Scrapping the Lions

penybont exile

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more with all of your post.
Surely anybody could accept that England don't need the other countries to tour and win in Australia.
They just did it a few weeks ago. 3-0.
A coach does not have to be a National coach to take the Lions, a club coach or a retired coach could do it.
It's absolutely a conflict of interest.
Gatland picked 10 Welsh players out of 15 for the crunch test last time. If you think that's not taking the piss then you must be the only one.

It was only 9 months ago that Oz dumped England out of the WC ..... so 2-1 then v 3-0 now is irrelevant ....

And by the way how did that Welsh dominated XV do in that crunch match ???

penybont exile

techdiver wrote: »

I just never got into the whole Lions thing.

It never really interests me and I think many people feel the same. I have no affinity towards them in the same way as I do for Leinster and Ireland and I don't understand why it is taken so seriously when it is essentially a touring side put together in many ways like the Barbarians.

I'm sure it's nice for the players selected and it gives them an accolade of being a "Lion", but apart from that it's a damp squib for me.

Ask anybody who was in Cape Town or Durban in '97 if the Lions is like the Barbarians .....

Ditto Brisbane in 2001 ......

I've been to a ton of internationals dating back to 1975 and I haven't been to one that compares to that hot night in Durban ....... and that includes England 2013.

techdiver

penybont exile wrote: »

Ask anybody who was in Cape Town or Durban in '97 if the Lions is like the Barbarians .....

Ditto Brisbane in 2001 ......

I've been to a ton of internationals dating back to 1975 and I haven't been to one that compares to that hot night in Durban ....... and that includes England 2013.

That's fine. I never said that others will agree with me. I'm sure many people are "into" the whole Lions thing, just not me. I would never feel nervous before a Lions game or really give a toss if they win or lose. I'd like to see the Irish players do well, but apart from that it means nothing to me....

Jump_In_Jack

penybont exile wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more with all of your post.
Surely anybody could accept that England don't need the other countries to tour and win in Australia.
They just did it a few weeks ago. 3-0.
A coach does not have to be a National coach to take the Lions, a club coach or a retired coach could do it.
It's absolutely a conflict of interest.
Gatland picked 10 Welsh players out of 15 for the crunch test last time. If you think that's not taking the piss then you must be the only one.

It was only 9 months ago that Oz dumped England out of the WC ..... so 2-1 then v 3-0 now is irrelevant ....

And by the way how did that Welsh dominated XV do in that crunch match ???

England did a tour of Australia and won the tour 3-0.
They do not need help to tour Australia.
They may not win every time against Australia, but they can compete and win on their own.

Gatland picked a lot of Welsh players for each test, 10 in test 1 (8 starters plus 2 subs), 9 in test 2 (7 starters plus 2 subs), and 11 in test 3 (10 starters plus 1 sub).

Winning doesn't completely justify a selection.
By your logic scraping a win justifies a selection.
That's not possible to prove.
If a different selection were made the team could well have won by more, or indeed lost.

What is possible to prove is that Wales had a larger representation than was justifiable by their World ranking at the time (England were above them), nor was it justifiable by their record against Australia (having lost the previous 7 times in a row to them by that point). In fact the only time Wales has ever beaten Australia in Australia was in 1969. The worst record of all the 4 teams in the Lions in Australia.

It's highly suspicious how Gatland used the Lions tour to get a win for his Welsh players over the Australian team, so they could get over the mental block that had built up to that point.

The least we should expect for a Lions selection is fairness to the 4 teams that comprise it.
Winning isn't everything, it will soon lose support if the 4 teams do not feel they are being treated fairly.
And more importantly the fans from those countries will not support the tour either.

I think the results by England in Australia, and Ireland in South Africa prove that the Lions is not necessary in this day and age.
Wales were decent against the All-Blacks, but New Zealand are in a class above everyone and have been for years.
There may be a case for the Lions to tour New Zealand but not for Australia nor South Africa.
The only real reason to tour Australia and South Africa would be as a money making exercise.
That could only be enhanced by having fair representation across the 4 teams.
IMO they would be a better team anyway if they used the resources from each team more equally next time.

Yeah_Right

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

In fact the only time Wales has ever beaten Australia in Australia was in 1987 in the first World Cup. The worst record of all the 4 teams in the Lions.

