Historic Anzac XV against British, Irish Lions Test in 2015

First topic message reminder :

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/former-aru-chief-john-oneill-suggests-historic-anzac-xv-against-british-and-irish-lions-test-in-2015/story-e6frf4pu-1226639055581#.UYxJ6cpKNgh

Former ARU chief John O'Neill suggests Historic Anzac XV against British, Irish Lions Test in 2015

By Iain Payten
The Daily Telegraph
May 10, 2013 7:44AM

Former ARU supremo John O'Neill has called for a historic clash between the British and Irish Lions and an Anzac XV to be staged at Twickenham in 2015 to commemorate the centenary of World War I.

O'Neill believes unique circumstances of the 2015 world rugby schedule present an ideal opportunity for the Lions and a combined Wallabies-All Blacks side to play on or around Armistice Day, and honour fallen Commonwealth soldiers in the Great War.

"2015 is the centenary anniversary of Gallipoli and the rugby league guys and everyone are talking about how we're going to commemorate it," O'Neill said.

"The 2015 World Cup finishes on October 31, and as close as possible to November 11 - Remembrance Day - the British and Irish Lions should play a combined Wallabies-All Blacks side at Twickenham. It would be a fantastic event."

O'Neill said he'd had informal discussions about the idea with several parties before leaving the ARU last October, and had intended to press the idea hard with Lions bosses when they arrive in June.

He wants his successors at the ARU to lobby for the Lions-Anzacs blockbuster, which could see Trans-Tasman combinations like Will Genia and Dan Carter uniting at the home of rugby.

"I can't speak on the ARU's behalf now, so it is up to somebody else," O'Neill said. "It wouldn't be hard. The Lions never play at home, but to commemorate 100 years since World War I and Gallipoli ...

"You can't do it on April 25 because that's in the middle of Super Rugby.

"But a couple of weeks after the World Cup, assembling the British and Irish Lions to play the Anzacs at Twickenham would be a wonderful way to commemorate the 100 years."

History and tradition would need to flex enormously for the Lions-Anzacs to happen, not least for the fact the Lions have only ever played as a touring side.

But the Lions have shown some willingness to embrace new - and profitable - ideas, playing the Barbarians in Hong Kong before arriving in Australia.

Proposed North-South battles are often scuttled because of tight international calendars but players would be on leave and free to remain in London and play in November after the 2015 World Cup.

Twickenham would undoubtedly be a sell-out. This would be hugely attractive in a World Cup year, when there are no Test tours allowed and nations tend to suffer huge financial losses.

Though not discussing the prospect of them playing against the Lions, IRB boss Brett Gosper said recently he was sceptical an Anzac or combined SANZAR team could tour the north in the same fashion as the Lions.

"There have been discussions around that for a long time. But I think the Lions have such a history and a tradition, it would be very hard to replicate that with a southern team's tour in the north. It doesn't mean you shouldn't try but people have talked about it, and the realisation is it would be a very hard thing to do,'' Gosper said.

Gosper said the potential creation of a "Ryder Cup'' style points battle between north and south could re-energise discussions, however.

"We are certainly looking at the possibility of in those windows, June and November, of maybe applying a points system; a bit like Ryder Cup, to increase the competitiveness between the northern and southern hemisphere. Those matches are never friendlies, but it might help them not just feel like one-offs,'' Gosper said

Sounds good to me, money spinner, awareness raiser or whatever, I'd pay to watch. What do you think?

A historic match against the Aztecs would be more likely!

I would certainly go to this match if it were staged, who wouldn't want to see the best of the Anzacs on 1 team? Maybe it would have to be vs a rest of the world XV to make it a decent game?

To be historically accurate, the Anzacs would be coached by an Brit who was out of his depth and relied on out dated tactics, but who turned out to be good at politics... A combination of Rob Andrew and John Wells should do it?

MotelMoneyMurderMadness wrote:GunsGerms, I understand your point, but I dont think it should be seen just as a British & commonwealth thing. Non commonwealth nations like the French, Americans and Italians would have to be included too.

I am positive that America was part of the commonwealth, wasn't it ? They are represented in the commonwealth games aren't they ?

