The last nail in the coffin for lions tours?

flyingoutside

With defeat today, it means the supposed best of the home nations have failed to win down south since 97. i think there needs to be a hard look at future tours. the best players and teams are not being picked and coaches are picking favourites rather than the best (Shaw being picked for the tour let alone test is awful). I think in this day and age of professionalism it is unneeded

any opinions?

Stev_o

Hell no.

It's been a thrilling series despite the results and it's obvious that there is a huge fan base for it.

uberwolf

I was thinking it after 30 minutes last week. But not now. They've run them close, and ultimately lost through attrition, rather than a gulf in cohesiveness (which is what wins and loses games IMO).

flyingoutside

Stev_o wrote: »

Hell no.

It's been a thrilling series despite the results and it's obvious that there is a huge fan base for it.

I wouldn't call poor performances against poor club teams and getting bet twice by the springboks thrilling. the last good series was 2001 austrailia

Stev_o

flyingoutside wrote: »

I wouldn't call poor performances against poor club teams and getting bet twice by the springboks thrilling. the last good series was 2001 austrailia

If you didn't think the 1st and 2nd test were thrilling then i must question your idea of a thrilling rugby match.

Requiem4adream

flyingoutside wrote: »

I wouldn't call poor performances against poor club teams and getting bet twice by the springboks thrilling. the last good series was 2001 austrailia

Stev_o wrote: »

If you didn't think the 1st and 2nd test were thrilling then i must question your idea of a thrilling rugby match.

+1 directly above.

What has the result got to do with the thrilling nature of the game? A football team could lose both legs of a champions league semi-final 4-3 after getting a soft draw up to the semis, yeah they lose 2 outta 2 when it counts but also contributed in no small part to 2 fantastic games (and then the inquest comes into the defending etc which is exactly what we're doing here).

flyingoutside

Stev_o wrote: »

If you didn't think the 1st and 2nd test were thrilling then i must question your idea of a thrilling rugby match.

They had there moments but i thought the first test was overall poor and the final score line glossed over it a bit. today was a great start but also turned poor when the lions started to fall apart

flyingoutside

Requiem4adream wrote: »

+1 directly above.

What has the result got to do with the thrilling nature of the game? A football team could lose both legs of a champions league semi-final 4-3 after getting a soft draw up to the semis, yeah they lose 2 outta 2 when it counts but also contributed in no small part to 2 fantastic games (and then the inquest comes into the defending etc which is exactly what we're doing here).

sorry agree about the result not mattering but my point is that i think a better picked lions team should have beaten them in style and when the springboks come up here in november i can't see them winning as much let alone the tri nations

EPointer=Birdss

flyingoutside wrote: »

(Shaw being picked for the tour let alone test is awful). I think in this day and age of professionalism it is unneeded

any opinions?

Are you crazy? Shaw was proabably the stand out performance for the Lions today! He showed Captain O Connell how a second row should play! In the loose, the lineouts & rucks both with & without the ball.

It was a long overdue test cap!

Amabokke

flyingoutside wrote: »

sorry agree about the result not mattering but my point is that i think a better picked lions team should have beaten them in style and when the springboks come up here in november i can't see them winning as much let alone the tri nations

We were told that after the WC and also in the last AI and we're still winning....

Chucky the tree

How you can pick out Shaw as an example of bad selection for him being even on the tour after his performance today is unreal. The only reason I think the tour should come into doubt is due to injuries/the number of matches extra matches/months it adds on to NH players' seasons. Especially considering the number of injuries on this tour.

wee bey

Shaw was outstanding for god sake! The tour showed that the appetite for the lions is still there both for players and fans. Plus you get to watch great rugby in the tests and if they lose not be too down hearted. It's part of the tradition of rugby and I think its a great concept. Long may it continue, win lose or draw.

corny

In effect what you're saying is a Lions tour is only justified if we win. I'm sorry i don't agree with that. The Lions have been touring for 100 years now and since day 1 they've lost far more tests than they've won. Its not like professionalism has made us uncompetitive.

