Selection of the Lions captain - a different approach

First topic message reminder :

Before everyone piles in to nominate BOD or Sam or whoever, stop and read my reasoning.

The very act of appointing a captain creates a hostage to fortune in that the captain becomes un-droppable (save injury or malicious targeting).

Way back in 1983, there were two rivals for the captaincy - Peter Wheeler (England) and Ciaran Fitzgerald (Ireland) and basically came down to a head-to-head in the closing game of the five nations 1983 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Five_Nations_Championship ). Ireland won the game leaving England with the wooden spoon. Fitzgerald was made Lions captain and Wheeler was left out of the squad. Both of the contenders were hookers.

On the tour the Lions were walloped 4-0 by the ABs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_British_Lions_tour_to_New_Zealand ). But the general opinion at the time was that Colin Deans (Scotland) was the best hooker in the Lions squad - but Fitzgerald was untouchable.


My proposal is to (like in the Ryder Cup) appoint a non-playing captain. If (say) BOD doesn't have a great next nine months, he'd be a suitable candidate. Failing that - maybe Shane Williams? Someone who the Lions will respect for their achievements and leadership qualities.

But that would allow the manager to select his team from the best players available unconstrained by the demands of having to select his nominated player captain.

Feckless Rogue wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Sin e,

Do you think Colin Deans would have been the difference then in winning the series?
And BOD would not go as a non-playing captain.

Fitgerald really was a bed-blocker for Deans. Fitz was really off-colour but undroppable. Deans demonstrated what a then unknown quality in a hooker - mobility. Mind you that was in the days when hookers had to do what it said on the tin.

The British media painted Fitzgerald in a very negative light, and you might be remembering that more than how he actually played. The Irishman unfairly got the blame. But losing a series 4-0 is not one man's fault, and replacing him wouldn't have changed the result.

I think your recollection of Fitzgerald is diplomatic and all credit to you. "off colour" is a classic euphemism for not only the worest captain but also prpbably the worst player ever to pull on a Lions shirt. Fitzgerald was useless before, during and after the 83 tour.

Just my opinion of course

dragonbreath wrote:

Feckless Rogue wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Sin e,

Do you think Colin Deans would have been the difference then in winning the series?
And BOD would not go as a non-playing captain.

Fitgerald really was a bed-blocker for Deans. Fitz was really off-colour but undroppable. Deans demonstrated what a then unknown quality in a hooker - mobility. Mind you that was in the days when hookers had to do what it said on the tin.

The British media painted Fitzgerald in a very negative light, and you might be remembering that more than how he actually played. The Irishman unfairly got the blame. But losing a series 4-0 is not one man's fault, and replacing him wouldn't have changed the result.

I think your recollection of Fitzgerald is diplomatic and all credit to you. "off colour" is a classic euphemism for not only the worest captain but also prpbably the worst player ever to pull on a Lions shirt. Fitzgerald was useless before, during and after the 83 tour.

Just my opinion of course

Well he captained Ireland to two Triple Crowns and won a Five Nations - hardly credentials for someone you deem "useless before, during and after."

thomh wrote:Hartley not a leader? He's Northampton captain and next in line for England captain. Rowntree goes on and on about what a great leader he is.

Edit: just realised that you weren't including him in the list. Not sure that best is in pole position at hooker necessarily though

Hartly must not be lions captain. he shouldn't even be in the team. I have no tine for somone who dishes out cheap shots and certainly against the ethic of a lions team.

Sin é wrote:I gather that there is always a bit of niggle between the England & Welsh players and its not a good plan to have a lot of both - the Irish & Scots are needed to lighten the atmosphere a bit!

Historically maybe, but I don't think there's much to that these days. If anything, I'd say there's more bite to matches between Wales and Ireland than there is to matches between Wales and England. Familiarity breeding contempt, and all that.

But I didn't hear of any splits in the camp on the last Lions tour (unless they had a stripper in).

Was Johnson liked or respected as Lions captain ?

My Lions captain contenders would be

Scotland - Brown
England - Robshaw
Ireland - Ferris
Wales - Warburton

See, all back-row players. Name any of them as captain before the tour begins and you're almost forced to find them a place in the Test side. That could mean you don't have your absolute best XV on the field, whereas if you don't name a squad captain, you don't run that risk.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:See, all back-row players. Name any of them as captain before the tour begins and you're almost forced to find them a place in the Test side. That could mean you don't have your absolute best XV on the field, whereas if you don't name a squad captain, you don't run that risk.

