France will play ABs while Lions tour Australia....

First topic message reminder :

hmm....not a very hard one to chose in terms of which will be more interesting.

The Lions like the Barbarians are an anachronism of another era,but no lest valid for it.For the NH Players chosen it is the Ultimate accolade in the past many went thru great privations financially or otherwise.The Barbarians in there classic form [a NH concept with the odd SH player]into a league of nations side to it`s shame.
The Lions have not been unsuccessful when looked at as traditional tours,they have drawn and won in SA, Australia,and NZ the honourable defeats.Were vesus some of the strongest Nz and Sa teams in the history of the game.1950 vesus a side that went 10 years before tasting a series defeat,1961 -2 and 1966 versus two very strong sides in Sa and Nz.
Take it in context before you sneer the All Blacks have never done better than draw a Series versus SA in SA.The Lions have both won and drawn there.The Boks have the same record versus the AllBlacks in NZ as the Lions.
THEY did`nt say whats the point they kept on touring 2009 they were unbeaten outside the Test arena.The Test series was VERY close and in my opinion had Riki Flutey played alongside Roberts in the Second test they would have won the Series.
The Lions is far more realistic contest than the RWC where only one NH side has ever won. Then the side self destructed post RWC.

France have won a series in SA in the past and in NZ...clearly the bogey team of NZ as they can either turn it on or possibly get beaten by 50+...still more fascinating than a lions tour to Aus specifically.

Irishhoneymonster wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Oh and Northern Ireland isnt apart of britian its apart of the UK.

Thanks for the complex lesson in geography and politics! Now please stop saying New Zealand poaches Samoans or we'll be forced to explain that relationship to you in a faux-offended and patronising manner too.

What? When did I say that?

I'm assuming AWOP is taking your Northern Ireland quote as if it's directed at every Kiwi that ever lived (which means him too, after all he does speak for all NZders apparently - see bold above) and he is also assuming that all talk of NZ poaching Pacific Islanders on these boards came directly or indirectly from you Leinsterfan4Life/Europe/NH - you are all one and the same after all. Gawd it is difficult having to deal with this bile at times (although I usually ignore it), but do keep it up AWOP, it is entertaining once in a while at the end of the day

It wasn't long ago he could hardly put sentances together in English and now all of a sudden he's better at english than me.

pretty strange isn't it.

Clearly the bogey team: I'm afraid not. SA is the only team to be able to compete with NZ and then there is daylight between the rest. In World Cups SA and Australia have better records against NZ than France. France have had two high profile and well taken wins against NZ and a series victory in recent time (as well as a drawn two match series with an unfancied B team) so they are to be treated with respect and the idea of a 3 match series against them is an enthralling one. But bogey team they are not. 38 victories against 12 French victories and one test match is a bogey relatively easy to flick away. A lot of snot mixed in with the solid bogey. SA's bogey is far more viscous and sizeable and cannot be so easily discarded.

The Lions is an underdog story. But they have classy enough players to one day again claim a series victory and that's what people buy into. It's a huge ask being thrown and cobbled together so hastily after a long, punishing NH season and I can see why people dismiss it and prefer to see their own nations in a 3 match test series or their club players being rested. But from a neutral's perspective and having witnessed the fanatical support of their supporters and their good nature, I consider myself privileged to have witnessed those games and would feel bad if something that can unite people as well as divide some should be banished in the professional era. Yet then again we don't have a SH equivalent to give our own players more rugby and risk them to injury (even though a 3 match Lions tour is effectively replacing a 3 match series for a nation anyway now).

My comments were for TRADITIONAL tours,NOT the short tours started in 1958 when to the surprise of the World they Drew and Won in a two match series.They also won in a single match in 1964 in SA,they have also won in NZ.BUT that isn`t the same as a side playing a 3 or 4 test series in a tour of up to 36 matches being softened up by provincial sides is it?

For me the Lions have been a major disappointment historically. After watching them for 30+ years I've come to the conclusion that when touring NZ their inability to extract the best of four otherwise good national sides is exposed to the point that they actually don't work well together.

In the same respect theyre more successful against SA and Oz because those sides dont expose that factor as obviously.

6 wins in over 100 years here- one solitary win since I first watched them in 1977 has been disappointing to say the least.

With at least 4 international class options in each postition the Lions should produce a side a class above each individual nation and it doesnt. I expect a close series against Oz but no closer than an England one, where it should be stronger than that in a logical sense.

Taylorman wrote:For me the Lions have been a major disappointment historically. After watching them for 30+ years I've come to the conclusion that when touring NZ their inability to extract the best of four otherwise good national sides is exposed to the point that they actually don't work well together.