You just look at all the red in the stadium today and how personal the Lions took defeat. It still means an awful lot to a lot of people.

Its still a great institution and long may it continue.

BTW Simon Shaw was brilliant today. You must not like the English!

yogidc26

Chucky the tree wrote: »

How you can pick out Shaw as an example of bad selection for him being even on the tour after his performance today is unreal. The only reason I think the tour should come into doubt is due to injuries/the number of matches extra matches/months it adds on to NH players' seasons. Especially considering the number of injuries on this tour.

I think your right about the injuries at the end a long year the lads could do with a few week of light training befor getting back in to the new Season

From an Irish point of view this supplying players to tours like this is unsustainable.We don't have the player base.Our lads should have been getting a proper rest and recuperating to give next season a big lash.While I'm sure the tour has brought enjoyment to many we need to get selfish and look at whats best for Irish Rugby.

I hope this is the final tour.

Also I can't shout for the same team as Stephen Jones et al.

thomond2006

This test series has been really exciting with a top quality game today.

Why get rid of it?

Lions Tours will only disappear when they stop making money imo.

Stev_o

I think alot of the comments for the Lions to be scrapped are way OTT. Just look at past results,

The tours of 1977,1980 and 1983 were all lost. It's not like this the first time they Lions have lost three test series in a row.

thomond2006

Stev_o wrote: »

I think alot of the comments for the Lions to be scrapped are way OTT. Just look at past results,

The tours of 1977,1980 and 1983 were all lost. It's not like this the first time they Lions have lost three test series in a row.

Hear Hear. :)

old boy

there is too much money invoved for it to fail

injured365

No lions tour before this one came out with a profit so money is not a real issue when it comes to discussing if the lions should continue

Fishtits

For all its failings, todays match was a classic. Long live the Lions tradition IMHO.

(strange... the call for binning the Lions seems to come after the NZ tour...)

d22ontour

injured365 wrote: »

No lions tour before this one came out with a profit so money is not a real issue when it comes to discussing if the lions should continue

When ticket prices are insanely higher than a tri nation match the profit loss is understandable.Watch SA v AUS/NZ for €25 or watch the lions for €100, Commercialism at it's worst.Lions have been pretty poor thus far and it comes down to tactics like every sport does and that's where the management failed.

Powerhouse

flyingoutside wrote: »

With defeat today, it means the supposed best of the home nations have failed to win down south since 97. i think there needs to be a hard look at future tours. the best players and teams are not being picked and coaches are picking favourites rather than the best (Shaw being picked for the tour let alone test is awful). I think in this day and age of professionalism it is unneeded

any opinions?

Shaw was the Lions' best player and was England's best player in the last World Cup. The question is why was he not playing in the first test too. It is not coincidence that O'Connell swapped sides in the scrum from last week and Shaw was on the troublesome side. No such problems today.

I don't understand the argument that because we are in the professional era (rather than the amateur one) that the Lions is "unneeded".

What is needed is a matter of opinion anyway (do we "need" autumn internationals for example) but the Lions' is a far more viable proposition as a professional outfit than in the amateur days as touring for professionals makes a lot more sense.

And the Lions is massive compared to the individual countries, and much more attractive to sponsors etc.

It seems to me that people want it scrapped because they tend to lose, but the Lions have always tended to lose.

They shared the 1955 test series with the Springboks and lost the next four before winning another. Then, as has been mentioned, they lost the next three after 1974.

If losing was the decision-maker they wouldn't turn up at all. They've won just 2 tests from 13 in New Zealand since they won the 1971 test series. They've lost 6 of the last 9 tests in South Africa since winning in 1974. Why the call to end it all now? When did we cross that line?

Powerhouse

d22ontour wrote: »

When ticket prices are insanely higher than a tri nation match the profit loss is understandable.Watch SA v AUS/NZ for €25 or watch the lions for €100.

