Selecting the Greatest Lions XV of all time

are they going to play today's game or a game in 1970, if today then there would have to be quite a few changes e.g Wilkinson at fly half at his best defensively and kicking the points.

15: G Hastings 14: J Robinson 13: B O'Driscoll 12: G Henson 11: S Williams 10: J Wilkinson 9: M Dawson 8: L Dallaglio 7: J Worsley 6: M Williams 5: P O'Connell 4: M Johnson 3: A Sheridan 2: S Thompson 1: P Vickery

Hugh, I did ask James this question at the outset. But since the greatest & most successful Lions teams were the back to back sides of 71 & 74, it's reasonable they're going to figure prominently in discussions, especially so the players on both tours. Rugby is a difficult game for individuals to shine consistently. Too often, rightly or wrongly, their greatness is bound up in the quality of their team mates.

I have only started reading this thread but just to add to Greg Russell's comments I think it is a bit absurd to start picking "of all time" sides when time seems to start in 1959. History readers might think that some players from, say, 1950 (eg Jack Kyle) or earlier periods might have been worth a guernsey.

OJ, Two different topics of discussion - you old boring stick in the mud you.

You can't blame Martin in that situation. If Martin had caught the ball, how would he have known to pass and not kick it himself? Campo didn't call anything. It wasn't schoolboy rugby. It was the third and deciding Test of a Lions tour. The Wallabies were ahead on the scoreboard and didn't need to score a try from behind their own goal line. Campo was just frustrated because he wasn't getting any ball. If there was space, he should've kicked it ahead. And what does the WC have to do with anything? He didn't throw that pass to Horan from behind his own goal line.

And fortunately, for rugby fans who love daring rugby, that incident didn't stop Campo from continuing to "push the envelope".

You know Greg, I've often argued Campo wasn't at fault when Evans scored off his spilt pass behind the Wallaby goal-line in that 2nd test in Brisbane in 1989. It was the fault of his team mates, especially Martin, for NOT being "ready" for any eventuality. Just to backtrack a bit. There's a wonderful story of the 1977-78 schoolboys where they scored an extraordinary try against Wales, which started behind their goal line. I think the Aussies received a penalty & the Welsh backs instinctively began retreating (for the kick out). Glen Ella, seeing this, yelled out for a tap & run, which was done. A dozen or so passes later, & the Aussies scored a memorable try at the other end. From memory, when Campo attempted to defend his decision to pass & run, he says he noticed a big gap on the left side of the field (as he was facing). He thought a quick interchange of passes with Marto, & the Wallabies could be away. Greg Martin was a conservative type of player & simply wasn't ready for the unexpected, so he dropped the pass from Campese, which Evans pounced on for a try to the Lions. Marto has often been happy to blame Campo's unorthodoxy for the try. Yet had Marto been prepared & willing, the result could have otherwise been sensational. We are often told by our coaches to be prepared to counter-attack. If Campo had a similarly minded free spirit beside him, say Glen or Mark Ella or Gould, the result may have been very different.

Frank: I did write at the end of my posting "Late at night in NZ, getting a bit loose around the edges. Don’t take me too seriously!" What "should" have happened is only ever an untestable opinion. Such things are interesting to talk about, but they should not be argued about as if they are the truth. I try not to do so. I very much like Sheek's point, which he has argued before: "As one door is shut, another door opens somewhere else. There is a wonderful irony in the loss of the Lions series by the Wallabies in 1989, & the Lions themselves in 2001." I was at the second Lions test in 1989. Australia had won the first test and was doing it so easy in the second that it was boring. Then Campese threw that "pass" to Greg Martin, and the rest is history. The turnaround was as remarkable as that in the opposite direction in 2001 (i.e., the Lions dominated the first 1.5 tests but lost the series). But as Sheek says, without that pass by Campese, Australia might not have won the 1991 World Cup. Incidentally, Mike Teague in 1989 was the Joe Roff of 2001, i.e., the player that changed it all (completely different methods, of course!). I am amazed that discussion here of the 1989 tour has not mentioned Teague. Finally, the Lions have lost their last 5 tests (2 in 2001, 3 in 2005). Is it possible that they will be turning up to Australia in 2013 on a run of 8 consecutive losses and not having won a test in 12 years? What do people think?