LordDowlais wrote:

MotelMoneyMurderMadness wrote:GunsGerms, I understand your point, but I dont think it should be seen just as a British & commonwealth thing. Non commonwealth nations like the French, Americans and Italians would have to be included too.

I am positive that America was part of the commonwealth, wasn't it ? They are represented in the commonwealth games aren't they ?

No they aren't.

USA were once British Colonies, and still speak ( a dialect of) English to this day. Yes... they're in ! Parts of France were English at different times during the 100 years war, plus Norman French vocabulary litters modern English. Yes, they qualify too.

America is not part of the commonwealth

Italy is not part of the commonwealth

Just because a country speaks english does not make them part of the commonwealth.

To be part of the commonwealth the head of state needs to be the Queen. You do not need to be governed by the the queen or the UK, just have her as head of state. Eg Austraila - a fully independent and self governed country but Liz is still a figure head for them.

America do not have her as head of state and are therefore not part of the commonwealth!

tigertattie wrote:America is not part of the commonwealth

Italy is not part of the commonwealth

Just because a country speaks english does not make them part of the commonwealth.

To be part of the commonwealth the head of state needs to be the Queen. You do not need to be governed by the the queen or the UK, just have her as head of state. Eg Austraila - a fully independent and self governed country but Liz is still a figure head for them.

America do not have her as head of state and are therefore not part of the commonwealth!

Thats not true. Not all commonwealth countries recognise the Queen as their head of state, only some of them do.

I thought King George III is still crown head of the colonies of Virginia and New England ? Do they play rugby yet ?

tigertattie wrote:America is not part of the commonwealth

Italy is not part of the commonwealth

Just because a country speaks english does not make them part of the commonwealth.

To be part of the commonwealth the head of state needs to be the Queen. You do not need to be governed by the the queen or the UK, just have her as head of state. Eg Austraila - a fully independent and self governed country but Liz is still a figure head for them.

America do not have her as head of state and are therefore not part of the commonwealth!

Thats not right about the head of state, many countries in the commonwealth are either republics or have their own royalty eg the King of Tonga.
In fact not all members which even former British colonies, Mozambique was Portugese for example and Rwanda was Belgian.

Admittedly neither of those last 2 countries would provide players for the game on this thread, but good pub quiz facts.

Jesus...sometimes the knowledge/or lack thereof of history and geography in this place can lead to some bizarre comments.......

SecretFly wrote:Jesus...sometimes the knowledge/or lack thereof of history and geography in this place can lead to some bizarre comments.......

Look, I can't help being George III

gregortree wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Jesus...sometimes the knowledge/or lack thereof of history and geography in this place can lead to some bizarre comments.......

Look, I can't help being George III

No, your history is dead on and dead cert true ...it's Lord Dowlais I was amazed by. And I'm still working out whether he was just joking about that Commonwealth thing.

to clarify. here is a bloomin list! (nicked off the interwebs

http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchandcommonwealth/commonwealthmembers/membersofthecommonwealth.aspx

Country	Date
Antigua and Barbuda	1981
Australia	1931
The Bahamas	1973
Bangladesh	1972
Barbados	1966
Belize	1981
Botswana	1966
Brunei	1984
Cameroon	1995
Canada	1931
Cyprus	1961
Dominica	1978
Fiji	1970 (rejoined in 1997 after 10 year lapse)
The Gambia	1965
Ghana	1957
Grenada	1974
Guyana	1966
India	1947
Jamaica	1962
Kenya	1963
Kiribati	1979
Lesotho	1966
Malawi	1964
Malaysia	1957
The Maldives	1982
Malta	1964
Mauritius	1968
Mozambique	1995
Namibia	1990
Nauru	1968
New Zealand	1931
Nigeria	1960
Pakistan	1947
Papua New Guinea	1975
Rwanda	2009
St. Christopher and Nevis	1983
St. Lucia	1979
St. Vincent and the Grenadines	1979
Samoa	1970
Seychelles	1976
Sierra Leone	1961
Singapore	1965
Solomon Islands	1978
South Africa	1931
	(withdrew in 1961,
	rejoined in 1994)
Sri Lanka	1948
Swaziland	1968
Tanzania	1961
Tonga	1970
Trinidad and Tobago	1962
Tuvalu	1978
United Kingdom
Uganda	1962
Vanuatu	1980
Zambia	1964

Would the idea of the ANZACs vs the Lions at the Stade de France with no Frenchmen there be a little bit cheeky?