The Lions turn up in a given country once every 12 years. A generation of players get one chance to play them. Fans get a rare chance to see them.

The tri-nations matches come along every five minutes by comparison. Ticket prices reflect this I would suggest.

thehighground

Stev_o wrote: »

I think alot of the comments for the Lions to be scrapped are way OTT. Just look at past results,

The tours of 1977,1980 and 1983 were all lost. It's not like this the first time they Lions have lost three test series in a row.

That was before pre professionalism. It was unusual for anyone to tour anywhere because we were all broke anyway.

Downside of Lions - Injury & season just too long:

BOD (missing nearly a year for leinster & Ireland through injury in '05), POC missing the AIs that year. Ireland losing most of their AIs that year because our two best players were missing.

All Lions missing the first 2 months of next season. Hope we can compete in the AIs and domestically with such a late start.

thehighground

Powerhouse wrote: »

What is needed is a matter of opinion anyway (do we "need" autumn internationals for example) but the Lions' is a far more viable proposition as a professional outfit than in the amateur days as touring for professionals makes a lot more sense.

We do - the AIs + 6Ns pay the players' wages, help build stadia etc.

mink_man

shaw played good!

thomond2006

I don't think we need Summer Tours, not every year at least. Most players are ****ed at the end of the season anyway.

mink_man

thomond2006 wrote: »

I don't think we need Summer Tours, not every year at least. Most players are ****ed at the end of the season anyway.

maybe the 2nd string side like the ireland A's go on a tour?

thehighground

thomond2006 wrote: »

I don't think we need Summer Tours, not every year at least. Most players are ****ed at the end of the season anyway.

Our senior team need as much time together with our own coaching staff against strong opposition so that we can try and compete in the next World Cup which is in New Zealand.

dingbat

Debating the concept of the Lions is one thing, but to use Shaw as an example? My God. The guy's been fantastic this season and he finally, finally gets a Lions test start and repays that faith in spades. But apparently he shouldn't even have been picked for the tour and is the embodiment of all that is wrong with the British and Irish Lions.

Wow.

If the original poster doesn't appreciate Shaw, how well he played as well as the journey he had to get into that jersey, then I'm not surprised that he doesn't "get" the idea of the Lions. And he's worse off for it.

flyingoutside

corny wrote: »

In effect what you're saying is a Lions tour is only justified if we win.
BTW Simon Shaw was brilliant today. You must not like the English!

oh yeah i hate the english thats why i go around burning flags....No wait i was making an opinion wouldn't care if he was multi-coloured with daisies on and a bit of polka dot. just saying my opinion.

old boy wrote: »

there is too much money involved for it to fail

true there is a ton of money but money should not be a reason to do it

Powerhouse wrote: »

Shaw was the Lions' best player

I don't understand the argument that because we are in the professional era (rather than the amateur one) that the Lions is "unneeded".

It's unneeded because the idea of having an irish,welsh, english and scot player on the same team isn't that big of a deal. tons of teams have it, its lost it's appeal

Powerhouse wrote: »

The Lions turn up in a given country once every 12 years. A generation of players get one chance to play them. Fans get a rare chance to see them.

But still don't show up. The soccer on at the same time can be to blame but only so much

dingbat wrote: »

If the original poster doesn't appreciate Shaw, how well he played as well as the journey he had to get into that jersey, then I'm not surprised that he doesn't "get" the idea of the Lions. And he's worse off for it.

The original poster isn't too bothered if you think i get it and sticks by his opinion

Danger_Dave

flyingoutside wrote: »

The original poster isn't too bothered if you think i get it and sticks by his opinion

Even when your opinion is flawed and proven to be with Shaws performance? Someone who is unwilling to alter there opinion after viable counter claims are put forward should not start threads opening up a debate.


For me it was a fantastic test match even on a 9inch screen. Long may the lions tradition continue. Players like BOD in 2001 showing his massive potential, or gethin jenkins in 2005 one of the few bright points of 2005. To luke fitzgerald and rob kearney showing they will be in future lions tour parties in years to come. It adds even more desire and passion to a game that is already filled with it.