That was the kind of the point of my earlier post, LP. If I were Gatland, I think I'd delay naming the captain for as long as possible, but at some point a decision has to be made.

Since nearly all the candidates are in the back row, which is probably the most hotly contested area of the team, that could make you a hostage to fortune. But there's also another way of looking at it. These guys are captaincy candidates because they are internationals who are leaders within their national side. By definition, that means they are good players. You can argue the relative merits of each of them, but I think that four critical things will always be true:
a) barring a radical change in circumstances (one candidate goes on a blazing run of form for 6 months, all the other candidates get injured), whoever you pick will be one of a number of players who could make a strong case for playing that position in the test team...
b) ...but whoever you pick - assuming you don't completely disregard form and fitness - won't let you down.
c) you have to make a choice some time. picking a captain up front restricts your choices, but...
d) ...a great back row is about balance. It's the combination of players that you pick that makes it work, not anyone individual. Two consequences: i) picking your "absolute best players" is much less important than picking a unit that complements each other. ii) you're not restricting yourself as much in picking a captain as you would be if you picked, say, a scrum half or fly half as captain.

What it all boils down to is that - on the assumption that there has to be a squad captain for the tour (and from what I know of the way the tour works, the captain plays a more important role than he might in a national team tour, acting as the link between management and the squad) - Gatland has to commit to a captain at some point. So the rational thing to do is to make the choice as late as possible, and then commit to it: select the other players in the back row on the basis of building a unit that will work well. Some players who might have deserved a place under other circumstances will be disappointed, 75% of the fans will gripe, but what matters is finding a dynamic that work.

Okay, perhaps I should have said 'absolute best back-row unit'. The point remains. Then again, I suppose I'd rather have a genuine captain than just the closest thing to a captain from the XV named...

Oh, I don't know. It's not my problem anyway!

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Okay, perhaps I should have said 'absolute best back-row unit'. The point remains. Then again, I suppose I'd rather have a genuine captain than just the closest thing to a captain from the XV named...

Oh, I don't know. It's not my problem anyway!

so

I think BOD is probably the best captain for a lions tour. do you appoint him and accept a weaker backline than you might have otherwise?

I'm staying out of this now. I'm getting a headache!

The Lions captain has always been appointed before the squad
That's a tradition from the amateur era when the remainder of the squad was selected with the captain having his vote on the selection (like cricket used to have}.

Those days are gone now.

The multinational Lions has room for a credible figurehead ans the credibility to play the very best team available.

Personally I would have preferred PS-A over Gatland every day of the week if an overseas coach was to be appointed.

Captain will not be Irish anyway.

PSA might get the job when the Lions finally face up to their responsibilities and include the rest of Europe in the selection pool.

Can't think of any good reason for the rest of Europe to ever be included.

Parisse? Michelak?

I think Jamie Heaslip is a good outside bet as he's a shoe-in for a starting test spot IMO. Here's my squad for the tests.

Uploaded with My Lions Rugby app for iPhone

The Great Aukster wrote:PSA might get the job when the Lions finally face up to their responsibilities and include the rest of Europe in the selection pool.

Is the dismissive, arrogant attitude which might just preclude anything approaching a N-S 'Lions' contest ever occurring.

Muddy Rhino wrote:I think Jamie Heaslip is a good outside bet as he's a shoe-in for a starting test spot IMO. Here's my squad for the tests.

Uploaded with My Lions Rugby app for iPhone

Interesting team.

Would you really not include Stephen Ferris in the squad? I would have him as starting 6 and one of the first names on the team sheet. Did you see him v Oz in the WC. he was incredible.

Heaslip is a decent captain and very popular player in Leinster but given that he was booed in Irelands last match by a load of Munster fans I guess he may not be universally popular. He should travel anyway.

Thats the beauty of the Lions so many good players to choose from in certain positions and always a wild card makes the test team!

Back row has an abundance of talent. I went for a combination of tackler (Lydiate), jackler (Warburton) and ball carrier (Heaslip).

Ferris, OBrien, Faletau, Tipuric, Robshaw, B.Morgan, Denton ... maybe even Haskell all have a chance of making it.

I'd go for either Jamie Heaslip or Jamie Roberts.

Both have Lions experience, top class performers and, despite their current form, highly likely to be in the Test XV and most importantly play in positions which will ensure they're leading from the front.

