Once Joe Schmidt decided to withhold his likely Test-squad players from the warm-up games against the British and Irish Lions, the first half of this Australian tour was compromised.
Once Joe Schmidt decided to withhold his likely Test-squad players from the warm-up games against the British and Irish Lions, the first half of this Australian tour was compromised.
Apart from the first game, against Argentina, the remaining encounters against state sides have been underwhelming. The gulf between the teams has been exacerbated by the relative strength of the substitutes available to either side. At the point where a contest might have taken on the smallest possibility of jeopardy, the Lions bench – all Test players – have finished off the game because their opponents were down to their second, third and sometimes fourth choices as reserves.
I do not blame Schmidt; his responsibility is solely to his national squad. Whoever contractually failed to secure the involvement of the Australian Test players in warm-up games is to blame. If this was not possible, the whole lead-up to the Test series could have been re-examined. It is precipitous to make this point, because the next two Lions’ tours will be to New Zealand and South Africa, but in retrospect, if the warm-up games are not going to include the top players, it might have been better for this Lions team to have played those games against all the Pacific Islands. No doubt their unions would have been as commensurately pleased as the cash-strapped Australian Rugby Football Union would have been displeased. In terms of spectacle, I know which the fans and neutrals would have preferred.
The attempt to resurrect an Anzac XV (an Australia-New Zealand combined team) was theoretically worthy, but I played in the last such game and there is a reason that there has not been one in between – it does not work. Whatever is intended or promised, the interests of the All Blacks and Wallabies Test squads were always going to take precedence and an eight-try win where the opponent fails to score is not the ideal preparation for Test rugby.
Andy Farrell and his coaching team will have taken more from the warm-up games than the Lions supporters because they will have been testing players and combinations for reasons known only within the coaching team. Outsiders are left to speculate and read everything into things that probably mean nothing. I fully understand the cases of both managers, but speaking for supporters, and probably for any neutrals, looking at the spectacle so far – the quality of play has been uneven, with flashes of individual brilliance from some players. In terms of a genuine contest, the first game aside, there has not been one.
Some people like doing this, but it would be preferable to be working with more reliable evidence of ability and form, particularly when we are asked to make exact predictions on selections and results. I suppose this opaqueness does have one virtue – there is a genuine doubt as to how the sides will perform under the Test-match pressure of this series. Common wisdom is that the first Test is vital for the visiting side and this is backed up by a lot of Lions history. The third Test of a series is notoriously difficult to win for many reasons, not all of which have to do with rugby.
As we await the announcement of the first-Test squad, the inevitable press speculation focusses on Owen Farrell but his and others’ inclusion depends very heavily on the decisions that Farrell Snr makes over the forwards-to-backs split on the bench. If he goes with a 5:3 split there might be room on the bench because of his ability to cover fly-half and centre. That said, Tommy Freeman can move from wing to centre and then the fly-half choice is a more direct one.
The case for Farrell’s inclusion in the Test squad was made long before this season. He has been a series winner and his experience is undoubted, as is his competitiveness and ability. However, nothing in his form this season, or in the brief appearance in the game against the AUNZ Invitational side, has strengthened or diminished his case. If Farrell Snr wants to include him it is a very personal choice and one that he is entitled to make, but it cannot be justified on the grounds of conspicuous form.
I suspect that we might see Owen Farrell if things go wrong in the first Test and some form of readjustment has to be made. On that basis such a change could be justified, but it would signal that something had gone wrong with the original plan. All this is supposition – it might be that Andy Farrell had this scenario in mind all along and this is just another mind game, in which case it is a 4D move that I, and virtually everybody else, missed.
How to solve a problem like Pollock?
For me, the more problematic selection is whether Farrell wants direct cover for Blair Kinghorn at full-back. Kinghorn is a versatile player, comfortable at wing and No 10, and you could cover him directly with a 5:3 bench split. If it is a 6:2 split, you are looking at Marcus Smith as cover from the bench that give you most flexibility.
The decision on the replacements split will also dictate the options open to the Lions in the back row. It will be central to the hopes of Henry Pollock for a place in the Test squad. Pollock who has become a central figure for the media, especially social media, on this tour is far more likely to appear under a 6:2 division. Someone like Ollie Chessum is more likely to find favour under a 5:3 split because of his experience in the second and back rows and also because he offers extra options in the line-out.
It is all speculation; let the contest begin.
Category: General Sports