In the same respect theyre more successful against SA and Oz because those sides dont expose that factor as obviously.

6 wins in over 100 years here- one solitary win since I first watched them in 1977 has been disappointing to say the least.

With at least 4 international class options in each postition the Lions should produce a side a class above each individual nation and it doesnt. I expect a close series against Oz but no closer than an England one, where it should be stronger than that in a logical sense.

Bringing players together from 4 nations which have big rivalries between them is not easy, especially when you only have a few weeks to do it.

Just having good players is not enough to make a good team.

Or indeed bringing together fans who are not all convinced this Lions lark is a good idea.

I don't think you can use results as a guide Taylorman. Many national sides with stronger combinations struggle in SA, Australia and NZ. Does the fact that Scotland was the only side to win down under mean they should be the only ones invited back next year?

That is a very contentious statement Taylorman considering NO All Black side won a series in SA in traditional form including the Cavaliers.Does that mean the All Blacks Tours were poor there too.?NZ took until 1996 to win a series and that was not in the traditional sense.I`m as proud as you of the All Blacks record but PLEASE keep it in context.Also most of those Lions side won the Australian portion of the Joint Tours with NZ when attached.At least they won and drew in SA something the All Blacks singularly failed to do.

You have a point Alan but I prefer my example.

emack2 wrote:That is a very contentious statement Taylorman considering NO All Black side won a series in SA in traditional form including the Cavaliers.Does that mean the All Blacks Tours were poor there too.?NZ took until 1996 to win a series and that was not in the traditional sense.I`m as proud as you of the All Blacks record but PLEASE keep it in context.Also most of those Lions side won the Australian portion of the Joint Tours with NZ when attached.At least they won and drew in SA something the All Blacks singularly failed to do.

Alan how is the Lions tours of NZ 'in context' with the ABs tours of SA?

It is well known that many of our players were not ALLOWED to play SA- here or at home, so not only do we only have one nation- we werent even allowed to use all of that!. The Lions were not 'afflicted' by this problem and had four nations to select from.

Other than 76 (BeeGee being an 'honourary white' in 1970) the 96 tour was the 'next' AB tour allowed to use its full contingency of players- and subsequently won all its tests- against the then World champions.

And forget the Cavaliers, werent sanctioned or supported by the NZRFU, they werent the AB's in less ways than the maori All Blacks so leave that one to die please.

In any 'context' the Lions are poor here, and not so poor elsewhere, and not as poor as their individual nations are- England winning here only two years previously.

I think he was talking more about results Taylorman. Regardless of the politics, we kept sending teams, sanctioned or not, to SA in the hope we would win. The Lions are a bit like the Barbarians and I'm not convinced the sum of greater parts is better than a team of cheaper but more well oiled parts. Doesn't stop me from watching though...

I remember being nervous as hell in 2005 before that series. Much like against the Irish or Welsh in June tests in recent times. The fact that we didn't lose doesn't take away from the tour in my opinion.

I agree that 1928 with George Nepia and Jimmy Mill and 1949 COULD have been won had they been picked and argued the point myself.MOST of the writers opinions i`ve read was that 1949 would have been drawn at best whoever was picked.In 1960 only the second hooker [Wordley?was it] over Des Webb and Pat Walsh.1976 certainly should have been halfed but it was`nt I like you would very much have loved representative teams to be picked.I think political correctness was the reason for segregation on Nz `s part as i`ve read Apartheid actually became law after those times .I maybe incorrect in that assertion no doubt one of our SA contingent can correct me.
My pride of the All Blacks probably equals or exceeds yours but Lions results pre 1971 can`t be considered on the same scale.Both NZ/SA teams were organised on professional lines with coaches back as far as 1905/6.Lions tours players were only bought together as a team a few days before the tour.Picked more often than not because they played for the right teams as opposed to being the best players.1971 and 74 changed all that ironic that within 10 years the Lions was the only game in town.It is a precious link to the past long may it be so.Incidentally Lions tours to Nz 1959,77,93 were no pushovers indeed 1959 had the Lions a goal kicker the equal of the Boot they would have walked the series.Only the Third test was conclusive AB win it took a DB try to win the 2nd a rareity for him plus of course his boot in the First.Also I was talking about the results,also the Lions at least 1950,55,59 played balanced Rugby NOT winning Rugby in the age of reality.Something people seem to think is an AB heritage which is very much not the case.

Cmon Alan what about all the series to Nil wins that you completely disregard here regardless of the era...

