Alex Corbisiero called up as cover for Cian Healy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/22790510

No one sure if Cian Healy is out becuase of injury, or maybe a ban but Corbisiero called up.

Prob a good idea to call someone else up just to be safe, but what are people's reactions to Corbisiero?

I think Scottish fans were upset Grant didn't get called up the first time, and to miss out again seams harsh.

On BBC someone blames Graham Rowntree

"a English front row coach picking 6 players from his own country in the front row IS a case of national bias and reaks of "jobs for the boys". To overlook an in-form loose head who many touted for a Test start, TWICE, defies belief and shows that he can't see beyond his favourites."

Looking at it, it does appear to be a very English front row, at the start Best wasn't selected, and now Grant front row was all English with Hibbard, Jenkins, Healy and Jones

Anyone think Graham Rowntree has shown a bias? Is Corbisiero the best replacement?

I think that Rowntree believes that Corbisiero is the better player.

Personally I agree, but feel that the injury issues and lack of game time (note that his 3 matches for LI were the last 3, plus he has played in Englands two matches so is showing fitness) and the form of Grant and James mean he should not have been called up.

Paul James case was probably rather hindered by the number of penalties he conceded in HK - even if the ref was rather lenient with AJs binding.

I made the point on another thread that its probably a smart move in the circumstances.

The new player won't play against Queensland Reds and would be highly unlikely to be in Australia any sooner than Saturday.

The Lions have been together a month training with particular scrum techniques from their coach Graham Rowantree.

Given the timing of the 1st Test, which is in 2 weeks we need a player who can go out to Australia and already be familiar with what Rowantree wants from the scrum. From Rowantree's point of view he'll be thinking "yes Grant is in form but I have never worked with him and neither have any of the other front rows on tour".

We saw in 2009 the impact that the scrum made; I don't want a situation where we have a guy who isn't up to speed with what the rest of the front rows are doing.

To me its a no brainer. Grant is in form but form is only one factor that needs to be considered.

At the start of the tour for me Grant should have travelled but for a replacement right now, Cobisiero is the right choice.

Do people really think so little of Gatland that they believe he doesn't have any say in selection? I'm sure Rowntree has his input but he will have probably paid attention to Grant once this season, when England played Scotland. It is Gatland that has been scouting around all season and will have had his list of choices and the final call would have been his.

I don't really care who gets called up and to be honest would have rather Corbisiero stayed with England but hey, decision has been made now. By Gatland.

Toadfish wrote:Do people really think so little of Gatland that they believe he doesn't have any say in selection?

Yes Gatland makes the final call of course but I believe that Gatland should (and probably did) listen strongly to the advice of his scrum coach in decisions regarding front row forwards.

Can you imagine a situation where Gatland sits down with Rowantree and says "Right here are your front rows. Do your stuff with them".

I would imagine selection is a collaborative effort between the coaches. Gatland takes their advice on board and makes the final decision. But I would expect this and certainly wouldnt "think so little" of him for doing so.

I think there is an English tint to some of the front row selections, but I don't think it is bias. It is probably down to rowntree knowing them better. Corbisiero is a top class LH but he is not long back. Grant can consider himself very unlucky.

I said the same thing about kidney as ireland coach. He reverts to what he knows which isn't wholly unreasonable.

Gatland weighs up all the advice and options and then has the final say - Let's not forget he was a very good front rower himself and it's not as if we have a winger in charge here:thumbsup:

It's unlikely that anyone called up at this stage is going to push for the first test team, so it makes sense to go for the player who knows the forwards coach and a few of his front row colleagues already.

Look back at the last time your team made a selection you didn't agree with. Did you single out the head coach for the decision or the specialist coach for that area? I can't remember anyone blaming rowntree when we kept picking wood at number 8 in the six nations?

I don't mind him picking Englismen, had he picked Sheridan for instance I would have been gutted but understood. Sheridan is a monster of a scrumager and was excellent all season for his club.

However for Sheridan, James and Grant to miss out for someone who has barely played all season is a shocker.

Same as Lydiate being picked ahead of 3 other 6N captains (Brown, Robshaw and Jones).

People have been coughing up examples of BOD, POC and to a lesser extent Gray, about players being given the benefit of doubt with regards to injury. However Gray played for the bulk of the season only getting injured in the penultimate 6N game and POC & BOD are natural leaders and Irish legends.

Corbs isn't a legend by any stretch of the imagination. That doesn't mean to say I don't think he is a good player. I reckon he is a very good player. However right now, I feel there are better options than him and feel he has only been picked because Rowntree likes him. It's not as if the Australia front row is all that formidable anyway.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I don't mind him picking Englismen, had he picked Sheridan for instance I would have been gutted but understood. Sheridan is a monster of a scrumager and was excellent all season for his club.

However for Sheridan, James and Grant to miss out for someone who has barely played all season is a shocker.

Same as Lydiate being picked ahead of 3 other 6N captains (Brown, Robshaw and Jones).

People have been coughing up examples of BOD, POC and to a lesser extent Gray, about players being given the benefit of doubt with regards to injury. However Gray played for the bulk of the season only getting injured in the penultimate 6N game and POC & BOD are natural leaders and Irish legends.

Corbs isn't a legend by any stretch of the imagination. That doesn't mean to say I don't think he is a good player. I reckon he is a very good player. However right now, I feel there are better options than him and feel he has only been picked because Rowntree likes him. It's not as if the Australia front row is all that formidable anyway.

