Well, I would not be writing this if I thought he was, but let's at least ask the question.
Last time around, in 2013, the Brisith and Irish Lions toured Australia under Warren Gatland. Six months previously, Wales had humiliated England in a 30-3 defeat that destroyed England's hopes of a Grand Slam and saw Wales climb above their defeated foe to claim the Six Nations trophy on points difference. This saw Gatland pick 14 Welshmen over 12 Englishmen over the course of the series . This makes sense, the Welsh played well and, whilst the English had a decent tournament, they were eventually undone. Although I still believe that Chris Robshaw was left our unfairly that summer as he had had a fantastic tournament individually but did go missing a bit in the final Wales match. Gatland's choices came off, the Lions won the series 2-1 and came home heroes, as the first winning Lions tour since 1997 in South Africa. A strong showing all-round really.
Which brings us on to this year, this summer, this tour. Up against possibly the greatest team to have graced a rugby pitch (although, statistically, the current England team are just as good) in New Zealand, the Lions really need to be at the very peak of their game. So, why pick so many playes from Wales? Even Scotland had a better Six Nations Championship than Wales. In fact, Wales had their worst Six Nations for six years. England had an impressive Championship. Not only that, but the squad that Eddie Jones had assembled equalled the longest test-winning streak in history and incorporated a Grand Slam and a further Six Nations into that streak. So why, oh why are there more Welsh players in the Lions than there are English? To a man, England have been the better performers over the last two years since the World Cup.
The team sheets are missing, in my opinion, George Ford, Mike Brown, Dylan Hartley, Alex Dunbar and Huw Jones. They are swelled by the presence of Kristian Dacey (4 caps), Corey Hill (6 caps) and Gareth Davis. All of whom could have easily had an Englishman called up as cover instead.
I do think that I'm being harsh, but it echoes Sir Clive's unforgivable mistake of calling up 20 English players in 2005, with only ten coming from Grand Slam-winning Wales. Look what happened there, in New Zealand. It was a whitewash and the Lions were humiliated. Gatland, do not let that happen again!
Monday 19 June 2017
Sunday 18 June 2017
The Test For Russia
The summer before a World Cup is incredibly important for those players who are on the cusp of their international team. Choosing whether to stay at their current club or potentially move to a lesser club in the hope of more playing time to get into the World Cup squad is a very difficult decision. What happens if the team you're currently at plays well without you? What if the team you move to performs badly even though you played well? What if everyone else in similar situations have absolute blinders of a season and yet you could still be picked because, overall, the club you have bled for over the previous ten months came out on the top of the pile?
It's a huge dilemma, and one that I'm happy to not ba a part of. I wouldn't know which way to go. However, one thing I know for certain is that I will not be going to Russia next summer. I'd actually love to go at some point but it will certainly be much too expensive for someone on my budget to go for a World Cup.
Which brings us round to this summer and the Confederations Cup. It's become a sort of dress rehearsal for the World Cup in that it's held in the same country and tests the infrastructure for the upcoming showpiece on a lower scale. The premise is that the holders of the each of the six FIFA Confederation regional championships along with the host nation and the current World Champions totalling eight teams. This year, we get to see Portugal (UEFA), Australia (AFC), Chile (CONMEBOL), Mexico (CONCACAF), New Zealand (OFC), Cameroon (CAF), Germany (World Champions) and Russia (Host Nations) battle it out in the single most pointless contest in international football.
Apart from being a yard stick, against which the success of the following year's World Cup can be based, the competition serves no real purpose for the teams taking part. I stress that this is my opinion and that no team (except, perhaps, England if we were to win it because we love celebrating mediocrity) would openly celebrate winning the Confederations Cup. It's more likely that the team would celebrate the win for the tournament that got them there in the first place.
