The exclusion of Farrell and other key England team talking points

In short, they said they expected Baxter & AOF to be the future loose heads, with Tuipolotu & Dan as the hookers and Sela & Fasogbon as the future tight heads and they were pretty excited about the England front row for the next decade ahead, whilst we also see out the next few years of Genge & Stuart.

Exciting times ahead for England and looks like we have a bunch of talent coming through in these key positions.

Meanwhile, France, Canada and England all have forward power that I haven’t seen from the Ferns. It makes for some intriguing match ups in the later stages of the tournament. Canada probably have the best starting pack in the game, but tend to fade later on. France have the balance of backs and forwards and have pushed England hard in the later stages of games when defensive structures begin to loosen, but aren’t quite as strong in the opening stages. England don’t have as good a midfield as the Ferns, but do have dangerous outside backs and can bring on forward replacements who are every bit as good as their starters.

She’s not in the very top tier of international players (though I think she’d make the squad of any team outside of England, NZ or France if she were eligible), but Maher has become the leading advocate for women’s rugby globally and one of the best adovcates for women’s sport.

She’s brought a lot of new fans to the sport, and her involvement in the opening game will ensure that the tournament draws a big audience.

I think there are a few reasons for this;

1) The opposition isn’t that strong this tour and hasn’t generated the normal excitement and uncertainty for the tests, most people are expecting 0-3 (which has never happened in living memory before).

2) The growing discontent within the fan base at the number of “outside BIL “ born players in the squad is a growing issue. The import issue has reached saturation point with some fans and is a bit negative element to this tour (will improve as nation switching becomes harder).

3) The rugby so far hasn’t been great and the tactics to date are not very exciting. People expected more from Andy Farrell and his Lions team.

4) Lions management have scored some own goals with the selection and subsequent call ups. It should have been the best 44 players from the start of the tour but the recent call ups have been underwhelming and damaged the Lions brand for some fans.

5) This tour would have been better if they merged Australia with Argentina and the Lions played Fiji as a warm up game to give the Pacific Nations a better chance of exposure and glory to grow the game. This is the sort of innovative thinking they need to bring out the magic of the Lions brand and create an exciting experience for all.

What’s become clear is the next tour needs to be an exciting one before people forget how magical a Lions tour can feel and the Lions brand is damaged to the point of questioning why it continues. The writing is on the wall, so lets hope the Lions see it and correct some of the above by the next tour.

To me felt more like they were making a statement or commentary on some of the arbitrary laws and loop holes.

Something changed in the Six Nations and we totally changed our style (literally overnight) and played some really good footie, which finally felt like positive rugby for a change.

Genge has regained his pore-Covid form and is looking back to his best and is head and shoulders above Porter.

Chessum has had a good year and hasn’t played a poor International game this season.

Tom Curry was outstanding in the 6 Nations but they have been playing him at 6, wheras he is better at 7 and is lethal at the breakdown.

Tom Willis was brought into the starting team at 8 and has been one of the best England players over the last year, who should have been on this Lions tour at 8. Earl had his best game since 2020 last week - not sure 1 game warrants Lions selection over a poor combination side and he is certainly second choice for his club 7 country behind Willis.

Pollock will be a good player but like all young emerging players, he is inconsistent and can go quiet in games, which is why Curry should be the starter at 7. He brings energy to games, which is why he is good from the bench but there is an argument to say he is the 5th best England openside (Curry x2, Underhill & Earl are currently better) but will improve over the next 5 years. We just need to stop the media building him up for a fall, let him play and develop and you will see a sensational Henry Pollock for the Lions in 4 years time.

Lions will be too powerful over 80 mins, so doesn’t really matter who they pick. Just please don’t put too much hype on Pollock. His 20 mins of International rugby going into this tour were positive but the media caused a frenzy and no other player would be selected on this basis.

Let’s enjoy the rugby and give Pollock the space and time he requires.