British & Irish Lions Squad 2017

First topic message reminder :

Poorfour wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
 There was no spear tackle.

Technically, you're right. It was off the ball, so it wasn't a tackle. Whatever it was, it wasn't pretty, it was deliberately dangerous and it wasn't remotely legal. The way it was handled by the officials was appalling.

 With an imagination like that you could get a job at Disneyland.

Eh? You been drinking?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Eh? You been drinking?

Stupid comment.

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Eh? You been drinking?

Stupid comment.

Give your nationalism a rest you boring leper.

Oh now the English chirp up... and just 10 mins ago they were happy for a welsh player to get slagged off. Nothing changes in Lions year for those lot

I chirp up asking why you believe me to be a quins fan. Pretty random and from nowhere. You then try and change the subject as I think you're a bit confused what your point was.

majesticimperialman wrote:As the lions team been named for the first game. Have not seen it any where.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I chirp up asking why you believe me to be a quins fan. Pretty random and from nowhere.  You then try and change the subject as I think you're a bit confused what your point was.

No you chirped up before that actually, and now you're continuing with your boring posts.

You don't have a point then. Good to know.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You don't have a point then. Good to know.

Warburton is hard; I thought it was obvious.

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You don't have a point then. Good to know.

Warburton is hard; I thought it was obvious.

Shame he's also brittle

lostinwales wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You don't have a point then. Good to know.

Warburton is hard; I thought it was obvious.

Shame he's also brittle

Not in the recent 6N. Just imagine if he gave a 2 out of 10 performance today like Henderson, then we'd be in trouble . No Mike Whipper-Snapper Brown to save the day either!

No questions about Faletau being the number one 8 for the test side. Would like to see POM and CJ at 6 and 8 in the next game though. Faletau needs to be protected somewhat for the tests for now.

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You don't have a point then. Good to know.

Warburton is hard; I thought it was obvious.

Shame he's also brittle

Not in the recent 6N. Just imagine if he gave a 2 out of 10 performance today like Henderson, then we'd be in trouble . No Mike Whipper-Snapper Brown to save the day either!

In my mind the better players are the ones that either make things happen on their own or they make the guys around them play better. (If you are really lucky they do both) Brown has switched from one to the other. I am happy he's playing for England for the next few weeks, because I know he's going to always be there as the last line of defense and his presence will bring the best out of the wings.

For the next game, excluding the front row, I would go with the following :

04 : AWJ (felt he got more into the game as it went on so would like to see another game from him.
05 : Itoje, just to get a run out and get him up to speed.
06 : POM, think he is a beast around the park and in the line out. May need his aggression.
07 : Tipuric, think the more open game SH teams play suits him.
08 : CJ, more in order to protect Faletau.
09 : Murray, to get a run out and up to speed.
10 : Biggar, Give Sexton a break and see what Biggar can do given a chance. (Farrell on bench).
11 : Nowell, Give him a run and a chance to prove himself.
12 : Henshaw, think he is a more dynamic 12 than Te'o.
13 : JJ, would love to see how he can link up with Henshaw.
14 : Watson, think he played well today but with better service will look better.
15 : Williams, strong defensively and the Lions will lose nothing with him in attack.

eirebilly wrote:For the next game, excluding the front row, I would go with the following :

04 : AWJ (felt he got more into the game as it went on so would like to see another game from him.
05 : Itoje, just to get a run out and get him up to speed.
06 : POM, think he is a beast around the park and in the line out. May need his aggression.
07 : Tipuric, think the more open game SH teams play suits him.
08 : CJ, more in order to protect Faletau.
09 : Murray, to get a run out and up to speed.
10 : Biggar, Give Sexton a break and see what Biggar can do given a chance. (Farrell on bench).
11 : Nowell, Give him a run and a chance to prove himself.
12 : Henshaw, think he is a more dynamic 12 than Te'o.
13 : JJ, would love to see how he can link up with Henshaw.
14 : Watson, think he played well today but with better service will look better.
15 : Williams, strong defensively and the Lions will lose nothing with him in attack.

Good analysis Billy, I would differ on a couple of those positions, what you said about AWJ is spot on and again I would start him but with Kruis, and Maro on the bench, I would also start our captain for the same reasons I would start AWJ, they need the game time, at half back I would start today's replacements with your 2 picks on the bench, probably JD2 at 13 and Daly at 14.