2005- 0-3
1983- 0-4
1966- 0-4
1950- .5 -3.5

Let alone the several you mention that 'got away' if 1-3 is indeed 'getting away'
One series win by the least possible margin- 2.5-1.5.

By any read thats poor. I was anxious in 05 as well as they brought with them England ++ (at least thats how it was touted prior to the tour- now its said they were past their best of course)

And for the SA vs NZ 'results' wise...

SA at home up to 1970 vs ABs (non whites not allowed era): Played 16 won 11 one drawn at 68.8% won

From 1976- non whites allowed era- played 28 lost 15 at 46.4%- the AB's have a better record in SA than they do.

Only two differences between the two periods i terms of selection criteria were non whites were allowe to tour (and in SA non whites were allowed to play)- resulting in a swing of over 20%

Go figure...

Taylorman wrote:...the Lions should produce a side a class above each individual nation and it doesnt...where it should be stronger than that in a logical sense.

Not really, for the reasons LeinsterFan4life gives. If the four teams each had one great combination, then adding the units together might be a little easier but that's not how the team gets picked or how it comes together on tour.

The bigger mystery for me is how poorly the Home Unions perform when they travel south. In 1994, when France claimed a series win in New Zealand, they didn't go there as Five Nations champions. They had actually finished mid-table behind Wales and England, having lost to both.

When England went unbeaten on their 1972 tour of South Africa (there was only one Test) they had fared even worse in that year's Five Nations, losing every match. The following year, when they defeated the All Blacks in New Zealand, they had lost two Five Nations games and all the provincial tour matches leading to the Test.

England and France don't have great records in the South but they have come up with the kind of against-the-form-book wins down there which are so common in Five and Six Nations history. For some reason, Wales, Ireland and Scotland have never been able to do the same, even when they've been able to beat English and French sides who managed wins on their own.

The 1993 tour of New Zealand is an interesting case in point. The Lions lost the test series 2-1. When New Zealand toured England and Scotland later that year, they faced a Barbarians side in the final match which, give or take Ewen Mackenzie, was a Lions-style mix. The All Blacks won comfortably. Scotland had been the top-finishing home union in that year's Five Nations but they were crushed 15-51 in their tour fixture. Meanwhile, England beat them 15-9.

It's not easy to mix the talents of four sides who play differently, and the challenge has perhaps become harder in the professional era. Still, that's one of the attractions. When players do come together for a common cause, and it clicks, it's a great rugby story, and wonderful theatre. In 1989, 1993, 2001 and 2009, the series went down to the final Test. In 1997, the Lions had it won after two. 2005 was like a cold bath. The Lions had been dreadful in 1983 too but no-one got up in the early hours to watch because there were no live TV broadcasts at the time. Thankfully, there aren't any clips on YouTube either.

If we get a repeat of 1983 or 2005 on future tours, and there is no 1989 or 2009 follow-up performance to restore the faith, then maybe supporters will tire of the idea and prefer to see what their own teams can manage by themselves. Meanwhile, it's a fascinating part of an increasingly homogeneous rugby calendar.

It is great to have debates from a varying point of view Taylorman. Mine is that the Lions is a worthy tradition NOT a stupid or pointless one. Nor do I wish it to become one with France and Italy added .
NZ v SA in SA 1928 2-2.1949 0-4,1960 1-1-2,1970 1-3,1976 1-3
in NZ 1921 1-1-1 ,1937 1-2,1956 3-1,1965 3-1,1981-2 2-1
THOSE are the ONLY STATS that concern relevant Tours in the traditional sense
over all wins to date don`t count in this debate.
Lions in SA 1955 2-2,1974 3-1 that is a better record than the AllBlacks achieved much as I wish it was`nt.
NH short tours haven`t been much more succesful the exception being France
even they aren`t that clever in NZ losing 3-0 1961,3-0 1968,1-1 1979,0-2 1984 and 1-1 each 2009 winning series on points difference.They were successful in 1958 in SA 1 win 1 draw,and a 1-0 1964,.England lost 2-0 1963 but that was a scratch side,THE Welsh side lost 2-0,England won the odd match in 2003 in Nz plus of course Ireland 3-0.
So really the point is rather mute as to whether indvidual or lions sides were more successful in NZ not sure about SA.

Pot Hale wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Oh and Northern Ireland isnt apart of britian its apart of the UK.

Northern Ireland is apart from Britain; it's not apart from the UK.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Its the heat. But then again have you ever heard of an Aussie accused of being brainy..

Has that freezing cold relentless wind blown your 'too clever mind' away LF4L?