So i ask is that a bad thing ?

dingbat

flyingoutside wrote: »

The original poster isn't too bothered if you think i get it and sticks by his opinion

Well done for sticking by your opinion through thick and thin, but when a central tenet to your "argument" has been shown up to be complete bunk then it would do you well to take a moment and wonder if your opinion is actually worthwhile.

Powerhouse

flyingoutside wrote: »

true there is a ton of money but money should not be a reason to do it

In professional sport money is the only justification for doing anything.

thomond2006

Powerhouse wrote: »

In professional sport money is the only justification for doing anything.

Bingo.

ironingbored

It is very difficult to bring together such a disparate group of players and expect them to beat the World Champions in their back yard. I was afraid the Lions would get hockeyed like in 2005 meaning the end of the Lions experience. However, despite the loss I think the Lions have given a very good account of themselves considering the conditions, injuries and the hard season behind them, no more so than the Irish HC Champions and 6N winners.

They ran the boks very, very close and will have earned great respect amongst their opposite numbers. On today's performance Kearney, Shaw, A Jones, BOD would get into that Springbok team not to mention Roberts and O'Connell as definite bench players.

I truly believe that a full strength Lions team including all those who exited through injury would have won at least one if not both of these tests.

And on a final note, I think there were too many warm up matches.

Amabokke

ironingbored wrote: »

It is very difficult to bring together such a disparate group of players and expect them to beat the World Champions in their back yard. I was afraid the Lions would get hockeyed like in 2005 meaning the end of the Lions experience. However, despite the loss I think the Lions have given a very good account of themselves considering the conditions, injuries and the hard season behind them, no more so than the Irish HC Champions and 6N winners.

They ran the boks very, very close and will have earned great respect amongst their opposite numbers. On today's performance Kearney, Shaw, A Jones, BOD would get into that Springbok team not to mention Roberts and O'Connell as definite bench players.

I truly believe that a full strength Lions team including all those who exited through injury would have won at least one if not both of these tests.

And on a final note, I think there were too many warm up matches.

That was a full strenght Lions team.

escobar

thehighground wrote: »

That was before pre professionalism. It was unusual for anyone to tour anywhere because we were all broke anyway.

Downside of Lions - Injury & season just too long:

BOD (missing nearly a year for leinster & Ireland through injury in '05), POC missing the AIs that year. Ireland losing most of their AIs that year because our two best players were missing.

All Lions missing the first 2 months of next season. Hope we can compete in the AIs and domestically with such a late start.

Exactly ..In the pre professional era it was probably a nice free trip and reward for the players. But now as shown with the shortening of the tour a 3 month trip is no longer sustainable. The result of that being that the players don't gell together well enough and lose almost invariably.

Is no one else embarassed that the best the NH has to offer minus a few french can't even beat a national team.....

Didn't know the lions would be out of the ML for 2 months ...That's absolutley crazy.....I think after this tour though the lions format at least will have to be changed. Neil Francis was on setanta talking about the lions loses, attendance and that the tour would have to cange unless the lions started winning........

ironingbored

Amabokke wrote: »

That was a full strenght Lions team.

Flannery
Ferris
O'Leary
Quinlan
Shanklin
Murray
Hook

All injured.

Amabokke

escobar wrote: »

Exactly ..In the pre professional era it was probably a nice free trip and reward for the players. But now as shown with the shortening of the tour a 3 month trip is no longer sustainable. The result of that being that the players don't gell together well enough and lose almost invariably.

Is no one else embarassed that the best the NH has to offer minus a few french can't even beat a national team.....

Didn't know the lions would be out of the ML for 2 months ...That's absolutley crazy.....I think after this tour though the lions format at least will have to be changed. Neil Francis was on setanta talking about the lions loses, attendance and that the tour would have to cange unless the lions started winning........