Actually, that game was in Rotorua.

When you say the worst record of all the teams in the Lions, do you mean in Australia? Have Ireland and Scotland beaten the Wallabies in Australia?

Jump_In_Jack

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

In fact the only time Wales has ever beaten Australia in Australia was in 1969. The worst record of all the 4 teams in the Lions.

Actually, that game was in Rotorua.

When you say the worst record of all the teams in the Lions, do you mean in Australia? Have Ireland and Scotland beaten the Wallabies in Australia?

Yes, that's what I meant, and yes they have.

Thanks for correcting the Rotorua mistake.
Sorry, Wales won once in Australia in 1969. 1987 was in NZ.

Yeah_Right

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Yes, that's what I meant, and yes they have.

Thanks for correcting the Rotorua mistake.
Sorry, Wales won once in Australia in 1969. 1987 was in NZ.

Sorry I completely forgot about Scotland beating them a few years ago. Was it on the Gold Coast? In a storm?

When did Ireland win there? I thought their first win over one of the SH big 3 in the SH, was in the 2011 RWC.

athtrasna

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/doconone/2013/1122/647572-doconone-podcast-lions-rugby-tour-jersey-all-blacks-mickey-dunne-new-zealand/

Beautiful story about the heart of the Lions.

I love the Lions, would be heartbroken if they were disbanded. Am going to NZ next year to fulfil my lifelong dream of doing the full tour.

Totally agree with the earlier comments re Gatland, he doesn't get the spirit of the Lions. Squad was completed biased towards Wales. After Wales summer in NZ there will be no justification to do the same, doesn't mean he won't though.

Jump_In_Jack

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Yes, that's what I meant, and yes they have.

Thanks for correcting the Rotorua mistake.
Sorry, Wales won once in Australia in 1969. 1987 was in NZ.

Sorry I completely forgot about Scotland beating them a few years ago. Was it on the Gold Coast? In a storm?

When did Ireland win there? I thought their first win over one of the SH big 3 in the SH, was in the 2011 RWC.

That was in Newcastle, New South Wales. There was heavy rain and a strong wind, and final score was only 9-6.
They also beat Australia in 1982 in Brisbane, 12-7.

Ireland have beaten Australia in Australia 3 times.
Twice in 1979, Sydney and Brisbane.
Once in 1967 in Sydney.
Admittedly that is some time ago though!
Ireland have come very close in recent efforts too.

Incidentally, England have won 6 times, though their first time was in 2003.

Dirty Dingus McGee

athtrasna wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/doconone/2013/1122/647572-doconone-podcast-lions-rugby-tour-jersey-all-blacks-mickey-dunne-new-zealand/

Beautiful story about the heart of the Lions.

I love the Lions, would be heartbroken if they were disbanded. Am going to NZ next year to fulfil my lifelong dream of doing the full tour.

Totally agree with the earlier comments re Gatland, he doesn't get the spirit of the Lions. Squad was completed biased towards Wales. After Wales summer in NZ there will be no justification to do the same, doesn't mean he won't though.

But they won the series.

If it's a proper sporting event surely the winning the series is all that matters.

jacothelad

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

The Lions beat Australia 2-1 last time.
England beat Australia 3-0 on their own.
The money they generate from TV rights for their team and their own league and from tours means they don't need the Lions financially either.
If they decided to opt out of the Lions they would actually get more money touring by themselves somewhere else.
If I were England's RFU I'd tour Australia the year after the World Cup, then South Africa the 2nd year, then New Zealand the 3rd year, then the World Cup again, and forget all about the Lions.
France do fine without it.

Second point, the team should not be selected by a coach with personal interest in one team. Gatland took the piss completely last time.

It's not within England's power to decide where and when they tour. International tours are organised and authorised by World Rugby, not Twickenham. The English rugby team have been sporadically sh!te for the last 13 years. It's their turn to be good for a while.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Actually, that game was in Rotorua.

When you say the worst record of all the teams in the Lions, do you mean in Australia? Have Ireland and Scotland beaten the Wallabies in Australia?

Yes.

Jump_In_Jack

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

athtrasna wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/doconone/2013/1122/647572-doconone-podcast-lions-rugby-tour-jersey-all-blacks-mickey-dunne-new-zealand/

Beautiful story about the heart of the Lions.