It's not too hard to watch both. Expect yet another close fought AB win followed by yet another series loss for the B&i Lions

I have a feeling France will knock NZ over in one of the first two, leaving the third to be a thriller. As for the Lions, well if they can assimilate the English mentality vs Aussie into the rest of the team they should win. But a fully fit Aussie backline will have the goods on whatever players are available for the Lions. They're that good.

Non neutral refs, apartheid and food poisoning are all bandied about as reasons why NZ teams failed in Africa. But let's not forget all the politics over there that have prevented them from selecting their best XV themselves. When either NZ or SA get it right they dominate world rugby and kick the @rse of the other to innovate and improve to surpass that level. It's the best rivalry in the game in terms of the battle for rugby supremacy and one which has inspired teams to improve their play which has often seen the game in general rise to new heights. And both are good enough to dispel any certainty of hypotheses regarding meeting if other results had turned out differently. Would NZ have beaten SA if they snuck past France in 07? That was a bloody good Bok side. Would SA have beaten NZ in the 11 semi had Lawrence blown his whistle? (I think not in the semi but in the final it'd have been definitely on). Just my opinion.

Sorry to go off topic. I'd pick 2-1 to the Lions-well I'll wait to see who they pick before deciding whom I want to win-and a combination of a 10 point NZ win, a thrilling win by France, and then a hiding dished out by the ABs, in no particular order.

The first game at Eden Park, venue where Joubert robbed France of rightful victory in many French (not to mention neutral) fans' eyes will be a cracker. Wellington is also a happy hunting ground for us and we seem to play well there if conditions are not like the provincial team. New Plymouth is a strange venue so it could well be 2-1. Same in Australia I think. Hopefully in an order where the last match means something. All the more reason to watch both.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:...the Lions should produce a side a class above each individual nation and it doesnt...where it should be stronger than that in a logical sense.

Not really, for the reasons LeinsterFan4life gives.

Still can't agree with the reasoning. If its 'generally' accepted that LeinsterFan4life's argument is valid, then the Lions are a farce, and shouldnt be gven the level of attention internationally that it has.

If the 4 home unions are not able to conjure up a stable environment around the selection, strategy and direction for something that they know occurs every 4 years then it should be dropped. All we ever seem to hear is the bickering that goes on beforehand about how many players each country should have and afterwards- usually a losing series, who is to blame- also usually on a nationalistic basis.

I think the concept of the Lions is great and thats obviously easier to say being a neutral.

Every four years the Home Unions get a chance to unite against their traditional Southern foe and frankly, blow it. Waste their opportunity to unite if even for a short period.

I agree theres some unity at times but sadly just not enough.

Taylorman wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:...the Lions should produce a side a class above each individual nation and it doesnt...where it should be stronger than that in a logical sense.

Not really, for the reasons LeinsterFan4life gives.

Still can't agree with the reasoning. If its 'generally' accepted that LeinsterFan4life's argument is valid, then the Lions are a farce, and shouldnt be gven the level of attention internationally that it has.

If the 4 home unions are not able to conjure up a stable environment around the selection, strategy and direction for something that they know occurs every 4 years then it should be dropped. All we ever seem to hear is the bickering that goes on beforehand about how many players each country should have and afterwards- usually a losing series, who is to blame- also usually on a nationalistic basis.

I think the concept of the Lions is great and thats obviously easier to say being a neutral.

Every four years the Home Unions get a chance to unite against their traditional Southern foe and frankly, blow it. Waste their opportunity to unite if even for a short period.

I agree theres some unity at times but sadly just not enough.

But you're not a neutral. You're from Wellington.

Pot Hale wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:...the Lions should produce a side a class above each individual nation and it doesnt...where it should be stronger than that in a logical sense.

Not really, for the reasons LeinsterFan4life gives.

Still can't agree with the reasoning. If its 'generally' accepted that LeinsterFan4life's argument is valid, then the Lions are a farce, and shouldnt be gven the level of attention internationally that it has.

If the 4 home unions are not able to conjure up a stable environment around the selection, strategy and direction for something that they know occurs every 4 years then it should be dropped. All we ever seem to hear is the bickering that goes on beforehand about how many players each country should have and afterwards- usually a losing series, who is to blame- also usually on a nationalistic basis.

I think the concept of the Lions is great and thats obviously easier to say being a neutral.

Every four years the Home Unions get a chance to unite against their traditional Southern foe and frankly, blow it. Waste their opportunity to unite if even for a short period.

I agree theres some unity at times but sadly just not enough.

But you're not a neutral. You're from Wellington.

True...and support the Auks/ Blues...though the comparison between the two Lions sides is sadly more closer than we're lead to think...

If someone uses a phrase like more closer then they're probably from Auckland not Wellington