By now, most people have probably read quite a lot of Lions
coverage, so I’ll keep this one fairly short.
Like many, my reaction was not entirely positive, with
several selections confusing me. Some of them still do, but having thought the
matter over it, I at least feel like I can take a good stab at Gatland’s logic.
The selection of Mako Vunipola over Ryan Grant is a good
example of this. Grant I thought a
fairly likely inclusion before the squad was named. He marries a huge defensive
work rate with some solid scrummaging. You get the impression most people he
plays with look up to him. On a long Lions tour against one of the most
dangerous attacks around, he seemed a good choice, and had certainly earned the
chance. I’d mulled over the possibility of Vunipola going, but he seemed too
raw, too much of an impact player, someone who wouldn’t challenge for the
starting jersey in the same way Grant would for all Vunipola possesses some
nigh-unique qualities as an attacking player
.
But Vunipola it is. It’s not hard to see why a coach might
like him. Very mobile and agile for such a big man, Mako Vunipola possesses
brute strength and soft hands in abundance. Already he is possibly the best
ball carrying front row forward in Europe, a claim I do not make lightly. He
may not be ready to start a Lions test. But he could almost certainly make a
difference coming on in one.
Impact and Athleticism are what Vunipola brings. They also appear to be two of Gatland’s watch words this series. Just look at the selection of Tom Croft.
Now, Croft I had expected, not least because the Independent had semi-leaked
it, but also because his pace and lineout jumping were attributes that none of
the competition could offer. Many would have taken Chris Robshaw or Tom Wood,
or maybe Ryan Jones or Kelly Brown, but on the hard grounds of Australia, up
against their speed merchants, Croft made sense. I also think this approach
accounts for the omission of Rory Best, whose main brilliance is in his stamina
and defensive work, and the selection of Matt Stevens over more static,
internationally active props. Although more on Stevens later.
Viewing the squad for this prism helps restore my Lions
excitement, because it says Gatland wants to attack, assuming he can coax it
out. There’s a lot of forwards with real ability going forwards, ball in hand,
and a lot of players who can come off the bench and make a big impact. Vunipola
would be one, assuming he can crack the Healy/Jenkins axis. So too would the
likes of Sean O’Brien, Dan Cole and Geoff Parling, to have an early stab at the
contents of the Lions bench. These are high energy players, guys who are really
comfortable in the loose. Gatland could not have missed the impact the English
bench had on most games. It seems likely he’ll be looking to replicate this,
considering he’s got the depth on hand to do so.
A lot is going to depend on how the ball carriers in the
pack do after all. In terms of raw physicality, Gatland has taken about the
most impressive backline anywhere, something that will be familiar to the Welsh
coach and his assistant Howley. This move will be derided in some quarters –
the Sydney Morning Herald has already been talking about ‘slabs of red meat’ –
but given what we’ve got and what Gatland is used to working with, it makes
sense. The issue is that, by and large, we do not have the backs who will
produce something and magically let you escape from being on the back foot,
like Australia’s can. If the forwards can start getting across the gainline and
providing good ball, then the big Lions backs should be able to start making
linebreaks. If they don’t, then the Australian defensive line will be up
quickly and cutting off their momentum. People will waste a lot of words about
the superiority or downfalls of bosh merchants, but it will really be down to
the forwards and their ability to batter the gainline.
So, impact and athleticism. The third word that helps me
understand Gatland’s thinking here is something I’ve already touched on – familiarity.
Some will call it bias, for the good reason that it is, but when you’ve got a
test team to create in six weeks it’s not productive to get caught up in that. Certainly the players won't. People will always pick what they trust; that means what they know well. Matt Stevens
is the biggest beneficiary of that. With no clear third tighthead, having
worked closely with Rowntree was a good clincher – and, more importantly, Andy
Farrell. I’d bet Farrell’s voice, him saying that he trusts Stevens not to be
exposed in the defensive line, was the single biggest factor in the Lions
calling him up. Dan Lydiate had also benefitted from this – definitely a high
class player, but not one who’s been in any particular form since returning to
fitness . The next biggest winner after Stevens, however, was Howley. There was
a lot of calls for Joe Schmidt to get the gig as Lions backs coach. He appears
far more qualified for the job, but Gatland knew he could work with Howley, and
that was the big call. It probably also helped Croft beat out the other English
blindsides too. And so on.
So, at least it’s understandable. Is it right? That remains
to be seen.