I love the Lions, would be heartbroken if they were disbanded. Am going to NZ next year to fulfil my lifelong dream of doing the full tour.

Totally agree with the earlier comments re Gatland, he doesn't get the spirit of the Lions. Squad was completed biased towards Wales. After Wales summer in NZ there will be no justification to do the same, doesn't mean he won't though.

But they won the series.

If it's a proper sporting event surely the winning the series is all that matters.

That's a matter of opinion I guess.
You don't see an issue with a biased coach taking the Lions?

I'll give you two reasons,
1) If selections are based on whichever country the head coach is affiliated with, it undermines the quality of the players selected, and reduces the standard of the team and squad.
2) If countries are under-represented they will not support the Lions and future tours may be jeopardised.
For example, if Scotland have 3 or 4 players on the next tour, I could see their Union turning its back on the Lions for the following tour and perhaps will put pressure on their squad to refuse a call-up to the Lions, as they don't get anything out of it except perhaps the danger of picking up an injury.

former total

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

For example, if Scotland have 3 or 4 players on the next tour, I could see their Union turning its back on the Lions for the following tour and perhaps will put pressure on their squad to refuse a call-up to the Lions, as they don't get anything out of it except perhaps the danger of picking up an injury.

3 or 4 players would be a good return for Scotland. Better than the last two Lions tours I think.

Scotland would never turn their back on the Lions because a) why would they? and b) MONEY

Jump_In_Jack

former total wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

For example, if Scotland have 3 or 4 players on the next tour, I could see their Union turning its back on the Lions for the following tour and perhaps will put pressure on their squad to refuse a call-up to the Lions, as they don't get anything out of it except perhaps the danger of picking up an injury.

3 or 4 players would be a good return for Scotland. Better than the last two Lions tours I think.

Scotland would never turn their back on the Lions because a) why would they? and b) MONEY

If you were picking the team of the 2016 6 nations, you could have Hogg at 15, Hardie at 7, WP Nel at 3.

Scotland will always have a few players that are of the standard of the Lions.

Anyway aside from that, surely it's more appealing to supporters to have more of a mixture of players, than going down the route of picking a lot of players from one team.
The beauty of the Lions is the possibility of seeing the likes of Jonathan Joseph alongside Jamie Roberts, or a back 3 of Hogg, North and Nowell for example.
Half-backs of Murray and Farrell.
Back-row of Stander, Hardie, Vunipola,
2nd row of Wyn-Jones and Toner,
Front row of Jack McGrath, Dylan Hartley, WP Nel

We could debate selection for ages, part of the fun, but picking players because they are familiar with each other from playing in the same team is a pity, compared to the possibility of putting a mixture of the most talented players together, but ensuring a decent representation from each of the 4 teams.
It doesn't have to be an exact even representation, but 2 or 3 in the starting team should be expected as a minimum.
There wouldn't be a drop-off in talent, at least not a noticeable one.

former total

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

If you were picking the team of the 2016 6 nations, you could have Hogg at 15, Hardie at 7, WP Nel at 3.

Scotland will always have a few players that are of the standard of the Lions.

Anyway aside from that, surely it's more appealing to supporters to have more of a mixture of players, than going down the route of picking a lot of players from one team.
The beauty of the Lions is the possibility of seeing the likes of Jonathan Joseph alongside Jamie Roberts, or a back 3 of Hogg, North and Nowell for example.
Half-backs of Murray and Farrell.
Back-row of Stander, Hardie, Vunipola,
2nd row of Wyn-Jones and Toner,
Front row of Jack McGrath, Dylan Hartley, WP Nel

We could debate selection for ages, part of the fun, but picking players because they are familiar with each other from playing in the same team is a pity, compared to the possibility of putting a mixture of the most talented players together, but ensuring a decent representation from each of the 4 teams.
It doesn't have to be an exact even representation, but 2 or 3 in the starting team should be expected as a minimum.
There wouldn't be a drop-off in talent, at least not a noticeable one.

Umm, yeah, so Scotland won't be turning their backs on the Lions then.

The Lost Sheep

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

That's a matter of opinion I guess.
You don't see an issue with a biased coach taking the Lions?

