GT: Scrap the Lions

Eponymous

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/gerry-thornley-want-to-win-a-world-cup-scrap-the-lions-1.2449026

It's hard to argue with his points in relation to player welfare and timing, however there's no doubt that players view it as the pinnacle of their careers.

There's also no doubt of the romanticism of the Lions Tours, however in the era of professionalism it does seem to me anyway that it has become a cash-cow to be milked for all it's worth every four years by the home unions.

Does it, as GT asserts, serve to weaken our RWC ambitions? If one looks at France who aren't involved with the Lions, their RWC was hardly stellar, however they've been closer than anyone other than England to winning one.

aimee1

Eponymous wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/gerry-thornley-want-to-win-a-world-cup-scrap-the-lions-1.2449026

It's hard to argue with his points in relation to player welfare and timing, however there's no doubt that players view it as the pinnacle of their careers.

There's also no doubt of the romanticism of the Lions Tours, however in the era of professionalism it does seem to me anyway that it has become a cash-cow to be milked for all it's worth every four years by the home unions.

Does it, as GT asserts, serve to weaken our RWC ambitions? If one looks at France who aren't involved with the Lions, their RWC was hardly stellar, however they've been closer than anyone other than England to winning one.

Its also a major cash cow for the sanzar sides too. Sure didnt the lions pay the ARU a 6 figure sum to only fulfil 9 and not 10 fixtures last time around so they could play the baabaas in HK.

I dont think it impacts on RWC. I think one thing that needs addressing is the post RWC calendar in the NH. One thing that could be done is an alternate format for the ERCC to 4 groups of 5 and only 4 pool games to cut two games off the season enabling players a reasonable window for a proper break.

former total

Not sure about GT's logic that the Lions is the problem. Most of the players don't go on it and even fewer of them play a huge number of games.

I see where he's coming from like, but the reality is that the number of games is only going to increase. The national unions keep scheduling more matches, outside the test windows, so this issue is going to get worse before it gets better. For example, England and Wales are going to play an end-of-season test in May, before they go off on their summer tours. That's absolutely mental. I presume they'll each play four tests next November too. And now Ireland are in on that act, trekking off to USA to play New Zealand.

The Lions is very much not the issue, it's all the other stuff.

death1234567

The lions is the least of the probelms, although the pointless midweek games are a nonsense. It should just be one warm-up game and then the three tests. What about the terrible autumn/summer tours? If they were scrapped it would reduce fixture congestion and improve player welfare. Also the lead in to the world cup is a joke, 4 warm up games and never ending training camp is brainless.

wp_rathead

Keep the Lions Test Series - Scrap the Lions Tour

Clegg

The warm up games are a definite money spinner, but they also appear to be vital according to the players. There were many problems with the 2007 campaign, getting the conditioning programme arseways was one of them, but one of the biggest errors was lack games going into the tournament. It's the same with the Lions. You need games for players to get familiar with each other.

former total

wp_rathead wrote: »

Keep the Lions Test Series - Scrap the Lions Tour

But then the Lions would be playing together for the first time against their test opponents; they would get absolutely annihilated. And how would you pick the team? You have to either do the tour or do nothing.

wp_rathead

former total wrote: »

But then the Lions would be playing together for the first time against their test opponents; they would get absolutely annihilated. And how would you pick the team? You have to either do the tour or do nothing.

Could have few warm us games against European opponents - Romania and Georgia maybe
Brainstorming here - the long tour made sense in amateur era, not necessary now

Snickers Man

I wonder on whose behalf Thornley is flying this particular kite.

Of course it could be an example of a journalist pondering the question based entirely on his own observations over the years and articulating his own personal analysis of a perceived problem........because that's just the way journalism is.

(Yes, Sheldon. Sarcasm)

There are a number of intangibles regarding the Lions, especially as the concept applies to Ireland. Many of them have to do with politics; not rugby politics, real-world politics within which Irish rugby has to operate and to be fair has done an almost miraculous job over the past century or so. I do hope the Mods will let me make this point because I intend to do so dispassionately and in an ongoing spirit of compromise. Not with intent to cause a flame war.