Personally I really hope Gatland doesn't go for Warburton or Robshaw; both are massively over hyped by the media, neither have out-played an Australian open-side (which will be key next summer) and Ross Rennie is a better open-side than either of them.

Would possibly be tempted by Best but he isn't guaranteed to be ahead of Hartley.

Reallybored

You don't think Best will be ahead of Hartley? Really? Can't see Dylan Hartley near the test team... I reckon the hookers to go will be Best, Rees and Ford. Although Pat McArthur could be a bolter if he nails down a spot ahead of Ford in the 6N... And similarly with Hibbard over Rees.

I think Hartley's excellent. Around the same level as Best in playing ability and leadership. Haven't seen enough of Ford or Rees recently to comment though.

In fairness I'm not Hartley's biggest fan. He gets away with it in the scrum for Saints with Tiny and Mujati either side of him, and pops up all the time for England. His lineout work is good, and he put himself about, but not to the extent that Best does. However he is a disruptive influence... Can't see many of the Irish lads getting on with him after his antics vs Ulster/Leinster in 2011

Rory Best has come on leaps and bounds over the past few years and is probably one of the few Home Nations forwards who at the minute would be welcome in any of the Trinations.
He's one of the few Irish forwards who has everything. Good in the scrums, massive improvement in lineouts, and has hands like a back, as well as acting like an extra flanker in the rucks! If fit and on form, nailed on Lions hooker... And he's a leader. Ulster VC behind the inspirational Muller, Irish VC behind BOD and POC... Has captained his country. And a damn good guy to boot!

UlstermaninGlasgow wrote:...However he is a disruptive influence... Can't see many of the Irish lads getting on with him after his antics vs Ulster/Leinster in 2011

I'm not sure that's fair. If he was such a disruptive influence then he wouldn't be Captain of Northampton and effective Vice-Captain of England. Hartley's just one of those guys that opposition fans never like, but you'd want him on your own team. In general I think players are pretty good at putting incidents behind them, particularly on Lions tours, and in any case I don't know what he did against Ulster that was particularly wrong (I assume you mean the biting claim to the referee).

I reckon he's a decent guy but always seems to wind the oppo up... Not great when they're his teammates for the Lions...

He is only an English VC as he's one of the few experienced players in the team. Wasn't picked as captain due to his diciplinary record one would suspect. (Not saying he's dirty but just liable to pick up YCs, like Ben Youngs another I wouldn't have near a Lions Tour)

Nothing against him but just don't think he's Lions captain material... Same as Heaslip. Same as Warburton. Both good players but not inspirational leaders a la BOD, Johnno, McCaw...

To clarify, I wasn't suggesting him for Lions captain (though he's as qualified as anyone to do it I think). I'm not sure we have any leaders like that who are likely to be first choice at this stage.

Ah well I do think he's a decent shout for a tourist but not as nailed on as Best... England do seem to have missed him in these AIs...

Hooker is a position of relative strength for the Lions to be fair

Ireland - Best, Strauss, Cronin
Scotland - Ford, McArthur
Wales - Rees, Hibbard, Owens
England - Hartley, T

Bolded are my picks, Italics are likely tourists

GunsGerms wrote:Can't think of any good reason for the rest of Europe to ever be included.

What about:
1. The ethos of the Lions to spread the game and uphold the spirit of rugby
2. The increase in marketing opportunity
3. The opportunity to pick a more competitive team from better players
4. The removal of the unfair advantage France gets in the immediate 6N following the tour
5. The reduction of the impact of injuries to the home nations by not having to select so many from individual countries
6. The spirit of the original Lions was to pick the best from their championship
7. The camaraderie to be shared by more countries' fans with a shared rugby background and a common goal
8. The preservation of the Lions institution itself, that will otherwise founder on the rocks of repetitive defeat

Can't think of any good reason not to include the rest of Europe.

Aukster, you forgot:

9. 'European Lions' is is less unwieldy than 'British and Irish Lions'.