Surely we have to give everyone a run out in the first two games? Lawes should get a chance at lock against Crusaders, rather than giving Mr Passion and Experience more knock on opportunities

wayne wrote:

eirebilly wrote:For the next game, excluding the front row, I would go with the following :

04 : AWJ (felt he got more into the game as it went on so would like to see another game from him.
05 : Itoje, just to get a run out and get him up to speed.
06 : POM, think he is a beast around the park and in the line out. May need his aggression.
07 : Tipuric, think the more open game SH teams play suits him.
08 : CJ, more in order to protect Faletau.
09 : Murray, to get a run out and up to speed.
10 : Biggar, Give Sexton a break and see what Biggar can do given a chance. (Farrell on bench).
11 : Nowell, Give him a run and a chance to prove himself.
12 : Henshaw, think he is a more dynamic 12 than Te'o.
13 : JJ, would love to see how he can link up with Henshaw.
14 : Watson, think he played well today but with better service will look better.
15 : Williams, strong defensively and the Lions will lose nothing with him in attack.

Good analysis Billy, I would differ on a couple of those positions, what you said about AWJ is spot on and again I would start him but with Kruis, and Maro on the bench, I would also start our captain for the same reasons I would start AWJ, they need the game time, at half back I would start today's replacements with your 2 picks on the bench, probably JD2 at 13 and Daly at 14.

I see what you are saying wayne and maybe your right. I would like to see JJ with Henshaw so maybe give him 40mins and JD2 40mins with Henshaw?

eirebilly wrote:

wayne wrote:

eirebilly wrote:For the next game, excluding the front row, I would go with the following :

04 : AWJ (felt he got more into the game as it went on so would like to see another game from him.
05 : Itoje, just to get a run out and get him up to speed.
06 : POM, think he is a beast around the park and in the line out. May need his aggression.
07 : Tipuric, think the more open game SH teams play suits him.
08 : CJ, more in order to protect Faletau.
09 : Murray, to get a run out and up to speed.
10 : Biggar, Give Sexton a break and see what Biggar can do given a chance. (Farrell on bench).
11 : Nowell, Give him a run and a chance to prove himself.
12 : Henshaw, think he is a more dynamic 12 than Te'o.
13 : JJ, would love to see how he can link up with Henshaw.
14 : Watson, think he played well today but with better service will look better.
15 : Williams, strong defensively and the Lions will lose nothing with him in attack.

Good analysis Billy, I would differ on a couple of those positions, what you said about AWJ is spot on and again I would start him but with Kruis, and Maro on the bench, I would also start our captain for the same reasons I would start AWJ, they need the game time, at half back I would start today's replacements with your 2 picks on the bench, probably JD2 at 13 and Daly at 14.

I see what you are saying wayne and maybe your right. I would like to see JJ with Henshaw so maybe give him 40mins and JD2 40mins with Henshaw?

Yes, I've no problem with that, I just think Gatland would want JD2 in there pretty quickly, IIRC he has said everybody would have game time in the first 3 games, have to say thought Teo had a decent game today Robertslike but with a sidestep.

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You don't have a point then. Good to know.

Warburton is hard; I thought it was obvious.

Shame he's also brittle

Not in the recent 6N. Just imagine if he gave a 2 out of 10 performance today like Henderson, then we'd be in trouble . No Mike Whipper-Snapper Brown to save the day either!

Send the Irish home NOW! It would have the added bonus of dropping the I from the unwieldy B&I moniker.

BamBam wrote:Surely we have to give everyone a run out in the first two games? Lawes should get a chance at lock against Crusaders, rather than giving Mr Passion and Experience more knock on opportunities

Except we play the Blues next so that would be the second of the first two games. I'd save Itoje and Kruis so they can start against Crusaders (third game). Not sure where to fit Lawes in though.

The Great Aukster wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You don't have a point then. Good to know.

Warburton is hard; I thought it was obvious.

Shame he's also brittle

Not in the recent 6N. Just imagine if he gave a 2 out of 10 performance today like Henderson, then we'd be in trouble . No Mike Whipper-Snapper Brown to save the day either!

Send the Irish home NOW! It would have the added bonus of dropping the I from the unwieldy B&I moniker.

