unless Curry has a mare or gets injured. That's how Lions selections work.

I never said these 23 are playing on Tuesday. Why throw up an unnecessary strawman? There might need to be some bench cover but they will aim to rest them as far as possible given it’s just 3 days later. From now on it’s all about the tests.

I guess Farrell doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he described the selection as “right balance for this first test” - silly him. Apart from Woodward, who created a very divisive culture, players have come in and out of test contention after the first test, through careful bench management and not just because of injury.

I assume under your theory that’s precisely why we have 46 players in the lions squad, since it’s impossible for any player to move from midweek to test. Oh hang on…

And finally, of course they are selecting the players based on the opposition - it would be stupid to suggest otherwise. And it’s far from controversial to suggest they tweak according to very different ref styles also.

[Banquo]

I think Farrell has done a Sir Clive and known his team for a long time. Why else would he select non performing players? Trouble is, it wont get exposed because Australia are not strong enough. It makes a mockery of the tour though and I hope he can see this. Beirn plus Curry are picked on past performances rather than current form and that cannot be right. Conan to a lesser degree. It stinks.

Woodward selected a squad, then team, of players who hadn't performed all year, Farrell has selected a couple of players who have been generally good this year but haven't been great on tour. There's a difference.

It would make a mockery of the tour if the idea was an x factor type competition where the best performer in each round gets through. It's not. He is allowed to rely on past performances.

I say this as someone who disagrees with at least two of the selections and agrees it takes some of the fun out of warmup games if the coach doesn't see them as central to selection.

its hardly "x factor" picking your best performing players. Its meritocracy, a pillar any team should be built around.

Any standard team, yes, and even then meritocracy isn’t necessarily recent form, you always have a body of past performance to consider; Lions is a tad different as you are knitting together new units etc. still, I think he’s been too conservative. But it’s only back row imo that’s out a bit. It’s not like Beirne and Curry are poor- both worldies at their best. I wouldn’t have picked em but I’m not an intl coach.