Lions Squad Discussion

[ronk]

Luke is 21 and is transformed from the guy straight from school I saw playing for Leinster.

Back then his body wasn't up to the demands (he was getting injured a lot) and I feared for him. If he hadn't had so much raw talent it would have been insane. Luckily he wasn't overplayed and he had time to toughen up.

People say he's small but I don't see any issues with his physicality, he more than holds his own in the contact area. He's like Habana in some ways: lightweight but gets good contact because he flies into it like an air to air missile. I think he's still growing though, look at the way slightly older guys like Sexton and Kearney have filled out.

I'm still not sure where he'll end up but in some ways I think it will be centre. It's hard to know because his versatility is his enemy. He could well end up staying on the wing to accommodate Kearney at fullback and Earls in the centre. But at the same time I can't think of a young natural 12 in Ireland. He'd be wasted there though.

[Isaac4leinster]

I was delighted to see Earls get picked but I think the comparisons with BOD are fanciful. He is an excellent player though and I hope he does well. BOD is once in a generation.

He is like BOD in the way that everytime a big winger comes along he is compared to Lomu. It's a lazy conclusion.

Once in a generation? In rugby terms that's about 10 years. I'd still rate Fitzgerald as more promising at the moment.

Lomu was a true one-off because aside from his size and power was the issue of his relative size. He wouldn't have nearly the same impact now if he was 20 with the way the game is played. In his heyday, opposition players didn't know how to tackle him. Modern internationals wouldn't be nearly as troubled. Lomu changed the way the game was played.

Fitz more promising than BOD or Earls? Earls I presume.

That argument on Lomu has been floated about quite often is misguided.

When Lomu started in 1995 World he was only 16.5 to 17st, so his relative size at time was not as great as made out.
He went up to 19st within a few years.

Saying his size compared to modern day would make him less effectual is also not true. While wingers have gotten bigger since he came on the scene, I can think of only 2 wingers playing professionally who are around or near his weight (19st) and neither would match him for pace. Lomu was playing up until 2003 (the Cardiff, North Harbour, come back aside) and he was still brutalising people.

IF Lomu turned up now in his prime he would still be tearing it up.

[ronk]

I was delighted to see Earls get picked but I think the comparisons with BOD are fanciful. He is an excellent player though and I hope he does well. BOD is once in a generation.

He is like BOD in the way that everytime a big winger comes along he is compared to Lomu. It's a lazy conclusion.

Once in a generation? In rugby terms that's about 10 years. I'd still rate Fitzgerald as more promising at the moment.

Lomu was a true one-off because aside from his size and power was the issue of his relative size. He wouldn't have nearly the same impact now if he was 20 with the way the game is played. In his heyday, opposition players didn't know how to tackle him. Modern internationals wouldn't be nearly as troubled. Lomu changed the way the game was played.

Fitz more promising than BOD or Earls? Earls I presume.

That argument on Lomu has been floated about quite often is misguided.

When Lomu started in 1995 World he was only 16.5 to 17st, so his relative size at time was not as great as made out.
He went up to 19st within a few years.

Saying his size compared to modern day would make him less effectual is also not true. While wingers have gotten bigger since he came on the scene, I can think of only 2 wingers playing professionally who are around or near his weight (19st) and neither would match him for pace. Lomu was playing up until 2003 (the Cardiff, North Harbour, come back aside) and he was still brutalising people.

IF Lomu turned up now in his prime he would still be tearing it up.

As an athlete, I've never seen anyone on the rugby field who's equalled him. The new big guys couldn't come close to matching him for physicality but he wouldn't be able run through people the way he used to. He single handedly transformed the game but it kept changing and he wouldn't make the same impact again.

By 2001 he was no longer running at guys like Tony Underwood, he was running at guys like Shane Horgan who did a much better job of tackling. Horgan still considered it a massive achievement to neutralise him, which shows the gulf in size. There are lots of 17 stone guys on the wing who'll be perfectly capable of chipping over you or booting downfield.