Wish we could send you somewhere

I think Gatland wants to give everyone a start in the first 3 games (if fit). In some positions, that will mean 3 different starters, while in a couple of others he'll need people to run twice.

I'd personally be looking to get something close to my test side out against the Crusaders, which I can then refine before the Maori game and refine again before the first test.

Front row
Mako, McGrath, George, Owens, Furlong and Cole will all need a start. I'd start McGrath, Owens and Cole against the Blues and Mako, George and Furlong against the Crusaders.

Second row
Itoje, Lawes and Kruis all need a start, and Jones possibly needs more game time after injury. I think Gatland had Jones pencilled in for the test, so I would start Itoje and Lawes against the Blues in a shoot-out for first back-up and Kruis and Jones against the Crusaders. If Jones has another poor game though, you would replace him for the Maori game.

Back row
Haskell, O'Brien, O'Mahony, Stander and Tipuric all need a start, and then you probably need to get Warburton the more minutes. For the same reason as Jones, I'd have Warburton start against the Crusaders. I'd probably go with Haskell, Tipuric and O'Brien against the Blues, with O'Mahony, Warburton and Stander against the Crusaders.

Half backs
Murray, Webb, Biggar and Farrell all need a start. Farrell is looking more like a test 10, and I'd start him against the Crusaders, alongside Webb. I think Murray could do with an early game so he could potentially get two in before the Maori game, but I also like the idea of a Webb/Farrell partnership. Murray and Biggar for the Blues by elimination.

Centres
Henshaw, Davies and Payne all need games, while you'd say that a 12 needs to do double duty. I think Gatland is a big fan of Te'o, and he'll look at Henshaw and Payne together against the Blues, and then Te'o and Davies as a potential test partnership against the Crusaders.

Back three
Daly, North, Nowell, Halfpenny and Williams all need starts. North, Williams and Halfpenny might be his test pick if you were to ask him now, so I wouldn't be surprised to see all three start against the Crusaders. Would leave Daly, Nowell and possibly Hogg again for the Blues game. Alternatively, you might see North, Williams and Hogg against the Crusaders and Halfpenny play midweek, although I can see Gatland running Hogg twice to get his "first choice" together quicker.

Lions vs Blues: McGrath, Owens, Cole, Itoje, Lawes, Haskell, Tipuric, O'Brien, Murray, Biggar, Daly, Henshaw, Payne, Nowell, Hogg.
Lions vs Crusaders: Mako Vunipola, George, Furlong, Jones, Kruis, O'Mahony, Warburton, Stander, Webb, Farrell, North, Te'o, Davies, Williams, Halfpenny

I'd say you've probably got at least 10 Gatland test starters in that team vs the Crusaders. Best and/or Sinckler could come back in to the front row, question mark over Jones and Faletau will almost certainly be back. I'd say 6 of those 7 backs should make it as well.

robbo277 wrote:I think Gatland wants to give everyone a start in the first 3 games (if fit). In some positions, that will mean 3 different starters, while in a couple of others he'll need people to run twice.

I'd personally be looking to get something close to my test side out against the Crusaders, which I can then refine before the Maori game and refine again before the first test.

Front row
Mako, McGrath, George, Owens, Furlong and Cole will all need a start. I'd start McGrath, Owens and Cole against the Blues and Mako, George and Furlong against the Crusaders.

According to the press release when the team for Game 1 was announced, Owens was not Fit for selection, and they hoped he would be fit for the Crusaders game.

In which case you'd swap Owens and George around I guess. Going to put quite a bit of pressure on the other two hookers if he doesn't recover in time.

Webb and Farrell is a halfback I'm interested in seeing. The back-up for now should be Murray and Sexton and their familiarity will be beneficial to the Lions. I don't rate Youngs as highly as the first two and Biggar is likely just injury cover for Sexton right now.

Griff wrote:Wish we could send you somewhere

Glad I'm on your wish list - must be saying something right.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Griff wrote:Wish we could send you somewhere

Glad I'm on your wish list - must be saying something right.

It's just a bit pathetic that you're commenting and WUMming on the Lions threads.  You've banged on and on for the past few months about your dislike for the whole Lions concept and that you wouldn't be supporting it and that you wish it would be disbanded. Do we have to have weeks of you posting negative comments about sending the Irish players home and about the tour? Do us all a favour. You're acting the same as PhillBB on the Pro12 threads.

