Solidarity.

Over the past few weeks the proof of how much emotion a British and Irish Lions tour evokes has been so in your face and obvious, it makes one wonder about the influence rugby has on our individual lives.

Prior to the selection of the squad by Warren Gatland, the murmurings, debate and speculation has been rather polite, with a little hint of the verbal wars about to be unleashed accross internet sites all accross the world.

Australians have been jumoing the gun on Australian websites with one off performances by individual players. Israel Folau was the first hype, and articles suggesting him to become a Wallaby was so premature that some suggested his inclusion before the first tackle was made (or not made)

The return of George Smith after the untimely injury to David Pocock brought back nostalgic memories from an era gone by when George Smith was the fly in the ointment for many an opposition team.

The debate about when henry Speight will be "qualified" to represent Australia has brought disappointment to those who believed he should be an automatic selection.

There are two trains of thought in regards to Quade Cooper and his off field antics and the same goes for Kurtley Beale.

In the north the selection of the Lions was pretty much as expected on the large, however with a few omissions and a few inclusions guns went ablaze and supporters have been going full scale on their approval or disapproval regarding these selection and omissions.

It has been clear to see that although the Lions are selection from four nations, the solidarity would not arrive until the first illegal hit from an australian against a respected player from the Lions.

Basically it has been shown in history that the enemy of my enemy can become my friend in adversity or danger.

So, whilst I expect it to be some time before we can expect solidarity and peace on rugby forums across the world, we need to remind ourselves that even though rugby is lart and oarcel of who we are, it is only a game.

You might say it is easy to remain aloof and neutral as I do not have a vested interest in the oncoming test series, I do however just want to remind all and sundry, there are other test series happening across the planet, least of all the Scots who will attempt to invade my land.

AND I SAY BRING IT ON ME LADDIES!

Meh...

Take that back






...or else......

Once they are out there then most of the debates from the home nations will stop. For myself its not abou tthe nationality of the players - its about getting the players ther who can win. i don't care about nationality of them at all

Really its only about a couple of marginal selection calls an our best guess of the actual team although if the team is selected as I fear rather than as I hope I will be less inclined to make the effort to watch the games.

http://www.anyjokes.net/funny-videos/solidarity-verry-funny/

flyhalffactory wrote:http://www.anyjokes.net/funny-videos/solidarity-verry-funny/

There's nothing very new about the current reaction to the Lions. It's only that social media and net forums make the discussions more widely distributed, which in turn raises the temperature.

Most of us aren't old enough to remember too far back. We know the stories of the tours in the 70s but, for instance, you don't hear so much about how controversial the 1974 visit to South Africa was. Welshman John Taylor refused to go.

It's interesting that barely anything these days is said about the 1980 tour to South Africa. We don't seem quite so proud of our players' political ambivalence when we lose. In that case, of course, both the British and Irish governments were openly opposed to the tour.

New Zealand was an uncontroversial destination in 1983 but there were plenty of selection controversies. The Irish had won the Five Nations that year so captain Ciaran Fitzgerald was chosen to lead the party. However, he almost certainly wasn't the best Home Unions hooker. The man most thought was the best - England's Peter Wheeler - was left behind. Wheeler also happened to be a captaincy contender that year.

If you think Gatland's choice of Sam Warburton is getting a rough ride in the press, I would invite you to search out the archives of press coverage following the announcement of the 1983 squad. If this Google books link works, you might be able to get a taste. It's from David Walmsley's "Lions of Ireland".

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O951uMxK0NsC&pg=PT60&lpg=PT60&dq=Peter+Wheeler+1983+Lions&source=bl&ots=i9sXDKiDHw&sig=3ztw7o_NPNABBwVoHgE79iwlVis&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IkWLUZLFCYaZ0AXq4oGgDA&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBQ

1989 is usually remembered fondly but we forget some of the tensions on that tour. McGeechan, much as he did in 2009, got his selection wrong by going with the old guard into the first test. Bob Norster was 1989's Phil Vickery.

One of the reason's Donal Lenihan is given so much credit for leading the "Donal's Donuts" midweek side, is because tensions could so easily have got out of hand. Lenihan had accepted his exclusion from the Tests with exceptional grace. He kept a lid on players frustrated by their own exclusion and then made sure those demoted after the first Test still remained engaged. Lenihan is celebrated because he pulled off a feat which has eluded others on Lions tours.

The importance of the midweek side was highlighted four years later in 1993. England had won consecutive Grand Slams in 1991 and 1992 but started the Five Nations poorly. Rob Andrew was finally dropped and Stuart Barnes ignited the back line against Scotland. However, that same England team fell to a humbling defeat against Ireland in the final game of the tournament which changed the balance of Lions selection. Sound familiar?

The Lions selectors chose most of the Scotland tight five alongside the England pack but they proved woeful on tour. Not only did they fail to challenge for Test spots, their poor performance in midweek games made it virtually impossible for any other player in those matches to make his mark. It was not a happy tour, and a let-down after the highs of 1989.