Rugby is the only major Irish sport in which an all-island team competes internationally with the majority support in Ulster coming from the unionist population. Yes, cricket has an all-island side too but it is not a major sport in this country (we don't even have a test team) and for all hockey's success in qualifying for the Olympics it is even more of a minority sport than cricket.

Maintaining an all-island team involves a lot of political awareness and sensitivity to differing identities. Hence the protocol concerning the team's anthem, which is a source of mystery and some outrage to those unfamiliar with rugby's history.

Staunch unionists, the sort who organised protests against catholics going to mass in Ballymena because they saw it as a moral equivalence to Orange marches being rerouted by the Parades Commission have pulled on the green jersey and played like demons for an all Ireland team. (Davy Tweed)

At least two serving members of the Irish defence forces (Mick Hipwell and Ciaran Fitzgerald) have played on Lions teams at a time when there was rather less attention paid to the political correctness which ensures that the words "and Irish" are included in every mention of the team's name.

The Lions therefore are an essential part of the trade off that has allowed Irish rugby to flourish as it has throughout all the various "Troubles" of the 20th century. To be fair, they have been as enthusiastically supported by rugby fans from the south as they have in the north. Probably because they see the inherent value of the concept to IRISH rugby as it currently stands.

Would getting rid of the Lions upset that balancing act?

Careful what you wish for Gerry. (or whoever )

Eponymous

Snickers Man wrote: »

I wonder on whose behalf Thornley is flying this particular kite.

Of course it could be an example of a journalist pondering the question based entirely on his own observations over the years and articulating his own personal analysis of a perceived problem........because that's just the way journalism is.

(Yes, Sheldon. Sarcasm)

There are a number of intangibles regarding the Lions, especially as the concept applies to Ireland. Many of them have to do with politics; not rugby politics, real-world politics within which Irish rugby has to operate and to be fair has done an almost miraculous job over the past century or so. I do hope the Mods will let me make this point because I intend to do so dispassionately and in an ongoing spirit of compromise. Not with intent to cause a flame war.

Rugby is the only major Irish sport in which an all-island team competes internationally with the majority support in Ulster coming from the unionist population. Yes, cricket has an all-island side too but it is not a major sport in this country (we don't even have a test team) and for all hockey's success in qualifying for the Olympics it is even more of a minority sport than cricket.

Maintaining an all-island team involves a lot of political awareness and sensitivity to differing identities. Hence the protocol concerning the team's anthem, which is a source of mystery and some outrage to those unfamiliar with rugby's history.

Staunch unionists, the sort who organised protests against catholics going to mass in Ballymena because they saw it as a moral equivalence to Orange marches being rerouted by the Parades Commission have pulled on the green jersey and played like demons for an all Ireland team. (Davy Tweed)

At least two serving members of the Irish defence forces (Mick Hipwell and Ciaran Fitzgerald) have played on Lions teams at a time when there was rather less attention paid to the political correctness which ensures that the words "and Irish" are included in every mention of the team's name.

The Lions therefore are an essential part of the trade off that has allowed Irish rugby to flourish as it has throughout all the various "Troubles" of the 20th century. To be fair, they have been as enthusiastically supported by rugby fans from the south as they have in the north. Probably because they see the inherent value of the concept to IRISH rugby as it currently stands.

Would getting rid of the Lions upset that balancing act?

Careful what you wish for Gerry. (or whoever )

It's an interesting point, but I daresay that anyone who supports rugby with any real enthusiasm would never have questioned the idea of Irish players playing for the then "British Lions". I couldn't imagine it being politically driven in this sense. I'd put a lot of that down to the typical contributors in AH to rugby threads when they appear... The usual "West brits" and "big fish in a small pond" type comments...