I agree with everything you have said, but the highlighted bit is a little unfair if you ask me. Gatland has the final say and is no push over. He won't have just accepted whatever Rowntree said and selected blindly. He will have weighed up the case.

Maybe Rowntree selected Corbs because as someone said earlier, they are famailiar with eachother's coaching strategies. You can't blame the Lions coaching team for wanting to make the late integration a little smoother for both parties.

Not sure I buy that Blues, if it was for familiarity surely James would have been called up since an all Welsh front row is likely for the tests.

Like I said I could understand Sheridan or James, I would have been gutted but I would understand the reasoning. Corbs is a bit of a for me.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Not sure I buy that Blues, if it was for familiarity surely James would have been called up since an all Welsh front row is likely for the tests.

Like I said I could understand Sheridan or James, I would have been gutted but I would understand the reasoning. Corbs is a bit of a for me.

+1

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Not sure I buy that Blues, if it was for familiarity surely James would have been called up since an all Welsh front row is likely for the tests.

Like I said I could understand Sheridan or James, I would have been gutted but I would understand the reasoning. Corbs is a bit of a for me.

I'm just trying to think up other reasons, other than the fact that he's Rowntree's favourite, because I think that is a moot point when Gatland has the final say.

There are certainly other LH options who have performed excellently this season and all have an argument for being selected. They are all unluckly, but Corbs should do well. Prior to this season, I reckon he was a nailed on tourist, but like so many other players, injury plagued him at the wrong time. He's fortunately got a chance to redeem.

Personally, I would have taken Grant. He's in training for Scotland's summer tour, and probably should have taken it on merit.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I don't mind him picking Englismen, had he picked Sheridan for instance I would have been gutted but understood. Sheridan is a monster of a scrumager and was excellent all season for his club.

However for Sheridan, James and Grant to miss out for someone who has barely played all season is a shocker.

Same as Lydiate being picked ahead of 3 other 6N captains (Brown, Robshaw and Jones).

People have been coughing up examples of BOD, POC and to a lesser extent Gray, about players being given the benefit of doubt with regards to injury. However Gray played for the bulk of the season only getting injured in the penultimate 6N game and POC & BOD are natural leaders and Irish legends.

Corbs isn't a legend by any stretch of the imagination. That doesn't mean to say I don't think he is a good player. I reckon he is a very good player. However right now, I feel there are better options than him and feel he has only been picked because Rowntree likes him. It's not as if the Australia front row is all that formidable anyway.

I have said it on several threads, if the Aussies put out a front row of Robinson, Moore, Alexander, do not underestimate their scrummaging ability, the Lions won't blow them away.

Scotland have never seemed to struggle with the Aussie Scrum. In fact in the game we last played them we made their scrum pay out penalties like a broken bandit.

But hey what do I know?!

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Scotland have never seemed to struggle with the Aussie Scrum. In fact in the game we last played them we made their scrum pay out penalties like a broken bandit.

But hey what do I know?!

Slipper, Moore, Palmer

the last time you played Australia.

You did beat their front row of Robinson, Moore, Alexander in 2009 (4 years ago) but I don't see how that could have any bearing on current matchups? And in 2009 you definitely didn't have dominance in any area! http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/scottish/8369615.stm

Not saying that there is anything wrong with the Scottish scrum but your point seemed to have no bearing at all to mine and was slightly overdefensive, especially as I have said I think Grant should have been called up (or in fact Touring in the initial squad)

All a bit academc really....

Here's the test front row...



and in case you cant work them out from their likeness its..

Spoiler:

Interesting all 4 LH either in the squad or just called up (Corbs) are all the type which can hold their own in the scrum but tend to offer something around the park. Is this part of the Gatland game plan, or is it connected to the changing roles of props, were nowadays the TH is seen as the destructuve scrummager?

I agree with most saying Grant is very unlucky, and perhaps Paul James as well, however when fit and playing well Corbs is as good as any LH in Britain and Ireland. Had he been involved in the 6N he would have toured. I know this isn't really the point as he has not been for and has not played, but he looked good for England against the Barbarians and it could be that he is nice and fresh when others are fading at the end of a long season. If he gets a chance to play he will not let the lions down. He has never had a poor game for England.

This once again raises the interesting debate of how you make selections. Do you chose players as a reward for recent strong performances,a or players you feel are of a greater class and more likely to excel when at their best? I think Gatland seems to be thinking along the lines of choosing the best player not the form player. Some will like this, some won't. I like it, and wish Stuart Lancaster thought more along these lines for England. Selection should be ruthless not sentimental. The player most likely to contribute to a win should get the nod.

I'm not saying Grant or James aren't players of the same calibre, but Corbs is a very good player and his selection is not the travesty some are implying.

Bathman

One of the tightheads (Cole) fits the same profile - a good (actually a very good) scrummager, but also very mobile and gets involved around the park, while Stevens... well, plenty has been said on his selection.

Only really Adam Jones is in the classic mould of a prop who scummages then walks slowly (possibly stopping for a pie, pint and fag) to the next set piece (OK, exageration, but he's not someone who is often seen in the wide open spaces of the pitch in open play).

I think Corbs is a very good international player, but he is lucky to be selected given the amount of rugby he hasn't played this year (same as Lydiate - perhaps Gatland is hoping that their freshness compensates for their lack of demonstrable form). I also think there's an element of truth in the suggestion that AC's selection owes a bit to his familiarty with Rowntree's scrum coaching, which should allow him to hit the ground running.

sirBiggles wrote:All a bit academc really....

]

I love the irony there