I'll give you two reasons,
1) If selections are based on whichever country the head coach is affiliated with, it undermines the quality of the players selected, and reduces the standard of the team and squad.
2) If countries are under-represented they will not support the Lions and future tours may be jeopardised.
For example, if Scotland have 3 or 4 players on the next tour, I could see their Union turning its back on the Lions for the following tour and perhaps will put pressure on their squad to refuse a call-up to the Lions, as they don't get anything out of it except perhaps the danger of picking up an injury.

You seem to think that this bias is an issue. All selections involve some sort of bias.
By what metric are countries under-represented? Talking about evening numbers out between each of the 4 countries is like what you do with an under 8/10/12 team. Not an adult fully professional set up.
There has been very few irish, Scottish etc on tours in the past and unions and supporters haven't turned their back on the tour and players haven't turned their back on the tour either

Jump_In_Jack

former total wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

For example, if Scotland have 3 or 4 players on the next tour, I could see their Union turning its back on the Lions for the following tour and perhaps will put pressure on their squad to refuse a call-up to the Lions, as they don't get anything out of it except perhaps the danger of picking up an injury.

3 or 4 players would be a good return for Scotland. Better than the last two Lions tours I think.

Scotland would never turn their back on the Lions because a) why would they? and b) MONEY

A) They could.
How much do you think it's worth to them?

Jump_In_Jack

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

That's a matter of opinion I guess.
You don't see an issue with a biased coach taking the Lions?

I'll give you two reasons,
1) If selections are based on whichever country the head coach is affiliated with, it undermines the quality of the players selected, and reduces the standard of the team and squad.
2) If countries are under-represented they will not support the Lions and future tours may be jeopardised.
For example, if Scotland have 3 or 4 players on the next tour, I could see their Union turning its back on the Lions for the following tour and perhaps will put pressure on their squad to refuse a call-up to the Lions, as they don't get anything out of it except perhaps the danger of picking up an injury.

You seem to think that this bias is an issue. All selections involve some sort of bias.
By what metric are countries under-represented? Talking about evening numbers out between each of the 4 countries is like what you do with an under 8/10/12 team. Not an adult fully professional set up.
There has been very few irish, Scottish etc on tours in the past and unions and supporters haven't turned their back on the tour and players haven't turned their back on the tour either

Give me a break.
This is the modern era of professionalism, the tours are a lot different nowadays in terms of what players have to give up to travel with the Lions and compensation they get now, and the players are much more equal in terms of talent than ever before due to their training as professional athletes on a full-time basis and playing for professional clubs.
All I'm saying is there should be some effort to keep a tradition of mixing players instead of selecting a lot of players that normally play together, i.e. from the same national teams.

former total

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

A) They could.
How much do you think it's worth to them?

a) They wouldn't. I'm not debating that any further, it's nonsensical.
b) LOADS.

The idea of scrapping the Lions surfaces among a minority every 4 years, but the unions want to keep it, the vast, vast majority of fans want to keep it, the players want to keep it, the SH unions definitely want to keep it.

Jump_In_Jack

former total wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

A) They could.
How much do you think it's worth to them?

a) They wouldn't. I'm not debating that any further, it's nonsensical.
b) LOADS.

The idea of scrapping the Lions surfaces among a minority every 4 years, but the unions want to keep it, the vast, vast majority of fans want to keep it, the players want to keep it, the SH unions definitely want to keep it.

OK, because they get LOADS that makes sense.

The Lost Sheep

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

A) They could.
How much do you think it's worth to them?

Could based on what.
Lions tour is easily worth millions to unions based on most reports..

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Give me a break.
This is the modern era of professionalism, the tours are a lot different nowadays in terms of what players have to give up to travel with the Lions and compensation they get now, and the players are much more equal in terms of talent than ever before due to their training as professional athletes on a full-time basis and playing for professional clubs.
All I'm saying is there should be some effort to keep the tradition of mixing players instead of selecting a lot of players that normally p[lay together, i.e. from the same national teams.

All selection involves bias.Thats natural. There always will be a mix of players from different nations no matter what. Always has and always will. But talking about quotas and minimum numbers from each country is stupid and will never happen

former total

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

OK, because they get LOADS that makes sense.

It makes far more sense than Scotland storming off in a huff because not enough of their players get picked.

Jump_In_Jack

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

A) They could.
How much do you think it's worth to them?

Could based on what.
Lions tour is easily worth millions to unions based on most reports..