My trouble with the Lions is that it is now as much an exercise in marketing as it is a rugby tour. Maybe all of rugby is nowadays, but it's most obvious with the Lions. Putting a commemorative shirt on the market 18 months before a team is selected (and not a cheap one either!) is symptomatic of what puts me off.

Losty Dublin

I don't have a lot of time for the Lions but, c'mon Gerry :eek:

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/gerry-thornley-want-to-win-a-world-cup-scrap-the-lions-1.2449026?utm_source=lunchtime_digest&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news_digest

former total

Already a thread

ArmchairQB

To much money involved and a major cash cow for all concerned that will not be recouped elsewhere so will never happen. Thornley trying to be relevant & controversial

aimee1

ArmchairQB wrote: »

To much money involved and a major cash cow for all concerned that will not be recouped elsewhere so will never happen

The problem is more the NH calendar then anything.

Snickers Man

Eponymous wrote: »

I daresay that anyone who supports rugby with any real enthusiasm would never have questioned the idea of Irish players playing for the then "British Lions". I couldn't imagine it being politically driven in this sense.

I don't think Irish rugby is "politically driven" but it is very politically aware. To the point that it doesn't like to discuss such matters publicly.

I think we might take the idea of an all-Ireland team with genuine cross-community support (in the north) for granted. But there is a lot of subtle diplomacy that goes into it.

Eponymous wrote: »

I'd put a lot of that down to the typical contributors in AH to rugby threads when they appear... The usual "West brits" and "big fish in a small pond" type comments...

To say that there are a lot of "west brits", to allow you that stereotype for the sake of argument, who support rugby is not the same as saying that every rugby fan in Ireland has such a political outlook.

Many staunch Irish republicans have been fans of the game. I can think of at least one Fianna Fail TD who was a rugby international and a Labour party Tanaiste and his brother, who were both the sons of a vehemently republican Labour TD and captain of an All-Ireland winning Kerry football team. Not to mention the daddy of them all Eamon De Valera who played at Blacrock and Rockwell and was a regular attendee at internationals at Lansdowne Road.

No Fine Gaelers, interestingly. That I know of at any rate.

How do such men come to support the Lions? I can only think that they see, or saw, it as part of a quid pro quo for Ulster Unionists supporting an all Ireland team.

We don't want to see that go, do we?

OldRio

Money will dictate when it is time for the Lions to go. Nothing else but that big fat cash register.
Who owns said register will create problems in the future. The owners of the clubs in England will have want their share, or a little more of everyone else's share. All for the good of the game of course.

Eponymous

Snickers Man wrote: »

I don't think Irish rugby is "politically driven" but it is very politically aware. To the point that it doesn't like to discuss such matters publicly.

I think we might take the idea of an all-Ireland team with genuine cross-community support (in the north) for granted. But there is a lot of subtle diplomacy that goes into it.



To say that there are a lot of "west brits", to allow you that stereotype for the sake of argument, who support rugby is not the same as saying that every rugby fan in Ireland has such a political outlook.

Many staunch Irish republicans have been fans of the game. I can think of at least one Fianna Fail TD who was a rugby international and a Labour party Tanaiste and his brother, who were both the sons of a vehemently republican Labour TD and captain of an All-Ireland winning Kerry football team. Not to mention the daddy of them all Eamon De Valera who played at Blacrock and Rockwell and was a regular attendee at internationals at Lansdowne Road.

No Fine Gaelers, interestingly. That I know of at any rate.

How do such men come to support the Lions? I can only think that they see, or saw, it as part of a quid pro quo for Ulster Unionists supporting an all Ireland team.

We don't want to see that go, do we?

I don't want to see it go for those reasons, no. I don't necessarily want to see it go at all. I have merely just become cynical of the Lions.

You may have misread or misinterpreted my last post. My point was that many casual commentators view the sport as "west brit" without actually looking at examples such as those you provided.

Snickers Man

Eponymous wrote: »

You may have misread or misinterpreted my last post. My point was that many casual commentators view the sport as "west brit" without actually looking at examples such as those you provided.