Greg, "As you say, they should have won this series, especially given how weak Australia was in the third test (injuries to key players)." Although I don't doubt the loss of Larkham hurt the Aussies (Larkham didn't have the best series), and that there's other played I forget who didn't get to play in that final game, nothing compared to the injuries the Lions sustained after the second Test. Brian O'Driscoll had a dead-lock Will Greenwood had angle injuries Rob Henderson had an injury with his knee Scott Gibbs had a back back Neil Jenkins had a problem with his knee Johnny Wilkinson has a problem with his ankle Rob Howley was out with a broken rib Austin Healey was out with a dead-leg Scott Quinell had a problem with his knee Richard Hill was out with a Nathan Grey-induced concussion Neil Back had a problem with a deadleg (dead-legs were an epidemic in that side) Scott Murray was only just coming back from a rib injury Danny Grewcock strained his knee Keith Wood had everything and required total body therapy because he's a nutter who puts his body on the line every single time Now not all of those players were starting players, I admit. But Austin Healey was going to start in that Test, and the losses of Rob Howley and Richard Hill hurt them badly. Johnny Wilkinson was going to miss the game but only just recovered. To his credit he scored a try after halftime. Players like Wood, Henderson, Grewcock, Back, all went into the game with injury problems. The irony was that Rod MacQueen was extremely concerned a few months prior to the series because there was only one break in between Tests. He petitioned it be changed and was denied - the Lions schedule had been confirmed. But when the time came it was the Lions that suffered, not Australia.

KO, Excellent summary on Graham Henry. Even Anglo-Saxons can have cultural differences! You mention the tour schedule. I agree that a 10 match schedule is ridiculous. Okay, we're never going to get back to 20 match plus tours, but I've come up with a 12 match blueprint which I think would work very well in each of SA, Australia & NZ. Team arrives in country previous weekend (Sat/Sun). 1. Thu - tour match, 4/5 days elapsed. 2. Mon - tour match, 4 days elapsed. 3. Fri - tour match, 4 days elapsed. 4. Tue - tour match, 4 days elapsed. 5. Sat - tour match, 4 days elapsed. 6. Tue - tour match, 4 days elapsed. 7. Sun - first test, 4 days elapsed. 8. Fri - tour match, 5 days elapsed. 9. Tue - tour match, 4 days elapsed. 10. Sat - second test, 4 days elapsed. 11. Wed - tour match, 4 days elapsed. 12. Sun - third test, 4 days elapsed. Team departs country (Tue/Wed), 2/3 days elapsed. The tour structure provides the following (for a touring party of max. 37 players): 1. 12 match tour comprising 3 test matches & 9 non-test matches. 2. Use of every day of the week to provide 4 day breaks min. between matches. 3. Largest break of 5 days between tour games 7 & 8. 4. Lions have 7 warm-up matches before first test. 5. 1st & 3rd tests played on Sunday, 2nd test on Saturday. In a country as geographically huge as Australia, 4 day breaks between matches would be most welcome. The tour would start in WA & work its way east. Seven warm-up matches is the best that can be provided in the 'modern-instant' world. All players can be given every opportunity to press for test selection. Barring injury, most players can expect 3 starting games, & one off the bench before the 1st test. Those few who have two starting games, might also get two games off the bench (before the 1st test). The tour is not only about sport. In WA the Lions can visit Rottnest Island off Perth & the South-West Margaret River wine & surf regions. In SA many our finest wineries are just a few hours drive from Adelaide. Victoria offers the Great Ocean Road scenery. NSW offers the harbour of Sydney & nearby wineries of Hunter Valley. In Qld, there is both the Gold Coast & Sunshine Coast, respectively south & north of Brisbane. In NQ, there is the Great Barrier Reef. No doubt SA & NZ offer their attractions as well.

I have no problem selecting any all-time team, providing I'm willing to acknowledge several points. 1. I make as thorough a job of researching as my resources allow. 2. I trust the opinion of those who went before me & remain objective. 3. However, cross-referencing often provides wonderful clarity in some cases! 4. An acknowledgement I could be wrong about some of my selections. 5. Enjoy the process, but don't take it too seriously, only God knows for sure. My own first-hand knowledge goes back to around 1970, & I'm 53. I find the more I discover, the more there is to learn! I also think it's important to have a healthy cynicism for some journalists/writers, etc. I'm quite sure there are plenty of journos out there who just plagiarise someone else's selections without doing their own research. Someone like Spiro can be trusted because he's written a number of books on rugby, & obviously done a great deal of research, & first-hand account interviews. So when you see some all-time team being offered, check the writer's credentials first, before accepting his offerings as gospel truth! KO, As one door is shut, another door opens somewhere else. There is a wonderful irony in the loss of the Lions series by the Wallabies in 1989, & the Lions themselves in 2001. Had the Wallabies won the series in 1989 (as they should have), they may not have found the motivation to make the personnel changes that eventually led them to winning the WC in 1991. Ditto England, whose players dominated the 2001 Lions tour party. That series loss hurt deeply, & provided them with the motivation to work harder to win the WC in 2003.

