Has Gatland shown the way?

For the Lions to be successful take the basics of a team with a few additions

It's been the case for just about every successul Lions tour up to now, so I guess there is a lot to what you say. In 71 and 74, Wales had about half the starting line-up, while England had more than two-third of the successful Test sides in 89 and about half in 97. This time, it's Wales again.

The rest of the mix is crucial, no question, but I do believe that it helps the Lions for the bedrock to come from one side.

It is an interesting point, but one which completely ruins the ethos of the Lions, and brings us closer to just getting rid of Lions all together and just going to individual tours. It is also worth remembering that Woodward did a very similar in 2005 with the 2003 England team making up the bulk of the tour, and that did not go as well as Gatland's side did. I for one would like to continue see the Lions select fairly from all four nations to continue the Lions through the Pro era

All today showed is what everyone said before the tour.  If we win up front we will win the games.  In the first two we didn't really do that.

In the pack there was no combinations.  After the first half people wondered if we had wasted chances at the back.

So i dont think building it around a core team works.  It is tactics and being abls to carry it out.  The team has been together for over a month so should be gelling by then.

MR. scotland27 wrote:It is an interesting point, but one which completely ruins the ethos of the Lions, and brings us closer to just getting rid of Lions all together and just going to individual tours. It is also worth remembering that Woodward did a very similar in 2005 with the 2003 England team making up the bulk of the tour, and that did not go as well as Gatland's side did. I for one would like to continue see the Lions select fairly from all four nations to continue the Lions through the Pro  era

Also it is worth pointing out that this Aus team will most likely come third in the 4N so lets not think we did amazing.  We did good but no more.

Also who were the people in the pack that stood out and got us dominance.  Was it one nation or all nations' players that did it.

Woodward picked the 2005 Lions side as though the year was 2003, which was his error, of course. Where there is a side from the 4 nations that enjoys clear primacy (which England certainly didn't in 2004-05), then it makes sense that they should supply the nucleus.

One of the reasons that the 89 squad selection was so inspired was that after the hideous first test mauling, the selectors identified the England players as the ones that would make the difference for the Lions a year or two before those players came to dominate the NH game. In the case of the other successful Lions teams, including thisa one, the dominant team has been easy to see and the Lions first XV has accordingly, and rightly been built around it. In 74, the best Lions XV ever, there were only two English starters. It didn't matter - the Lions always have and alwats will be a squad concept, which is part of what makes them so special, in my view.

Old-fashioned, amateur values, perhaps, like the scrummage, but God, it's good to see them triumph from time to time.