Griff wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Griff wrote:Wish we could send you somewhere

Glad I'm on your wish list - must be saying something right.

It's just a bit pathetic that you're commenting and WUMming on the Lions threads.  You've banged on and on for the past few months about your dislike for the whole Lions concept and that you wouldn't be supporting it and that you wish it would be disbanded. Do we have to have weeks of you posting negative comments about sending the Irish players home and about the tour? Do us all a favour. You're acting the same as PhillBB on the Pro12 threads.

Griff, why is it pathetic to comment on the Lions threads? Is that not what a public forum is designed for? You may not want or be able to debate the points raised but that doesn't make them wums. If someone who doesn't agree with someone else is by your definition a wum then perhaps the forum should simply have one poster called Big Brother and refer to himself by the royal "we"?
Personal choice also means you do not have to read or respond to a post.

Why is it not valid to comment on fans defending their own nation's players while attacking those from other nations and that is contrary to the supposed solidarity of the single-shirt Lions?
The truth is solidarity is as anachronistic as the rest of the Lions 'traditions' from the amateur era, fans are out for their own players, and players are out for themselves. Here are a couple or articles that show where the minds of the players are:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/lions-tour/conor-murray-i-think-its-ok-to-say-i-want-to-be-a-test-starter-35786441.html
http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/lions-tour/sexton-out-to-prove-himself-all-over-again-as-he-admits-farrell-favourite-35783798.html
The players minds are clearly on internal competition rather than external opposition.

But you said yourself...its mainly about money. Perfect for the professional era.

The Great Aukster wrote:...The players minds are clearly on internal competition rather than external opposition.

That's not a new development. There's a group interview somewhere with veterans of the 1974 Lions Tour. Andy Ripley was quite open about how dismayed he was not to make the Test side, and everyone thought that quite normal. Nothing to do with professionalism or marketing, just the nature of competitive individuals.

The Lions make shedloads of money and give player's agents more bargaining power - no question. The modern Lions are a money-making juggernaut, therefore they logically cannot be the custodians of amateur values that were the foundation of their existence.

What is ironic is in this professional era the team is assembled with less time together than in the amateur era. While the individuals now get paid to play, the approach to building a team is more amateurish than ever.

Commenting on the threads is fine, of course.  But when you've run the tour down so much beforehand, and are vocal in your dislike for it, then it is going to be a long few weeks listening you you moaning about it after every game.  I likened it to PhilBB on the Pro12 threads because he seems to have a huge dislike for it and runs it down at every opportunity and is told, by many of your fellow countrymen, 'not to bother watching it or posing about it' if he hates it so much. There are many parallels with you and your Lions views and think that the same advice (from those threads) applies here too.  He's picked up a number of bans for spoiling the threads.  I'd hate to see that happen to you    

But if you're watching the tour and are getting behind the Lions then crack on my friend!  Enjoy  

Griff, it is good you now accept that making comments on a public forum is OK, thank you for that.

There is marked difference between PhillBB and myself in that he clearly lost his debate many times, so had zero credibility. No one pays him any mind, yet rather than ignoring my comments you'd rather try to censor them by threatening a ban?

Why not debate the points or just ignore them?

So back on topic...
The Oracle that is Stephen Jones said in the ST today that "the Lions are not as good as Saracens, and to become any good, they have to work fanatically." In other words he thinks the Lions have to work harder to make up for their lack of organisation.

Also in the ST Stuart Barnes wrote: "The Lions have limited time together. Pulling players together from different countries, from different cultures, comes with difficulties. The need to keep it simple is part of the perceived wisdom of the Lions, and there is much in the theory. But if what we saw was something akin to the Lions' game plan, it would be better to ditch it, and come up with a more efficient one."

It is interesting that these pundits are allowed to get away with being so negative about the Lions?

Aukster isn't doing anything close to what PhilBB does. Silly comparison. He is giving his opinion on the reasons why the Lions tours are no longer credible and he is making some very sensible points. Just because you like the Lions doesn't mean he also has to. I don't see how he is spoiling threads with his infrequent posts of why the tour is stupid. Many coaches including Gatland have said as much about the schedule, for example.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:...He is giving his opinion on the reasons why the Lions tours are no longer credible and he is making some very sensible points. Just because you like the Lions doesn't mean he also has to...