I was countering the notion that "Irish rugby fans are all west brits", not suggesting at all that it was your point of view.

The Lost Sheep

death1234567 wrote: »

The lions is the least of the probelms, although the pointless midweek games are a nonsense. It should just be one warm-up game and then the three tests. What about the terrible autumn/summer tours? If they were scrapped it would reduce fixture congestion and improve player welfare. Also the lead in to the world cup is a joke, 4 warm up games and never ending training camp is brainless.

How are the mid week games nonsense? The Lions are a composite team and need all the warm ups to help gel ahead of the tests? Why are you looking for getting rid of most international rugby? You do realise that funds the game at all levels in most countries and keeps the sport alive?

wp_rathead wrote: »

Keep the Lions Test Series - Scrap the Lions Tour

Why?

wp_rathead wrote: »

Could have few warm us games against European opponents - Romania and Georgia maybe
Brainstorming here - the long tour made sense in amateur era, not necessary now

Wont happen as not enough cash to be made from it. Playing in country where tests are on works better

Beery Eyed

It's a bigger negative to us psychologically than it is physically, or in terms of overcrowding the calendar.

As he rightly makes the point, the SANZAR teams would never agree to giving up one of their tour years to Europe in order to play as a composite team. It would be belittling. Sure, aren't they already a composite, national team playing another national team. Why would they need to put their best players together to play us? Don't they already win, or challenge, as it is?

It would be more fitting for an Americas team (excluding Argentina), or a European team (excluding 6 nations) to tour the bigger nations & try to put up a challenge, since individually they don't have a hope. Even the Pacific Nations teams moved away from their combined team, since they felt that it wasn't working. For us to still be doing it is, well, belittling.

To perhaps flip it on its head & give a better context, if Ireland was never included in the setup, and every so often we got to play a composite team of England, Scotland & Wales, can you imagine how galvanising that would be for the whole game here?? That's essentially what we're giving the SANZAR teams every 4 years.

Players & supporters alike would relish the opportunity to show that we could potentially be better than all of their teams combined. And when it came around to 6 Nations time, do you think it wouldn't be a psychological boost to know that you've taken on their combined best players & won? After all, a touring, short-term side will never generate the same cohesiveness as a settled team, so the hosts always have that major advantage. And besides, even if the tourists win what do they gain? Sure, weren't the supposed to win since it's several teams combined against one?

There is no correlation between the Lions tour and RWC success.

Teferi

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no correlation between the Lions tour and RWC success.

Completely agree. Two years ago Australia were complete and utter shite. Two years on they reach the final.

Beery Eyed

Teferi wrote: »

Completely agree. Two years ago Australia were complete and utter shite. Two years on they reach the final.

Unless you're being sarcastic, I think you're entirely missing the point.

The Lions tour is a massively positive thing for the host country, and is detrimental to the touring nations.

Australia narrowly lost the series to a team made up of the best players from four nations (three of whom they went on to beat in the WC). As the host team you are the underdog, so a win is huge, but a loss isn't the end of the world.

If they had lost a test series to England/Wales/Scotland/Ireland individually before the World Cup that would have been far more telling of their position.

CatFromHue

Beery Eyed wrote: »

Australia narrowly lost the series to a team made up of the best players from four nations (three of whom they went on to beat in the WC). As the host team you are the underdog, so a win is huge, but a loss isn't the end of the world.

It's usually the other way around, 2013 was an exception.

97 SA were the RWC holders
01 Oz were the RWC holders
05 Nz
09 SA were the RWC holders
13 Oz
17 NZ are the RWC holders

In general, apart from RWC wins, though the touring teams are the underdogs which is usually proven true as we don't win many series.

Teferi

Beery Eyed wrote: »

Unless you're being sarcastic, I think you're entirely missing the point.

The Lions tour is a massively positive thing for the host country, and is detrimental to the touring nations.

Australia narrowly lost the series to a team made up of the best players from four nations (three of whom they went on to beat in the WC). As the host team you are the underdog, so a win is huge, but a loss isn't the end of the world.