1. Why is everyone so obsessed with spreading the game? Why is it always assumed that this is a good thing. As a sport evolves and grows in popularity it tends to become more regulated both on the field and in the stands. I believe that this would destroy a lot of the things we love about the game.
2. Again why does the lions tour need to be marketed more? The most aggressively marketed tour of my lifetime (NZ 05') was also the worst and most uninteresting. Commercialising sport can spread popularity but in general the more money involved the more pressure there is to win at all costs and this is a threat to the principles of sport as I see it. Football is a good case study. Also most people complain that the commercialisation of Xmas has coincided with a loss of the majority of the traditional xmas values.
3. I don't think a bigger player pool would make a huge difference to the lions chances. The biggest challenge has always been to get a group of players that don't really know each other to play as a team in a short space of time. The focus should be on working out how to achieve that because in my opinion the player pool in B and I is strong enough especially given that Scotland, Ireland and England have all defeated Australia the last time they played them in the SH.
4. C'est la vie.
5. The lions countries suffer less injuries as they have less players in action than a normal summer tour. Don't think this makes any difference at all.
6. Wasn't around for original lions tour so can't comment.
7. There is plenty of camaraderie already. Lions tours are also already watched in all rugby playing countries and france fans etc. can still support the B and I lions if they wish.
8. You are completely contradicting yourself. Expanding the lions to include France etc. in no way preserves the lions it bastardises it into something it's never been all for an opportunity for increased revenue and the promise of more wins? That for me would be admitting defeat and an utter embarrassment to Lions traditions that I'm extremely proud of. What happens if the lions then continue to lose. It think it would be an even bigger farce. In any case I belive that the Lions will beat Australia and all will be forgotten.

There is no evidence that I know of that the Lions are in danger of being scrapped. Every tour I have watched bar (NZ debacle) have been very close contests and some of the most exciting rugby I've seen in years.

GunsGerms wrote:8. You are completely contradicting yourself. Expanding the lions to include France etc. in no way preserves the lions it bastardises it into something it's never been all for an opportunity for increased revenue and the promise of more wins? That for me would be admitting defeat and an utter embarrassment to Lions traditions that I'm extremely proud of. What happens if the lions then continue to lose. It think it would be an even bigger farce. In any case I belive that the Lions will beat Australia and all will be forgotten.

I can now understand why you can't see any good reason to change the Lions as neither can you give any good reason not to. You do realise that your answer to 6 invalidates your answer to 8?

The closest argument against change I can find in your response is the one highlighted - the old faithful "it's traditional" argument. Of course it was also traditional to travel by boat and play about two dozen games in tours lasting five months (with XV on the pitch and no subs). Which parts of traditional do you want to keep and which parts do you want to dispense with?

Perhaps you haven't heard about the Ryder Cup? It had all but sunk into oblivion as an event because it was so perpetually one-sided, until it actually fully represented the European tour and became competitive.

Are the French and Italians even very keen to join?

I would think that, given one of the reasons you offer up is that France have an advantage in the following Lions tour, they would stay well away, and they haven't grown up watching it so probably wouldn't have the same excitement about it.

There'd also be an extra language barrier to overcome and, once you've already got four countries involved, I'm not sure that any added value of the players involved would counter-balance the extra difficulties in getting the squad to gel with different first languages.

I.e, while on paper, France would provide a good % of the squad, none would be noticeably better than the options we already have. By the time the tour comes around we're almost bound to have at least one 8 playing as well as Picamoles or Harinordiquy, for example, just because we've already got so many to choose from.

The Great Aukster wrote:Perhaps you haven't heard about the Ryder Cup? It had all but sunk into oblivion as an event because it was so perpetually one-sided.

You've nicely identified key differences: Lions tours haven't sunk into oblivion and they haven't been perpetually one-sided.

Rugby Fan wrote:You've nicely identified key differences: Lions tours haven't sunk into oblivion and they haven't been perpetually one-sided.

Thank you, I agree the games are still attractive - for now.

I didn't realise we had to wait for the inexorable trend of failure to continue until the outcome becomes inevitable and interest wanes before doing anything.

I still think that Warren Gatland will chose Sam Warburton for the captains armband.

Gatland head coach of Wales and Warburton Wales captain.....It is a no brainer realy.

The Great Aukster wrote:I didn't realise we had to wait for the inexorable trend of failure to continue until the outcome becomes inevitable and interest wanes before doing anything.

The future of Lions tours has been constantly under scrutiny in the professional era. It's one reason that your solution to problems which show no signs of surfacing will almost certainly never be adopted.

There are calls for the Lions to break new rugby territory: specifically, touring Argentina and/or North America. Some in rugby are concerned about this possible development: specifically New Zealand, Australia and South Africa.

In a Lions year, the four Home Unions don't attempt summer tours of the other two top southern hemisphere names. This means only France is available to generate some revenue for the remaining two. Instead, the team which doesn't play France has to figure out a way to make money out of the remaining international roster. Should the Lions visit Argentina, then suddenly two of the Top 3 won't get a full tour that year, which is not a happy financial prospect for either New Zealand or Australia in particular.