Yes, whether you like the tours or not, every tour is going to throw up evidence for why they should or shouldn't exist. 2001 and 2005 were big let-downs after 1997, and threw the Lions future in the balance. 2009 rescued the concept but still left questions which the 2013 tour didn't completely address.

We've had four Lions tours of New Zealand since the 1971 victory, and they have all been miserable affairs. Hard to think we aren't going to have more discussion of how robust the idea of the Lions can be while this one progresses.

RG and RF - good to see there's still objective posters out there.  

Rugby Fan wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:...The players minds are clearly on internal competition rather than external opposition.

That's not a new development. There's a group interview somewhere with veterans of the 1974 Lions Tour. Andy Ripley was quite open about how dismayed he was not to make the Test side, and everyone thought that quite normal. Nothing to do with professionalism or marketing, just the nature of competitive individuals.

Yes he said he was devastated not to make the Test side, but that was years after the event. For all his skils and competitiveness it would have been hard to go to press in 74 given he had lost out to Mervyn Davies in the Invincibles! The point is not so much the disappointment but the extra pressure that the modern player has, at least Ripley had up to 18 games outside the tests to make his case for selection.
Now, unlike club or Test level, the Lions players have probably only two games in which to make an impression. Players who are struggling for form. maybe carrying a niggle, or feel they don't have the selectors eye, will be trying extra hard - maybe too hard. They won't want to make mistakes and could become stifled compared to their normal game ala Henderson and Hogg. It was no coincidence that Sinckler was one of the better performers on Saturday, as a rank outsider to feature in the Test team he could play without fear - although his brain fa*t at the end showed just how green he is. At the other end of the scale nailed on favourites like Farrell and Faletau maybe had a tad more freedom to play, or maybe it's just their character.

Some players will feel this pressure and some won't, but it will still be totally alien to the newcomers, and is a disadvantage particularly in the early games.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:...He is giving his opinion on the reasons why the Lions tours are no longer credible and he is making some very sensible points. Just because you like the Lions doesn't mean he also has to...

Yes, whether you like the tours or not, every tour is going to throw up evidence for why they should or shouldn't exist. 2001 and 2005 were big let-downs after 1997, and threw the Lions future in the balance. 2009 rescued the concept but still left questions which the 2013 tour didn't completely address.

We've had four Lions tours of New Zealand since the 1971 victory, and they have all been miserable affairs. Hard to think we aren't going to have more discussion of how robust the idea of the Lions can be while this one progresses.

While I would agree that applies to 1983 and 2005, the 1993 tour (refereeing aside) was far from a miserable tour. The 77 tour largely passed me by at the time, but looking purely at the results then (excepting the last 4 days) the 3 month tour looks as if it was a pretty good one.

http://www.the42.ie/lions-attrition-season-schedule-change-3421374-Jun2017/

Rory_Gallagher wrote:http://www.the42.ie/lions-attrition-season-schedule-change-3421374-Jun2017/

Haven't read all the article but surely the smartest move would be to make the ERCC final the climax to the club season?

Not only would it boost the idea of it being the pinnacle of European club rugby but it would also give the majority of players greater recovery time going into the Lions or summer tours

marty2086 wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:http://www.the42.ie/lions-attrition-season-schedule-change-3421374-Jun2017/

Haven't read all the article but surely the smartest move would be to make the ERCC final the climax to the club season?

Not only would it boost the idea of it being the pinnacle of European club rugby but it would also give the majority of players greater recovery time going into the Lions or summer tours

Most of the stakeholders did agree with that as a principle.

Except the French, who wanted the final pushed back to its original window (pre 6Ns) and could quite possibly leave the competition if it was moved to the absolute end of the season.

marty2086 wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:http://www.the42.ie/lions-attrition-season-schedule-change-3421374-Jun2017/

Haven't read all the article but surely the smartest move would be to make the ERCC final the climax to the club season?

Not only would it boost the idea of it being the pinnacle of European club rugby but it would also give the majority of players greater recovery time going into the Lions or summer tours

French won't like it. And their club season just finished. If we move their final forward a week (as we've gained a week from moving the CC final), then they'd have finished their season last week and we'd have the Champions Cup final this week. Imagine if the Sarries guys were only flying out today, that would be less ideal than the current scenario.

