Is recalling Smith inspiration or desperation?

I also put up a comment in David Lords roll a dice article regarding Jerry's "necrophiliac" I thought it was pretty funny. (No one saw it as its near the end..and heaps of comments.)

No, but you'd assume he's got some input and when the selection policy seems to be "A Crusader in every position if possible", well.....

Wow, OK, so you like him. ;)

INSPIRATION!!! he's been the best #7 hands down in Super XV this season... if a 20 year-old complete rookie walked into Super Rugby and had a season like George has, we'd all be claiming he's the next big thing and I'm sure there would be lots of people questioning whether Pocock would get a run ahead of him when he returns... but just because he's a 33 year old legend who hasn't played international rugby in a few years, we think he's over it? It's pure bias thinking George is not up to it... if he's truly back to 100% fitness, he would contribute more to the game than Hooper or Gill put together!!!

Your positivity is appreciated Rae, and many of us agree that BIL tours (like World Cups) are not the ocassion for developing future talent. Go Gold.

George Smith had the same workload playing only 60 minutes and Hooper played a full 80

If you chat to Tana Umanga, Anton Oliver you will find they were no to happy with Deans regarding selections. All to easy AD, Eagle to hide behind another. Yes he was only the assistant, but he had a big influence in it. He would have taken the glory if he had won the RWC....but it goes both ways. I think Robbie Deans is a great coach, I was only pointing out a perceived weakness, or a weakness that was there in the past.

I thought it was crazy when the ARU seemed to allow Smith to leave when he did. I blame Robbie as well. He's too quick to discard the tried and true when they still have plenty of game in them. At the time in NZ we still rated him highly even though Pocock was coming on the radar with a hiss and a roar. Would we let Carter go so easily now that Cruden and Barrett are coming on as well as they are? Hell No! GS was allowed to go way too soon when considering the collective experience and ability of the WBs at the time. He should have been at the world cup. If he had been a Kiwi, he would have been allowed a ';sabbatical' to recharge and come back. It seemed Smith had lost his drive when Robbie began coaching and a sabbatical may have just done the trick. Now he's back and has proved that he is still an eminent back rower- which us Kiwi's love. Act of desperation? Depends on your perspective. If you consider his age, the fact he will not be available to Australia again in the near future may be it is. But this is not a game that is about developing future WBs - leave that for the Rugby Championship and the EOYTs. The touring BIL is a 'one off' situation. You play your best players available and eligible regardless of their future plans and right now GS is the best available, an inspirational choice. GO the WBs.

Smith is not the player he used to be. In pressure games in SXV he was more blatant infringing than sublime jakaling. It's all going to come down to the ref. I'd have money on him picking up,a card. Gill gets turnovers without penalties, I'd be starting him with Hoops to come on late.

Yeah it's a strange one AD. I've never read Mckenzie copping the blame for selecting Rogers over Latham in the 03 WC. Yet we always see Deans get blamed for decisions that ultimately would have fallen at the feet of Mitchell.

Deans was an assistant coach in 2003, to John Mitchell. Is an assistant able to override the head coach on selection?

Sounds more personal than practical for you. I think your points are confused where you apply two different criteria to two sides of an argument. So in conclusion Gatland is inspired and Deans is desperate. Waste of time writing, more wasteful reading and probably more wasteful responding.. I suggest you think about what the coaches are trying to achieve and remove emotive conclusions and you may actually write something with substance and a lot shorter, because quite frankly you could have write. The article in about two sentences.

Its funny switch around for Deans who has had a legacy, and a weakness in my view to cut some players careers short. And in doings so not blending the new with the old very well. A slight limbo in transition. An example of this was the All Blacks 2003 RWC. He dumped, Cullen, Mertyns, Oliver. In what appeared to be the new team. Stubbornly not having the old with the new. That lack of experience came back to haunt him. In Contrast Steve Hansen last year merged the old and new together perfectly well. They have experience and newness now and are in good stead for the RWC.

As you say, polar opposites. Frankly I was surprised the Gatland dropped BOD, because of what I felt he added to the Lions. But perhaps the other's form outweighs what BOD brings? We shall see. I just hope the Lions don't find themselves in some tight spot near the end of the test needing his experience or motivational powers and wish 'if only'. IMHO Smith's key role has to be to get stuck-in at the breakdown. Otherwise we're toast. Is it likely we will see Smith and Hooper in tandem? How long will George Smith last? All this and more answered tonight. :)

Too right Justin3. Agree 100%. His main job must be to steal or slow down the pill, and not get pinged. It's about the breakdown & that's our weakness. No ball, no open play.

As I posted on another article yesterday...lose the breakdown and you're fighting for scraps in defence and waiting for mistakes from the opposition. Wallabies comprehensively lost the breakdown last week due to Warburton's superior work on his feet over the ball. Hooper was blown off the park. Smith will add a new dimension to that part of the game. Palu etc will have to lift their running game to compensate for loss of Hooper, although to be fair the little number 7 hasn't been tearing it up out there.

Thanks for your thoughts roarers - what I find interesting is the polar opposite approaches from the two coaches, they clearly have big differences in opnion regarding the value of past glories. I am with Gatland in this instance as I think that you should never choose rep teams on reputation or loyalty, but on form. I wonder how Deans can justify Smiths selection in this regards given his time away from test rugby. By contrast I can understand Gatlands selection. I suspect that my opinion is less biased than most as I follow neither the Lions nor Wallabies. I guess we will all find out in about 12 hours as to who is right.

It isn't about carrying though. It's about the breakdown and that's Hoopers weakness.

As long as he can last the distance...

Nope, Smith gave penalties away not Hooper, and Hooper has pace hence him being more effective in open open play.