Of course, this outcome also arises should France join the Lions as you suggest.

Rather than adding teams to the Lions, the most likely outcome of any persistent commercial or sporting failures for the tourists will be that tours just cease, and the home unions take their chances separately.

In the best case, international rugby grows more lucative and competitive that the Lions tours stop because. say, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pacific Islands & Japan all want full touring schedules. This demand will probably be better met by individual nations from the North.

If we end up with a global season, of course, the whole concept of touring will likely need to be reviewed.

If a tour as opposed to a test team captain were selected, and you wanted some spark and electricity, then Tigers' Murphy could be a candidate. And rename the team the Cations.

That's a scientific joke.

I'll get my cathode before I'm charged and put in a cell.

Rugby Fan

The original tours were instigated to provide much needed funds into the SH teams coffers and over 100 years later the same situation still pertains!

If the tours are effectively now taking away funds from those nations then the current situation is totally contrary to the original point of the team.

It is becoming increasingly evident that the individual nations are at least as competitive as the scratch selection, and if they harbour ambitions to actually win World cups then missing out on precious Test experience in their own teams is bad for them. Since the Lions tour is two years away from the RWC that only leaves one opportunity for the national sides to travel as a unit.

The Great Aukster wrote:Rugby Fan

The original tours were instigated to provide much needed funds into the SH teams coffers and over 100 years later the same situation still pertains!

If the tours are effectively now taking away funds from those nations then the current situation is totally contrary to the original point of the team.

It is becoming increasingly evident that the individual nations are at least as competitive as the scratch selection, and if they harbour ambitions to actually win World cups then missing out on precious Test experience in their own teams is bad for them. Since the Lions tour is two years away from the RWC that only leaves one opportunity for the national sides to travel as a unit.

Auk. That by extension is an argument to abandon the Lions tours altogether - not beef them up.

The Great Aukster wrote:

I can now understand why you can't see any good reason to change the Lions as neither can you give any good reason not to. You do realise that your answer to 6 invalidates your answer to 8?

The closest argument against change I can find in your response is the one highlighted - the old faithful "it's traditional" argument. Of course it was also traditional to travel by boat and play about two dozen games in tours lasting five months (with XV on the pitch and no subs). Which parts of traditional do you want to keep and which parts do you want to dispense with?

Perhaps you haven't heard about the Ryder Cup? It had all but sunk into oblivion as an event because it was so perpetually one-sided, until it actually fully represented the European tour and became competitive.

Firstly I have given plenty of arguements as to why the Lions shouldnt be expanded and I see no good reason to repeat myself.

Secondly, the Ryder cup still sparks debate as to whether it should be continued because the balance seems to have been tipped in Europes favour and therefore the Americans have lost some interest. Where does it end?

In any case they two scenarios arent that similar because when they changed the format to include the rest of Europe the PGA tour had become so big that there was no way that B&I could compete. It is a much more extreme case than the Lions. It would be similar to the Lions having to compete with a rugby championship select team as opposed to a single nation. By contrast the Lions have enough high quality players to select from as is and each country that makes up the Lions is more than capable of competing with Australia or South Africa by themselves therefore there is no evidence that adding a French or italian player here or there would make any difference.

As for your comments re point 6. I see no reason to comment on Lions tours before my lifetime because I wasnt around for them and therefore would only be regurgiting something I have read in wikipedia as I assume you are. I base my opinions on the values and traditions evident on tours that I have seen. Any tour I have watch to date with the obvious exception of the disasterous NZ tour has been consistently top drawer rugby and both exciting and very competitive.

If it aint broke why fix it?

greytiger wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Rugby Fan

The original tours were instigated to provide much needed funds into the SH teams coffers and over 100 years later the same situation still pertains!

If the tours are effectively now taking away funds from those nations then the current situation is totally contrary to the original point of the team.

It is becoming increasingly evident that the individual nations are at least as competitive as the scratch selection, and if they harbour ambitions to actually win World cups then missing out on precious Test experience in their own teams is bad for them. Since the Lions tour is two years away from the RWC that only leaves one opportunity for the national sides to travel as a unit.

Auk. That by extension is an argument to abandon the Lions tours altogether - not beef them up.

Grey Tiger – agree 100%. I was assuming that abandoning the Lions wasn’t an option as the marketing men will keep the money machine going while it’s still clunking (irrespective of the harm it’s doing to the rugby environment).

