Jac Morgan on Lions bench proves form does at least count for something

Times

4 days ago

Thank the Lord for Jac Morgan's selection. Or thank Lord Farrell, at least. Morgan's selection can give you faith.
Legions of British & Irish Lions fans will be relieved and delighted that Morgan has been promoted to the bench for the second Test against Australia in Melbourne on Saturday. And, yes, a majority of them may be Welsh, but what is crucial here is to remember the position held by Andy Farrell, the head coach: that he won't allow his selection process to be swayed by national interests or any desire to keep all four nations represented. Rightly so, of course.
Yet Morgan's selection for the second Test is important for reasons far more weighty than any kind of PR. It is only a bench spot, but it is representative of far more. It proves that it has still been possible to play your way into the team.
This is essential to how the Lions operate. Indeed, if they do not operate this way, then the Lions do not work — and that was, worryingly, how the class of 2025 had been looking.
Every Lions coach will set out on tour with a likely or possible Test team in his head. Farrell did that and there were surely lots of Irishmen in there. But that's OK if the other players in the squad can change his thinking by the quality of their performances.
In the Lions' rich history, there are long chapters on this very subject. Tom Smith and Paul Wallace, the two first-choice props in 1997: they are a chapter in themselves because they were no one's idea of a pair of Test props when the squad left for South Africa, but because of the way they played in the matches in the weeks before the Tests, their quality won them their starting spots.
Here in Australia, though, one has wondered: does form still count? Is it actually possible to do a Smith, a Wallace?
That was why the selections of Tom Curry and Tadhg Beirne a week ago were deemed controversial — because they hadn't notably excelled in the pre-Test games and Morgan had. Of all the back-row forwards in the squad, in those pre-Test games, Morgan was arguably the best of the lot. And yet he didn't even make the bench.
It thus became clear how much Farrell had always wanted to start Curry. After Morgan's omission, the appropriate questions then were: what more could he have done? And: is there actually a way in?
You do not have to extrapolate much further to then be asking: what was the point of Morgan coming? Not just Morgan, but all those others who boarded the plane more than a month ago and were not in the forefront of Farrell's selection plans. Why were they here if they didn't actually have a chance of breaking in? And once you get to that, you are questioning the very fabric of the touring Lions.
But Morgan is in now. He has replaced Ben Earl on the bench. His form demanded it and the demands have been met.
There is a spectrum here between being a very flexible selector and one whose opinion is hard to shift. Call it the selector's flexibility scale. For this Lions tour, Farrell's position on the flexibility scale is close to one end, the hard-to-shift end, though Morgan's selection at least shows that it is not at the complete extreme.
There are circumstances that come in to play here. The opposition in the pre-Test matches has been subpar. This has lowered the value of a good performance; it has meant you could have a blinder and still not really turn Farrell's head. Morgan was man of the match against the Queensland Reds and that didn't seem to do him much good in the selection conversation for the first Test.
You could say that Farrell's position on the selector's flexibility scale was then vindicated because he wasn't swayed by Morgan's form and instead picked Curry on account of the vast body of work in his international career to date and his record for showing up strong for big games — and Curry repaid his faith. Curry was magnificent.
For the second Test, what is particularly fascinating about Farrell's team selection is his midfield. Due to injury, he has ended up with Bundee Aki and Huw Jones but he had wanted to go with his Irish duo of Aki and Garry Ringrose.
He said that Sione Tuipulotu was suffering from a tight hamstring. Nevertheless, it would appear that, had everyone been fit, he would have gone with the Irish pair, despite the quality of the Scots in the first Test. Yes, even though Jones and Tuipulotu had proved their worth, Farrell would not have been persuaded by their form. That makes his position on the flexibility scale even more extreme.
You may wonder, then, what it would take to unseat James Lowe from his Test position on the left wing. Lowe has very much not been in form here in Australia and it would appear he has been fortunate that the rivals to his position in the Test team have been unfit.
But what of Blair Kinghorn, returning from injury in the game against a First Nations & Pasifika XV on Tuesday night? What if he'd had a good game? (he didn't). Would his form have forced his way in?
That we will probably never know. All we can be sure of is that if you do happen to play outstandingly well over a period of time, then, as Morgan has proved, it is actually possible to change Farrell's mind after all.
Second Test, MelbourneSaturday, 11amTV Sky Sports