Why should Lions supporters be embarassed. They didn't play against Romania's B team. 12 of the 15 bok players were involved in the WC final and been playing together since 2004. The Lions lost to a very good boks team where we haven't lost in SA since 2006. No shame in that.

Amabokke

ironingbored wrote: »

Flannery
Ferris
O'Leary
Quinlan
Shanklin
Murray
Hook

All injured.

And who from the first and second test team would've lost their place to the above? Ferris is the only one I can see that would've started. Even if Flannery is a meaner player there is no quarantee he would've done better or worse, hard to say.

barneygumble

Yesterday was a classic test match and has gone a long way to making good a lot of the damage done to the Lions in 2005.

It's worth bearing in mind that, of the four NH nations, one has effectively ceased to be a serious rugby-playing nation and another is only beginning to emerge from a sustained period in the doldrums. With the honourable exception of the magnificent Shaw, this was essentially the Irish and Welsh Lions.

What this tour has shown is that the Lions is still a vital and meaningful rugby entity when nurtured by the real rugby men like McGeechan, rather than left in the hands of cuckoos like Clive Woodward or automatons like Graham Henry.

Amabokke

barneygumble wrote: »

Yesterday was a classic test match and has gone a long way to making good a lot of the damage done to the Lions in 2005.

It's worth bearing in mind that, of the four NH nations, one has effectively ceased to be a serious rugby-playing nation and another is only beginning to emerge from a sustained period in the doldrums. With the honourable exception of the magnificent Shaw, this was essentially the Irish and Welsh Lions.

What this tour has shown is that the Lions is still a vital and meaningful rugby entity when nurtured by the real rugby men like McGeechan, rather than left in the hands of cuckoos like Clive Woodward or automatons like Graham Henry.

Good post.

OldJay

ironingbored wrote: »

Flannery
Ferris
O'Leary
Quinlan
Shanklin
Murray
Hook

All injured.

The strength of a squad is measured not only by successes but by the depth. 'If only' never won anything.

Kidney for the next lions coach?

Stev_o

Deleted User wrote: »

Kidney for the next lions coach?

Don't jinx it! Everyone said the same about EOS and we know how that panned out.

escobar

Amabokke wrote: »

Why should Lions supporters be embarassed. They didn't play against Romania's B team. 12 of the 15 bok players were involved in the WC final and been playing together since 2004. The Lions lost to a very good boks team where we haven't lost in SA since 2006. No shame in that.

Irish teams have won three of the last four celtic leagues, three of the last four heineken cups.......... and we won the grand slam this year...... We won every trophy we could and Irish teams achieved the treble this year.
We're used to winning over here.......

I'm not saying that SA arn't a good national team. But I for one can't follow a team that invariably loses.

I think the professional era has killed the lions. We just can't afford the time needed to gel properly, the injuries the rest after the tour and for what..

SomeFool

escobar wrote: »

Irish teams have won three of the last four celtic leagues, three of the last four heineken cups.......... and we won the grand slam this year...... We won every trophy we could and Irish teams achieved the treble this year.
We're used to winning over here.......

I'm not saying that SA arn't a good national team. But I for one can't follow a team that invariably loses.

I think the professional era has killed the lions. We just can't afford the time needed to gel properly, the injuries the rest after the tour and for what..

Firstly.....I remember when the Italians used to beat us and we had more wooden spoons than a bakery..... Not that long ago, winning regularly is a relatively new thing here. Secondly not wanting to buy into the Lions concept because you are afraid of losing is a bit harsh

Chucky the tree

escobar wrote: »

I'm not saying that SA arn't a good national team. But I for one can't follow a team that invariably loses.

Nice bandwagon there. :rolleyes:

Stev_o

escobar wrote: »

I'm not saying that SA arn't a good national team. But I for one can't follow a team that invariably loses.

Start supporting Ireland this year?

Come on man give a better reason for you not following the Lions because they loose it's just weak.