“And that is why I think it is a wider discussion about the whole programme. It’s not about the Lions. It’s about what an international and domestic year should look like. And in the professional game, the administrators are still catching up with that.”

Biggest thing from the article for me. The game went professional and people started making grabs at time. The calendar wasn't designed, and had it been it would look nothing like it currently does.

robbo277 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:http://www.the42.ie/lions-attrition-season-schedule-change-3421374-Jun2017/

Haven't read all the article but surely the smartest move would be to make the ERCC final the climax to the club season?

Not only would it boost the idea of it being the pinnacle of European club rugby but it would also give the majority of players greater recovery time going into the Lions or summer tours

French won't like it. And their club season just finished. If we move their final forward a week (as we've gained a week from moving the CC final), then they'd have finished their season last week and we'd have the Champions Cup final this week. Imagine if the Sarries guys were only flying out today, that would be less ideal than the current scenario.

The French could still have their final this week if they want to be so stubborn but the ERCC could be the final weekend in May and the league finals the previous week.

With the Pro12 and AP finals you likely have more players playing in those games and could have 4 teams filled with Lions rather than two at most in the ERCC, so you get more of the squad together sooner to build systems etc

I think there are a few easy fixes that should be considered. The first, which admittedly will only make a difference to some teams and players, would be to keep the league as a league and drop the play-offs. There are numerous reasons why this would make sense. Many of the players involved in the play-offs are internationals, so even if it is a few teams it is still cutting the game-time for these big game players. This would tie in nicely with the above points about the ERCC.

From a Pro 12 perspective, the Italian teams should be dropped. It just doesn't make sense for them to be involved. More travelling and jet lag, rubbish games which are just free points for most teams and they just don't contribute anything to either the Pro 12 or the Champions Cup. I'm sorry, but we can't just introduce crappy teams to try and be nice to the developing rugby nations. There has to be another solution.

With the above, that already shortens the seasons. Of course not everyone will be on board. As for the Lions...at the very least can we all admit that ten games in six weeks is utter madness? I'll be amazed if we don't have ruined careers at the end of it.

Whilst not solely due to the injury gained while on the 2013 tour (and subsequently coming off the bench for 3rd test while carrying that injury to facilitate the complete removal of BOD) Manu Tuilagi's career:

2016/17 5 starts (all club)
2015/16 11 starts (all club)
2014/15 4 starts (all club)
2013/14 13 starts (3 for England in NZ)
2012/13 28 starts (7 for England including his last 6Ns start)*
2011/12 26 starts (13 for England)
2010/11 21 starts (2 for Saxons)


From the start of the RWC warmups in 2011 he played almost non stop with some short injury breaks but little in teh way of an offseason until he broke down following the 2013 Lions tour. It is not just the Lions, the whole schedule is garbage - with the Lions exacerbating things.

I think its a mistake to do ALL of these cultural events. We're allowing the squad to be distracted from their purpose.

One or two only is enough. Respect as a rugby player will be earn't on the pitch.

LT, from what I've seen of Manu in the last 4 years and what I've read it seems he always comes back too early

If there was no Lions tour would he have toured with England that summer and maybe had the same problem?

marty2086 wrote:LT, from what I've seen of Manu in the last 4 years and what I've read it seems he always comes back too early

If there was no Lions tour would he have toured with England that summer and maybe had the same problem?

Quite possibly, though the length of the Lions tour was perhaps the straw that broke the camel's back.

LondonTiger wrote:While I would agree that applies to 1983 and 2005, the 1993 tour (refereeing aside) was far from a miserable tour. The 77 tour largely passed me by at the time, but looking purely at the results then (excepting the last 4 days) the 3 month tour looks as if it was a pretty good one.

Unless you win, it's not just about results. 2009 was a lost series but widely seen as rehabilitating the idea of the Lions. 1977 was badly managed, and there were several personality conflicts. If you put that tour in today's media environment, it would rank a bit better than 2005 but worse than 2001.

The 1993 tour was deeply divided between the dirtrackers and test sides. Some of the midweek players went off the reservation, and pretty much scuppered any hopes their team mates might have had of earning Test selection. McGeechan was very disenchanted with the squad selection, which he though had been too political. It was that experience which led him to demand a free hand to choose the 1997 squad.