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.
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.
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.
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 ???
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Jump_In_Jack wrote: » A) They could. How much do you think it's worth to them?
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.
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.
Jump_In_Jack wrote: » OK, because they get LOADS that makes sense.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
