what is the big thing about the Lions?

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Rightwing wrote: »

That's it. People use the excuse that it's too hard to gel, sort of writing off the likes of NZ/Boks/Aussies, 3 of the best teams in the world.

No one is saying it's easy, but there's more to it than just the lions gelling. They are playing some of the best opposition in the world.

What? You're speaking in riddles and changing your argument with every post

No one is saying the opposition isn't strong but the first post you made you said that past Lions tours have been solely down to NH players not being good enough and totally discounted how difficult it is for such an unfamiliar unit to gel

Again, how can you say it should be easy for 40 players from 4 different countries to adapt to a single style in a matter of weeks?

Rightwing

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

What? You're speaking in riddles and changing your argument with every post

No one is saying the opposition isn't strong but the first post you made you said that past Lions tours have been solely down to NH players not being good enough and totally discounted how difficult it is for such an unfamiliar unit to gel

Again, how can you say it should be easy for 40 players from 4 different countries to adapt to a single style in a matter of weeks?

Now the penny has finally dropped.

No one is saying it's easy, that's the point, but the cliches that it's impossible to gel isn't working I'm afraid.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Rightwing wrote: »

Now the penny has finally dropped.

What?

Again I ask. How can you back up saying what you said in your OP. You've really offered no explanation to this ridiculous statement

To remind you, here's what you said:

Rightwing wrote: »

It's not that hard, just means they are not good enough.

How is it not that hard for 30+ players from 4 different countries to come together in six weeks and come up with enough cohesion to challenge one of the three best sides in the world

It's clearly one of the biggest challenges facing a lions squad

Also, no one said it's impossible to gel, you're just making stuff it now

irishbucsfan

Rightwing wrote: »

Now the penny has finally dropped.

No one is saying it's easy, that's the point, but the cliches that it's impossible to gel isn't working I'm afraid.

The biggest problem with the 2005 was not the quality of players. It was poor coaching and terrible cohesion.

Rightwing

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The biggest problem with the 2005 was not the quality of players. It was poor coaching and terrible cohesion.

I disagree.

The biggest problem imo they faced was the opposition. Then, yes, the coaching and cohesion. But my money would be on the ABs to beat them even if they had perfect cohesion and management.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Rightwing wrote: »

It's not that hard, just means they are not good enough.

Rightwing wrote: »

I disagree.

The biggest problem imo they faced was the opposition. Then, yes, the coaching and cohesion. But my money would be on the ABs to beat them even if they had perfect cohesion and management.

You're still not backing up your original point man

Just moving the goalposts with every post

Rightwing

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

What?

Again I ask. How can you back up saying what you said in your OP. You've really offered no explanation to this ridiculous statement

To remind you, here's what you said:




How is it not that hard for 30+ players from 4 different countries to come together in six weeks and come up with enough cohesion to challenge one of the three best sides in the world

It's clearly one of the biggest challenges facing a lions squad

Also, no one said it's impossible to gel, you're just making stuff it now

I said it's not that hard, recognising the fact that it is hard to gel (that goes without saying), but not impossible.

Busted Flat.

daheff wrote: »

I follow rugby....but I dont get the thing about the Lions!

I know its been going for 50/60 years and is 'technically' seen as international grade rugby..but from my view
A-Its an excuse to get a GB team (including Ireland in there)
B-Its pretty much saying that Northern Hemisphere teams (excluding France)arent good enough on their own to compete with Southern Hemisphere teams...so they need to create a team with the best of 4 countries to challenge.
C- In the professional era, the warm up games are a farce because any internationals (of the country the tour is in) are usually withdrawn and/or the warm up team has other games on and wont play their best team leading to one sided matches. Compound this with semi-pro/amateur players losing the rag with Lions players and thumping/biting /kicking the professionals and causing injury


So can somebody please explain the draw and appeal of the Lions coz i dont see it

Its pussy cats with a big cats name.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Rightwing wrote: »

I said it's not that hard, recognising the fact that it is hard to gel (that goes without saying), but not impossible.

But you implied it shouldn't be an excuse and it's simply a case of the Lions individuals not being good enough

Rightwing

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

But you implied it shouldn't be an excuse and it's simply a case of the Lions individuals not being good enough

Correct.

The Lions class of 2013 have proven they are good enough to beat Australia. You won't hear the pros like POC using cheap and lazy excuses like 'we've had no time to gel'. They'll go out and get on with it and see if they are good enough. Today they were.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Rightwing wrote: »

Correct.

The Lions class of 2013 have proven they are good enough to beat Australia. You won't hear the pros like POC using cheap and lazy excuses like 'we've had no time to gel'. They'll go out and get on with it and see if they are good enough. Today they were.

Ok, you clearly have no interest in trying to rationally back up what you said originally so I guess we'll leave it there chief

Rightwing

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience wrote: »

Ok, you clearly have no interest in trying to rationally back up what you said originally so I guess we'll leave it there chief

A lost spacecraft I'm afraid.

irishbucsfan

Rightwing wrote: »

I disagree.

The biggest problem imo they faced was the opposition. Then, yes, the coaching and cohesion. But my money would be on the ABs to beat them even if they had perfect cohesion and management.

But they didn't have any cohesion and they had awful management and they were walloped. If they had those things there was a potential squad of World Cup winners and some other really special talents, how were they not good enough to at least challenge?

It is the perfect tour to show that your initial point was nonsense.