1997 is so well-remembered because it was a success, and the first tour to be fully documented. In some ways, it has become a burden for subsequent tours in the professional era because it has been so difficult to match.

Expectations were sky high for 2001. England had dominated that years Six Nations (the eventual loss to Ireland took place after the tour, postponed because of foot and mouth). They had also begun to beat Southern Hemisphere opponents with some consistency. There was little debate, then, about selection. The main grumblings were about Henry, since some thought a foreign coach went against the spirit of the Lions.

As far as supporters were concerned, the tour was going well. We won the first three tour game but then slipped up against Australia A. The Waratahs then turned their match into an ugly brawl. This should have strengthened squad solidarity but all was not well under the surface. We only got to hear of that, though, when Matt Dawson produced his disgraceful tour diary after the first Test. He regrets it to this day but it was a real blow to the stomach for Lions supporters, who believed things were going along behind the scenes as they had four years before.

Sadly, the press lapped it up, and journos like Eddie Butler actively went looking for dirt. Previously, the media had always been on-side with the touring party. Perhaps we should have expected it in the professional era. Nevertheless, it was a sea change in the way tours would be covered.

2005 was a nadir but it's too easy to blame Woodward for everything. As I pointed out on another thread, once he had made his selections, the knives were out for him almost immediately. A reminder again of the lack of solidarity:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/jun/20/lions2005.rugbyunion4

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/international/4107932.stm

2009 was finally a happy tour again, despite the series loss, but I think it's easy to see that completely happy tours are not necessarily the norm. These calls for solidarity are understandable but they current rumblings are really no different to what we've seen before. It's one of the reasons the Lions is such an intriguing project.

Interesting how results are depicting what history tells us.

The 2009 Lions were in my opinion better than the 1997 Lions.

If you look at the 1997 Bok team, it was put together by Carel du Plessis, legendary winger for South Africa, and it was his first stint at coaching anything in first class or above level.

He didn't have a kicker, so his team needed to score tries, and they outplayed the Lions by outscoring the 3 tries to nil in the second test, yet lost because the Boks missed all their kicks whereas the Lions converted 6 penalties.

In 2009 the Lions outscored the Boks in tries by 3 to 2 in the second test and lost.

Yet history remembers 1997 in a more flattering light than 2009.

It seems at the end of the day, results matter above anything else, and Fables often come alongside "poor wins" making them shine, but the "great" losses are easily forgotten.

Biltong wrote:The 2009 Lions were in my opinion better than the 1997 Lions.

Agreed. The losing 1993 Lions were better than the winning 1989 Lions. The losing 2001 Lions were one of the best teams to leave these shores. Those three losing teams all played attractive rugby, while the two most recent winning sides ('89 and '97) both produced a fairly dour brand.

"In the north the selection of the Lions was pretty much as expected on the large, however with a few omissions and a few inclusions guns went ablaze and supporters have been going full scale on their approval or disapproval regarding these selection and omissions."

Nice to get the mention in your article Biltongbek.

Bit harsh on the Scots to say "least of all the Scots"

Biltong wrote:Interesting how results are depicting what history tells us.

The 2009 Lions were in my opinion better than the 1997 Lions.

If you look at the 1997 Bok team, it was put together by Carel du Plessis, legendary winger for South Africa, and it was his first stint at coaching anything in first class or above level.

He didn't have a kicker, so his team needed to score tries, and they outplayed the Lions by outscoring the 3 tries to nil in the second test, yet lost because the Boks missed all their kicks whereas the Lions converted 6 penalties.

In 2009 the Lions outscored the Boks in tries by 3 to 2 in the second test and lost.

Yet history remembers 1997 in a more flattering light than 2009.

It seems at the end of the day, results matter above anything else, and Fables often come alongside "poor wins" making them shine, but the "great" losses are easily forgotten.

The 2009 tests were some of the most brutal rugby I have ever seen in my life, from both sides, it was just crazy brutal!!!! I'm not sure if it's possible to recreate the intensity both teams played at that year, as dissapointing as it was to lose it was a great series and a great advert for the game (Shalkes gouge aside).

It's one of those things that although we lost, we lost to the best side on the planet and both sets of players were in bits afterwards, both sets of players should be proud to have contributed to that!

I was more dissapointed by a lot of the Lions thrashing warm up games than by the test losses though, are Aus planning on resting their internationals similar to SA? I hope not, I want to see the Lions pushed and upset now and then!!

Agree re '09 series. It was a belter.

'Lart and Oarcel' fantastic folk/prog rock duet from the late 70s based out of Budleigh Salterton. Suprised you've heard of em Bilt?

Effervescing Elephant wrote:'Lart and Oarcel' fantastic folk/prog rock duet from the late 70s based out of Budleigh Salterton. Suprised you've heard of em Bilt?

I blame the Ipad.