No, what makes this year's important, and, therefore, why I have decided to write about it, is because it's taking place in Russia. This really is a stern test for the host nation. Not least because of all the problems that their 'fans' caused in France last year. I have to say, the incidents last summer seemed a lot more publicised than they had been at other events. I don't know whether that was down to the rise of social media reporting or the availability of cameras to document events or simply because there were more incidents, but it seemed that nearly every group match involved an incident with Russian football thugs. I use the word thug because hooligans implies drunk and disorderly. They're not that at all.
That's not the only part about the thugs that could be the issue. Russia is the largest country to have hosted the World Cup (not that it's ever going to be beaten as it's the largest country in the world. This means that the infrastructure in place for teams, coaches and fans need to be near-perfect. The Confederations Cup will test that infrastructure. However, the 1,500 mile trip from Kaliningrad to Yekaterinburg next summer is less than the 2,300 mile journey enjoyed by teams travelling from Detroit to Los Angeles and San Francisco in 1994. I suppose we should be thankful that there are no matches being played near the Bering Strait. Although, at least that would mean a short journey home for the US when they get knocked out (assuming they qualify).
So, who's likely to win the 2017 Confederations Cup? Well, can I be honest with you? I don't really care, just like in 2005, 2009 and 2013. I'm more interested in what goes on next year, and who gets on that plane to Russia. England will qualify and I believe we have a team that can play well together and succeed at a major tournament but will it be the team that goes?
It's a huge dilemma, and one that I'm happy to not ba a part of. I wouldn't know which way to go. However, one thing I know for certain is that I will not be going to Russia next summer. I'd actually love to go at some point but it will certainly be much too expensive for someone on my budget to go for a World Cup.
Which brings us round to this summer and the Confederations Cup. It's become a sort of dress rehearsal for the World Cup in that it's held in the same country and tests the infrastructure for the upcoming showpiece on a lower scale. The premise is that the holders of the each of the six FIFA Confederation regional championships along with the host nation and the current World Champions totalling eight teams. This year, we get to see Portugal (UEFA), Australia (AFC), Chile (CONMEBOL), Mexico (CONCACAF), New Zealand (OFC), Cameroon (CAF), Germany (World Champions) and Russia (Host Nations) battle it out in the single most pointless contest in international football.
Apart from being a yard stick, against which the success of the following year's World Cup can be based, the competition serves no real purpose for the teams taking part. I stress that this is my opinion and that no team (except, perhaps, England if we were to win it because we love celebrating mediocrity) would openly celebrate winning the Confederations Cup. It's more likely that the team would celebrate the win for the tournament that got them there in the first place.
No, what makes this year's important, and, therefore, why I have decided to write about it, is because it's taking place in Russia. This really is a stern test for the host nation. Not least because of all the problems that their 'fans' caused in France last year. I have to say, the incidents last summer seemed a lot more publicised than they had been at other events. I don't know whether that was down to the rise of social media reporting or the availability of cameras to document events or simply because there were more incidents, but it seemed that nearly every group match involved an incident with Russian football thugs. I use the word thug because hooligans implies drunk and disorderly. They're not that at all.
That's not the only part about the thugs that could be the issue. Russia is the largest country to have hosted the World Cup (not that it's ever going to be beaten as it's the largest country in the world. This means that the infrastructure in place for teams, coaches and fans need to be near-perfect. The Confederations Cup will test that infrastructure. However, the 1,500 mile trip from Kaliningrad to Yekaterinburg next summer is less than the 2,300 mile journey enjoyed by teams travelling from Detroit to Los Angeles and San Francisco in 1994. I suppose we should be thankful that there are no matches being played near the Bering Strait. Although, at least that would mean a short journey home for the US when they get knocked out (assuming they qualify).
So, who's likely to win the 2017 Confederations Cup? Well, can I be honest with you? I don't really care, just like in 2005, 2009 and 2013. I'm more interested in what goes on next year, and who gets on that plane to Russia. England will qualify and I believe we have a team that can play well together and succeed at a major tournament but will it be the team that goes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)