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Give me a break.
This is the modern era of professionalism, the tours are a lot different nowadays in terms of what players have to give up to travel with the Lions and compensation they get now, and the players are much more equal in terms of talent than ever before due to their training as professional athletes on a full-time basis and playing for professional clubs.
All I'm saying is there should be some effort to keep the tradition of mixing players instead of selecting a lot of players that normally p[lay together, i.e. from the same national teams.

All selection involves bias.Thats natural. There always will be a mix of players from different nations no matter what. Always has and always will. But talking about quotas and minimum numbers from each country is stupid and will never happen

Maybe I'm an idealist. It doesn't change the argument. I never said pick worse players to fill a quota.
I said there are players that are equal that are not being picked.

SO if you had the choice of picking from 2 exactly equal players would you not look at the make-up of the team before selecting the 9th or 10th player from the same country before thinking, hey, I've nobody from that other country in there yet!

Jump_In_Jack

former total wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

OK, because they get LOADS that makes sense.

It makes far more sense than Scotland storming off in a huff because not enough of their players get picked.

Ignoring your obvious hyperbole and exaggeration of my point, which was that Scotland could start to be disenchanted with the bad representation they have gotten over the years, and could encourage their players to turn down an invitation to play for the Lions, that could well be kept between their coach and their players, they could still pocket any LOADS that they were entitled to, but it could be the start them turning away from the Lions.

thomond2006

The IRFU get paid for each Irish player that travels. I assume the same works for the SRU. So no, there will be no hidden pact between the players and coaches to refuse selection with LOADS being pocketed at the same time.

Jump_In_Jack

thomond2006 wrote: »

The IRFU get paid for each Irish player that travels. I assume the same works for the SRU. So no, there will be no hidden pact between the players and coaches to refuse selection with LOADS being pocketed at the same time.

If that's the case, surely Scotland would prefer more players on the team, no?
Wouldn't a Welsh coach that picks mostly Welsh players be pocketing more money for his own union, no?
Isn't that a basic conflict of interest?

former total

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Ignoring your obvious hyperbole and exaggeration of my point, which was that Scotland could start to be disenchanted with the bad representation they have gotten over the years, and could encourage their players to turn down an invitation to play for the Lions, that could well be kept between their coach and their players, they could still pocket any LOADS that they were entitled to, but it could be the start them turning away from the Lions.

Honestly, I don't think you believe any of this yourself. Take a second, think about what you're actually saying (rather than just trying to win the argument) and I think you'll realise how unlikely it is.

thomond2006

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

If that's the case, surely Scotland would prefer more players on the team, no?
Wouldn't a Welsh coach that picks mostly Welsh players be pocketing more money for his own union, no?
Isn't that a basic conflict of interest?

The unions are paid per player for the wider squad selection, not matchday selection I believe.

Scotland aren't bailing on the Lions. It's a lose-lose situation for all stakeholders in Scottish Rugby if they did.

Jump_In_Jack

former total wrote: »

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Ignoring your obvious hyperbole and exaggeration of my point, which was that Scotland could start to be disenchanted with the bad representation they have gotten over the years, and could encourage their players to turn down an invitation to play for the Lions, that could well be kept between their coach and their players, they could still pocket any LOADS that they were entitled to, but it could be the start them turning away from the Lions.

Honestly, I don't think you believe any of this yourself.

Honestly, it's my opinion, however unlikely, it's only a small piece of the argument that you are focusing in on.

The Lost Sheep

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

Maybe I'm an idealist. It doesn't change the argument. I never said pick worse players to fill a quota.
I said there are players that are equal that are not being picked.

SO if you had the choice of picking from 2 exactly equal players would you not look at the make-up of the team before selecting the 9th or 10th player from the same country before thinking, hey, I've nobody from that other country in there yet!

Equal by who's definition?
Yes coaches will if there is a decision between two relatively equal players often pick the player they are most comfortable with but that doesn't mean it will always be from the same country.
You either cant grasp that or ....

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

If that's the case, surely Scotland would prefer more players on the team, no?
Wouldn't a Welsh coach that picks mostly Welsh players be pocketing more money for his own union, no?
Isn't that a basic conflict of interest?

Of course the scots would like more but the coach of the Lions simply wants to win and will pick the squad they feel is best up to the job. If they pick mainly players from the country they may be from or were/are involved in then so be it.