I dont wantr to discuss a whole team - the only comment I want to contribute it that the first four selections must be 4 - McBride 10 - John 13 - O'Driscoll 15 - Hasting Having been privleged to see them all - they were the outstanding players of their eras

I agree, Mr. Russell. The Lions SHOULD have won in 2001 and SHOULDN'T have in 1997. That is the magic, or at least appeal, of a Lions tour, I suppose. I don't think Henry was/is used as a scapegoat. Most autobiographies or memoirs from players of that tour speak badly of him. The majority didn't understand his dry 'Kiwi' humour and it was clear from the start that he already had a test xv selected in his head. For a team that was basically exhausted there was never enough time to relax and the players tended not to like his famous pod system. I think it would be accurate to say that he learnt a lot from his time in Wales and coaching the Lions.

That is a very strong point Greg - my reliable memory of rugby barely stretches to1984 and I am 37. It really is not good enough to attemptto select a Best team based on legend and anecdote.

By the way, how old are all you people nominating Greatest Lions XVs? I'm betting that a lot of you never saw many of the players you are selecting. I mean, I'm 45, and many of these players are before my time. One thing sheek made me realise is that I am totally uncomfortable selecting "Greatest" sides that include players from eras before my time. (in writing this I also realise that sheek the venerable does have a long memory.) this is not a criticism, but I just wonder (a) how you do it, and (b) how you feel about doing it.

To my mate Knives: the curiosity of the 2001 Lions tour is that they completely dominated the first 1.5 tests, but then at half time in Melbourne it suddenly all changed. An astute friend of mine who attended that game made much of the fact that all of the many linebreaks by the Lions in the first half were by relatively slow players, who thus didn't have the gas to turn the breaks into tries. My friend is almost convinced that the Wallabies were happy to concede these breaks, because they knew they were by players without the speed to punish them on the scoreboard. What happened at half-time in that match? Sometimes sport is beyond rational. Where did that 10 minutes of play by Joe Roff come from? Who knows, but it changed the whole tour. I don't think Graham Henry suddenly went from being an OK man-manager - let's be honest, everything went swimmingly for the Lions until HT in Melbourne - to being a despised figure just because Joe Roff laid on a few tries out of nowhere. But the fact is that Australia got momentum, and then everything imploded for the Lions. As you say, they should have won this series, especially given how weak Australia was in the third test (injuries to key players). This may have been karma for 1997: not the greatest of South African sides, but let's be honest, it was a very average Lions side (please don't try to tell me that Jeremy Davidson, Matt Dawson, etc. were great players!). The Boks should have won that series. Late at night in NZ, getting a bit loose around the edges. Don't take me too seriously!

OME, Calder wasn't massively popular on tour but he wasn't disliked either, apparently he was very well respected, which is what counts. That he became great friends with Brian Moore, that most controversial of Englishmen, speaks volumes for how well received he was by the English continent. A story that Brian Moore tells always tickles me. Moore and three Scotsmen turned up for practice early one day and instead of doing a few laps or warming up the Scotsmen proposed a game of two versus two touch rugby. Moore said he was stunned and couldn't see the point but it proved too him just how committed the Scots of that generation were. He said that never in a thousand years would any English players have made such a proposition. Incidentally, the 1989 victory tends to gloss over the selectorial mistakes made by McGeechan and Uttley. The first test included a Lions back row of 3 number 8s: Derek White, Dean Richards and Finlay Calder. Calder, of course, was never really a number 7 and with Andy Robinson basically permanently injured he found himself in quite an uncomfortable position. Slightly older Roarers might recall the calls from the British media that he should drop himself as Campbell-Lamerton did during the 1966 tour. It's also largely glossed over that the matchwinners Rob Andrew and Jerry Guscott were late call ups. Nonetheless, McGeechan changed the team, Calder played himself into the ground and the Lions won. -- Sheek and Frank, I have an insight into why Australia own that series in 01: Scott Johnson openly admits that he/the Australian management cracked the Lions lineout calls; Richard Hill was injured and as mentioned, Rod Moore was drafted in and the Australian pack gained parity in the scrum. Despite that Australian side being referred to as a great side I think that is the worst loss that the Lions have experienced in decades. There is no doubt in my mind they were superior but for some very poor coaching, man-management and general ill-luck.

OJ, I thought the same thing, but didn't want to denigrate their efforts. Neither the ABs of 71 nor Boks of 74 were vintage. Both sides went through a ton of players. A clear indication of a team undergoing change, & the selectors unsure of which players were their best in each position. Nevertheless, it was a good time to be a Briton or Irishman, riding mostly on the tail of the might Welsh. Interesting comment that Cliff Morgan is the best #10 ever. I'm not disputing the claim, he was a mighty player. I just wish there was more evidence to support him.

The Lions do not have a team anthem. DANNY BOY would raise the stadium. roof.