So assuming there has to be a quadrennial tour from Europe with a scratch side then it might as well be the best scratch side possible. Do posters really think that there are no players from the last RWC finalists that would be an improvement on the home nation selections? Even assuming there are no better options what would the selection of a equal ability Georgian or Italian do for the game in those countries and their neighbours?

The Lions tour overwhelmingly benefits the SH teams, so if it must still exist then at least spread the load a bit wider?

The Great Aukster wrote:
Do posters really think that there are no players from the last RWC finalists that would be an improvement on the home nation selections?

No, but the more teams you have involved the less added value you get from each new one. Any one of the Lions nations would benefit from French players, but by the time you've already got four nations to choose from it's arguable that the added value of one extra one wouldn't counterbalance the added difficulties of getting the squad to gel without a common language.

For example; Fofana would walk into the England team, but probably not the Welsh one. Servat would walk into the Welsh team, but probably not the English one etc.

You also haven't addressed the question of why, if the Lions does give France an unfair advantage in the following Six Nations, France would even want to get involved.

thomh wrote:France... they haven't grown up watching it

Is that a fact? How many Frenchmen did you ask?

It would surprise me if Lions tours weren't followed pretty closely by French rugby fans.

I obviously meant watching and supporting it. My point is that French rugby fans wouldn't necessarily be as excited about getting involved as it's not part of their rugby culture in the way that it is for the four home nations.

That's true. But nor was the Home Nations championship until they joined and made it the Five Nations. Now imagine the Six Nations without them.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

thomh wrote:France... they haven't grown up watching it

Is that a fact? How many Frenchmen did you ask?

It would surprise me if Lions tours weren't followed pretty closely by French rugby fans.

The last 2 French guys that I lived with enjoyed their Rugby but had pretty much zero interest in the Lions and had no concept of how popular it is in UK and Ireland. Maybe it is different for other French people but that is my experience.

With regards to expanding the Lions to include France and Italy/all of Europe I put my thoughts down on another thread so have copied and pasted good bit of it below cause I can't be airsed writing it again even though it isn't very long I have removed a little bit of the blubbering drunk sentiment from the original though cause it made me cringe slightly and well, I'm not drunk right now. No doubt that when I next have a drink though I will once again be crying into my pint or glass of vino and cursing/trying to persuade all you naysayers


The British and Irish Lions is a great tradition that I love to be honest and I wouldn't want it changed. For me it is a huge deal and always has been.

The reason the Ryder Cup team was changed to inlcude all of Europe was not only because of results but because of the difference in the sizes of the populations (over 300m to about 60m or so). Therefore it made more sense to change it.

IMO it would be silly to have Europe versus one nation (SA, Aus or NZ) when comparing population sizes. If you want to have a European team then have them play a combined NZ, SA & Aus team or just have NH v SH. This is something I would enjoy watching, but it would be closer (at first anyway) to the level of the Barbarians in terms of how I perceive it.

thomh wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:
Do posters really think that there are no players from the last RWC finalists that would be an improvement on the home nation selections?

No, but the more teams you have involved the less added value you get from each new one. Any one of the Lions nations would benefit from French players, but by the time you've already got four nations to choose from it's arguable that the added value of one extra one wouldn't counterbalance the added difficulties of getting the squad to gel without a common language.

For example; Fofana would walk into the England team, but probably not the Welsh one. Servat would walk into the Welsh team, but probably not the English one etc.

You also haven't addressed the question of why, if the Lions does give France an unfair advantage in the following Six Nations, France would even want to get involved.

Thomh - you make a good point about the language, but I'm not sure it is the barrier it was say even 20 years ago. How much language (difficult as opposed to expletive) is used on the pitch anyway?

There is no scientific resolution to the dilution argument - who knows whether involving more countries makes it harder to gel or not? At the end of the day it's players not jigsaw pieces that are being assembled into a team. Perhaps the player pool is selected on it's ability to gel together rather than anything else, but increasing that pool will undoubtedly provide more selection options and so serve the coach better.

Why would France be interested - because they love rugby and wouldn't pass a chance to be on a bigger stage.

Irishhoneymonster wrote: IMO it would be silly to have Europe versus one nation (SA, Aus or NZ) when comparing population sizes.

Exactly it would be farcical and an embarassment to NH rugby.

Last time I looked it was XV against XV - what has that got to do with population?

Take say the ABs against England there is a 15:1 discrepancy in population therefore if population had anything to do with rugby that match would be farcical... erm...