Rightwing

irishbucsfan wrote: »

But they didn't have any cohesion and they had awful management and they were walloped. If they had those things there was a potential squad of World Cup winners and some other really special talents, how were they not good enough to at least challenge?

It is the perfect tour to show that your initial point was nonsense.

Few key mistakes you are making:

Awful management and lack of cohesion isn't solely confined to the Lions. For instance, Australia today, putting JOC at 10 ?

I never said they weren't good enough to challenge. Lions teams should always challenge, but posters should realise that they are playing some and often the best team in the world. It's not going to be easy even if things go 100% of their way.

irishbucsfan

Rightwing wrote: »

Few key mistakes you are making:

Awful management and lack of cohesion isn't solely confined to the Lions. For instance, Australia today, putting JOC at 10 ?

I never said they weren't good enough to challenge. Lions teams should always challenge, but posters should realise that they are playing some and often the best team in the world. It's not going to be easy even if things go 100% of their way.

Who said it would be easy? Now THAT'S a straw man argument right there!

Rightwing

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Who said it would be easy? Now THAT'S a straw man argument right there!

Your basic premise is, it's all about the Lions, mine is: it's not.

Player for player they are nearly always inferior, this tour they are just about on par with the Aussies.

You need to evaluate the opposition. Sort of reminds me of Premiership football fans always expecting the likes of Man U/Aresenal to beat Barca/Madrid, and then blaming something like the heat :rolleyes: when they inevitably flop.

matTNT

Rightwing wrote: »

Player for player they are nearly always inferior, this tour they are just about on par with the Aussies.

Incorrect. They're better by a fair bit.

Rightwing

matTNT wrote: »

Incorrect. They're better by a fair bit.

Ya, the backs def are anyway.

Ugo Monye spacecraft experience

Rightwing wrote: »

Ya, the backs def are anyway.

The Lions forwards, are far superior to what the Australians have

In fact what positions would you say the Australians are even on a par with the Lions in terms of depth and talent?

matTNT

Rightwing wrote: »

Ya, the backs def are anyway.

The lions forwards and 2-3 of their backs are better. You misinterpreted me

thebaz

I think the World Cup is much bigger than the Lions - think it is much fairer - I believe England have more professional rugby players than any other nation, by quite a bit - genetically English players are not small , so why do 3 nations needed to be added to this strength in depth to make a fair contest is beyond me - ok, there is the historical thing , and yeah it will help Welsh , Scottish and Irish players get a higher win rate - but apart from mass marketing , I think it has had its day (for me ) - roll on the WC

.ak

Because even acknowledging the above, England still don't sit in the top 3. The SH sides do, and it's become more divided in the last few years, so the Lions makes even more sense now.

Rightwing

thebaz wrote: »

I think the World Cup is much bigger than the Lions - think it is much fairer - I believe England have more professional rugby players than any other nation, by quite a bit - genetically English players are not small , so why do 3 nations needed to be added to this strength in depth to make a fair contest is beyond me - ok, there is the historical thing , and yeah it will help Welsh , Scottish and Irish players get a higher win rate - but apart from mass marketing , I think it has had its day (for me ) - roll on the WC

I don't think anyone is saying the Lions is bigger than winning a world cup medal. What people are saying it, it's special concept and tour.

thebaz

.ak wrote: »

so the Lions makes even more sense now.

I'd totally disagree - Ireland , England and Wales should be aiming to beat the SH teams more consistently on ther own , rather than having to join forces to do so -

irishbucsfan

I read an article with BOD yesterday who described the Lions as the higheset honour for a British or Irish player.

That's it for me. As long as the players keep buying into the tour and holding it in such high regard it will continue to be as enjoyable.

Pudsy33

thebaz wrote: »

I'd totally disagree - Ireland , England and Wales should be aiming to beat the SH teams more consistently on ther own , rather than having to join forces to do so -

Its the whole traditional touring aspect thats the draw, not the chance to beat a SH team. If the Lions beat the Aussies then great, but I'm happier that the players had a great experience and learned from it then I am with the victory.

Alpha Dog 1

.ak wrote: »

Because even acknowledging the above, England still don't sit in the top 3. The SH sides do, and it's become more divided in the last few years, so the Lions makes even more sense now.

Nonsense, sure Scotland beat Australia last year, Ireland beat them at the world cup and there's no doubt that both Wales and England are both capable of beating this aussie side.

Too much money involved in the lions for it to be changed. There jersey is the biggest selling jersey in the world.

It should be northern hemisphere vs southern hemisphere were only the best players in the world play.

Rightwing

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I read an article with BOD yesterday who described the Lions as the higheset honour for a British or Irish player.

That's it for me. As long as the players keep buying into the tour and holding it in such high regard it will continue to be as enjoyable.

That's the subtle difference. It's the highest honour in terms of wearing a jersey, after all you are the best of 4 countries, but all the players would not swap a Test win series for a world cup medal.

irishbucsfan

Rightwing wrote: »

That's the subtle difference. It's the highest honour in terms of wearing a jersey, after all you are the best of 4 countries, but all the players would swap a Test win series for a world cup medal.

The thread title is "what is the big deal about the Lions", not "what is the big deal about winning a Lions test series" though

Rightwing

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The thread title is "what is the big deal about the Lions", not "what is the big deal about winning a Lions test series" though

I can answer that one for you: They find it damn hard to win a series.