In 1995 Lomu was considered player of the tournament. Guys like Rob Kearney and Tommy Bowe would have been considered really big and powerful for wingers back then. Teams now are better prepared to deal with players like him. You look at someone like Rokocoko and see that he's the same size and Lomu was in 1995 but he's more elusive, works harder and more skilful than Lomu and wonder would the selection be that clear cut.

20 years ago Mike Phillips would have stayed a back row his whole career, 10 years ago he might have been switched to the wing (or centre), now he's a scum-half. It's just the way the game is changing.

[Isaac4leinster]

Granted he might have quite the same seismic effect on the sport, but still think he would be the best ball carrying wing in the world.

Smoking Joe is not that big, though I take your point that the size form 1995, he would have been considered a massive winger in those days.

That said Kirwan was also a big unit in his time, and tuigamala also was over 16st before Lomu.

Even with the plethora of wingers who are now 17st plus, Lomu still was freakishly athletic and powerful. You only have to check out the youtube video of him throwing 17st Fijian backs around like rag dolls, guys themselves who are considered genetically gifted.

I'll conseed that he might not have been quite the wrecking ball he was, but that he was still doing his thing in 2003 when the size had crept up near to 2009 levels.

However Nalaga, Banahan, Tuallagi,Vanikolo et al still would be left in the ha'penny place in the power stakes against Lomu, though their skills and defense are probably better.

That said there is a near 6'5 20st Fijian winger who is pretty fast in his rookie year at the Waratahs, who I think it would be fair to say is Lomuesque.

[ronk]

The only 2 things i think he's got badly wrong are bringing Rees and not bringing a 3rd outhalf but apart from that i really like it. There were always going to be some players who were unlucky to miss out but overall it's really good.Anyone know if a list of standbys been made available or what?

Flutey will probably play fly-half for the midweek side with halfpenny taking the kicks. I hadn't really thought of this until the squad was announced but it actually seems like a good idea. There wasn't really another out and out fly-half who deserved to go.

That depends on whether Flutey gets selected to start at 12 or on the bench. It would open the possibility of having more cover elsewhere (and using him as sub outhalf).

I watched the Ireland-Wales game (yet) again tonight to have a closer look at a few players. He did well and he's pretty solid.

He's the only genuinely large back in the Lions panel (and the only in form big/boshing centre who was worth bringing) and I'm reminded of the success that Rob Henderson had (from a starting point of low expectations about test selection). He's a good option for getting over the gameline and offers more than just that.

A couple of good games early on the tour could really see him nail on a test berth.

It might be a couple of weeks for a new scrumhalf is called. There's still time to look at the candidates.

[jrc]

quinlan shouldn't be there, i think everyone knows this including munster fans. since the squad was announced lots of people including journo's have been saying quinlan will make for a great mid week player- if your not good enough to play in the test team you shouldn't tour. feel very sorry for tom croft.
Earls has been in great form in a team that has been winning well, he's inexperienced and every lions squad has a dark horse like earls its just a bit unlucky that it probably went down to d'arcy or earls and earls got it. from a leinster pov i would have loved to have seen darce in there as i think the attitude and determination he has shown this season has been brilliant.
think blair is unluck to miss out, would have him ahead of TOL and ellis.
surprised there weren't more shocks in a 37 man squad... some absolute dark horses might have been someone like matt banahan from wasps,dylan hartley,jordan turner hall, sean o'brien.... johnathon davies mentioned nicky robinson for out half cover. none of those lads you would really expect to be ready for it but hopefully they'll all be involved some day

Do you by any chance watch rugby? Thankfully you will get the oppurtunity to reapparaise your post after seeing what he does next week

I thought Earls was shown up for what he is, on Saturday against the world class opposition of Darce and O'Driscoll. He's a future star with bags of potential, but he's inexperienced and a long way from the finished article. He was in Darcy's pocket all day and he was at fault for two of our three tries. The only reason he was picked ahead of Darcy for the Lions is that tradition states there has to be a 'bolter', an inexperienced kid who shows potential.