receyman wrote: » Sorry couldn't include the start of the URL, wouldn't allow me. However just add the (www . irishtimes . com) at the start
Jump_In_Jack wrote: » Read that article there, the comments below the article were a bit disappointing. The pros versus cons of the lions: Pros Generates about 10 million for IRFU. Rugby supporters get to watch the highest standard of rugby currently available. (That point is debatable) Irish players get a great chance to beat the All-Blacks. Politically nurtures a bond between Britain and Ireland. Cons The top players can be flogged after a full season, and can be affected either by injury or exhaustion before the next season begins. Representation can be questionable, on last tour Scotland were under represented and Wales were over represented. For some Irish Republicans, they reject a joint British and Irish team for historical and political reasons. For some Irish rugby supporters, they don't identify with the B&I Lions, and resent the risk to the Irish players' wellbeing.
Jump_In_Jack wrote: » For some Irish Republicans, they reject a joint British and Irish team for historical and political reasons. .
Guy:Incognito wrote: » Taking this in isolation, they can go fling themselves in a lake.
OldRio wrote: » It's not about Rugby these days. It exists for Money.
Jump_In_Jack wrote: » The pros and cons I listed above was not my personal list, just a summary of the comments I read after that article. Personally I love watching the Lions, but I despised Warren Gatland for picking so many Welsh players last time. There has to be some sort of fair distribution to the make-up of the squad so the 4 teams that comprise the Lions each have some decent representation. Perhaps assuming a squad of 37 if there were at least 7 players from each country, with the remaining squad players being selected by the coach, and select a coach that does not coach one of the teams. Also a starting 15 and bench should have decent representation. Maybe a minimum of 3 starters and 1 sub for a match day 23 from each of the 4 teams. I personally would much rather a Celtic Lions, and leave England tour separately, simply because the playing population and money they have outweighs their need to join up with the smaller countries. It would be like Australia joining up with all the Pacific Island teams to play against France. I'd probably still watch it though!
The Lost Sheep wrote: » By what definition would you be calling a "fair distribution"? Why should there have to be 7 players from each country? We're talking about elite sport and you wouldn't ask Joe Schmidt to pick 5/6 from each province in each irish 23? And England are very much needed for the Lions in every way. Money/player strength/numbers of travelling supporters.
jaykay74 wrote: » Personally I'd prefer an international competition every 2 years than the current 4 years (like the world cup/euros 2 year cycle in football.) dump stuff like the Lions and some of the tours.
Digifriendly wrote: » Guy:Incognito wrote: » Taking this in isolation, they can go fling themselves in a lake. Wasn't the name changed from simply British Lions to British and Irish Lions to meet political sensitivities? After all these 4 countries who make up the team comprise the British Isles don't they? I think you would have to be a very deep seated Irish republican to oppose a Lions team/tour on political grounds.
lucky_luke wrote: » What I like about the lines is the endless permutations, combinations and guessing the goes on around who will be selected. I don't take it half as seriously as Ireland for instance to me the tour to SA just past is more important than the lions in NZ. It's understandable if quite frustrating that a coach picks more from the country he coaches. The players know his systems and he probably sees and can recall more of the good things "his players" did than those of the other nations. has a higher opinion of those he coaches. The same thing happens among fans where each are convinced that their guy is better. Like Faletau vs Vunipola vs Heaslip. Maybe a rule where each nation gets at least one guy in the 23 but I don't think it would work.
Jump_In_Jack wrote: » A fair distribution is selecting the obvious best players in each position, but being fair with more or less similar standard players not to be selecting too many from one team that it becomes like last time, a Welsh team plus a few others. It's not a perfect system but neither is a meritocracy which leaves a Welsh coach select mostly Welsh players and playing entirely Welsh tactics, AKA Warrenball. That really turned a lot of rugby supporters against the Lions ideology during the last tour. Also to address your point, England don't need the Lions, that was my point! The other 3 countries combine to form one league whereas England have one all by themselves.
The Lost Sheep wrote: » A fair distribution between countries isn't needed and isn't the selection of the best players from al countries. England do need the Lions. Financially and all that. That the Irish, Scots and Welsh combine to form a league while the English have their own league is nothing to do and proves nothing around The Lions and worthiness of the countries being involved in the Lions We have an international competition every year. What would you have in the years that you got rid of the Lions and what tours would you be getting rid of?
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.
The Lost Sheep wrote: » 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. That the Lions beat Oz by that and England did by more doesn't mean anything. If the Lions tours were not such a big money earner do you think the unions would keep them. The unions wouldn't get more money from simply travelling elsewhere on their own. The Lions head coach generally will be involved in one of the national teams or very recently have been involved as its a natural stepping stone/way to be Lions coach. Gatland didn't take complete piss....
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.
The Lost Sheep wrote: » A person currently a national coach in many ways is easier. The picking of a team is always going to be for personal preference of the coach and the system/plan they are using. By your logic then all JS selections for Ireland with so many Leinster players and Kidneys selections with Ireland and loads of Munster players were taking the piss. Gatland was proven right the last time by the fact the Lions won the series. It doesn't mean anything in relation to the viability of the series that England won 3-0 in a test series against Australia. A retired coach? Why? You can only assume there is a conflict of interest. A coach is picked to win and if they pick a lot of players from the country they are from or have coached and win then what is the issue?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dd23f423fe14831a2a84d9f17c825ecc.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d3e92925f7bde702415f91ea088d4f7a.svg)