If they had lost a test series to England/Wales/Scotland/Ireland individually before the World Cup that would have been far more telling of their position.

Are you? Since 2001 you could only say we were favourites heading into the 2013 Tour and come 2017 we certainly won't be favourites heading into New Zealand.

The Lions Tour has no effect on how the Home Nations do in the World Cup.

RichieRich89

It would be interesting to see how a 39-man Ireland squad would get on on a Lions type tour

Eponymous

RichieRich89 wrote: »

It would be interesting to see how a 39-man Ireland squad would get on on a Lions type tour

Ireland were offered just that opportunity a few years ago by NZ, but opted out. I'm sure the IRFU had their reasons.

Beery Eyed

Teferi wrote: »

Are you? Since 2001 you could only say we were favourites heading into the 2013 Tour and come 2017 we certainly won't be favourites heading into New Zealand.

It is four nations combining their best players to take on one.

That's four countries who play them individually every other time, and are expected to challenge them as individual national teams. If they still aren't favourites as four vs. one, does the rest of the international calendar even make sense?

Beery Eyed

Teferi wrote: »

The Lions Tour has no effect on how the Home Nations do in the World Cup.

How could it possibly have no effect? In the lead up to the World Cup we have three summer tours to develop a squad of international players who can challenge for the WC. One of those three is a Lions year, which means our best players are removed from the squad and the rest of the lads tour a second/third tier nation.

The summer tours are a huge opportunity for the head coach to bring a squad together & get them playing the way he wants. It's also another occasion to expose the younger players to gametime with a full squad against a top nation like one of the SANZAR teams. So if you remove 1/3 then of course it has a negative effect.

I think there is far too much emotional attachment to the Lions going on for a rational analysis to be honest. When you step back & lay it out it's undoubtedly not a positive thing for us. It's enjoyable to watch, particularly since Sky go all out for it, but it's certainly not in our best interests when you look at it objectively.

The Lost Sheep

RichieRich89 wrote: »

It would be interesting to see how a 39-man Ireland squad would get on on a Lions type tour

3 tests and some tour games? When IRB(World Rugby) announced in 2010 the return of longer tours it was assumed that mid week games would return but they haven't in most cases and doubt they will with player welfare concerns etc

Beery Eyed wrote: »

It is four nations combining their best players to take on one.

That's four countries who play them individually every other time, and are expected to challenge them as individual national teams. If they still aren't favourites as four vs. one, does the rest of the international calendar even make sense?

Pro era and teams gelling. Wouldn't expect a composite team to be favourites

Beery Eyed wrote: »

How could it possibly have no effect? In the lead up to the World Cup we have three summer tours to develop a squad of international players who can challenge for the WC. One of those three is a Lions year, which means our best players are removed from the squad and the rest of the lads tour a second/third tier nation.

The summer tours are a huge opportunity for the head coach to bring a squad together & get them playing the way he wants. It's also another occasion to expose the younger players to gametime with a full squad against a top nation like one of the SANZAR teams. So if you remove 1/3 then of course it has a negative effect.

I think there is far too much emotional attachment to the Lions going on for a rational analysis to be honest. When you step back & lay it out it's undoubtedly not a positive thing for us. It's enjoyable to watch, particularly since Sky go all out for it, but it's certainly not in our best interests when you look at it objectively.

It doesn't really have that much of an effect. We improve squad depth through Lions tours occurring though we could/should be playing teams of higher standard during Lions tours for example England play Argentina and Scotland play Australia in 2017 and will be without their Lions players while we play Japan.
It is in our best interests to have the Lions still in place.

Beery Eyed

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

It is in our best interests to have the Lions still in place.

Could you develop on that please?

If it is, I will genuinely be happy to agree. I grew up loving the Lions tours, and will still watch it every time it takes place. However, when you look at the positives & negatives for us, and those of the host teams, I cannot see how it's advantageous to us.