I think so Disney. Considering the French casualty rate in WW1 was something like 15% of the population, they should be involved. The UK by comparison had around a 5% casualty rate.

The thing is the only countries that observe ANZAC day are Australia, New Zealand, Niue, The Cooks, Tonga and Pitcairn Island..... and Turkey who get no say in the matter.

Weve gone to the rescue of France in two wars and all theyve ever done in terms of paying us back is to try and scratch our eyes out. no they shouldnt be included at all.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Weve gone to the rescue of France in two wars and all theyve ever done in terms of paying us back is to try and scratch our eyes out. no they shouldnt be included at all.

Yawn

Laurie, I dont think we went to rescue the French in WW1. Perhaps I misunderstood the nature of O'Neills suggestion, but I thought it was to acknowledge the 100 year anniversary of the war. As such the French contribution cant be overlooked.

No it was to acknowledge the centenial of Gallipoli, I dont see what France has to do with it. thats the reason why I'm overlooking them.

Must be hard to overlook the 10000 Frenchmen buried in Turkey, or does their sacrifice in the campaign mean nothing then?

whocares wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Weve gone to the rescue of France in two wars and all theyve ever done in terms of paying us back is to try and scratch our eyes out. no they shouldnt be included at all.

Yawn

and completely wrong. we went to the rescue of belgium and poland not france.....damned colonials can't even get their gallic phobia right

100%beefy wrote:

whocares wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Weve gone to the rescue of France in two wars and all theyve ever done in terms of paying us back is to try and scratch our eyes out. no they shouldnt be included at all.

Yawn

and completely wrong. we went to the rescue of belgium and poland not france.....damned colonials can't even get their gallic phobia right

Are you for real? to dismiss the landing and tragedy of the ANZAC troops at Anzac Cove on the 25 th April 1915 (which is the Centenary that O'Neil is suggesting that should be remembered) and try and create it into a French issue is nothing short of ignorant.

Or perhaps you missed the implication, and I quote "You cant do it on April 25 because thats in the middle of Super rugby"

what are YOU talking about auckland, suggesting people are ignorant?

who has tried to make this a french issue? insofar as WW1 is concerned the failure of the gallipolli campaign is a dreadful sideshow, it's waste of life even more tragic for that reason.
no front could ever have been established from a turkish defeat, it was an intellectual last ditch experiment in amphibious warfare which defeated a govt and sent churchill to the western front.
Not for one minute does the failure of the campaign diminish their sacrifice but if you wish to commemorate them do it for the right reason and understanding the campaign.

The british empire has never gone to war to rescue france as you state, but to dismiss them as you have suggests a misunderstanding verging on stupidity let alone ignorance, if you knew your history you would know why

100%beefy wrote:what are YOU talking about auckland, suggesting people are ignorant?

who has tried to make this a french issue? insofar as WW1 is concerned the failure of the gallipolli campaign is a dreadful sideshow, it's waste of life even more tragic for that reason.
no front could ever have been established from a turkish defeat, it was an intellectual last ditch experiment in amphibious warfare which defeated a govt and sent churchill to the western front.
Not for one minute does the failure of the campaign diminish their sacrifice but if you wish to commemorate them do it for the right reason and understanding the campaign.

The british empire has never gone to war to rescue france as you state, but to dismiss them as you have suggests a misunderstanding verging on stupidity let alone ignorance, if you knew your history you would know why

At no stage did I ever state that the British Empire went to war to rescue France.

ANZAC is an acronym for Australia New Zealand Army Corp and surprisingly, consisted of NZ and Australian troops. The ANZAC legend was created on the 25th April 1915 when these combined forces landed at Gallipoli. The ANZAC's were not a combination of Aust, NZ, French, SA, Canadian troops etc - they were NZ'ers and Australians. Any attempt to include these countries as ANZAC's would be the 21st C equivalent to heresy here - it would not go down well at all with public or the Govt. This significance of this day for Aust (and presumably NZ - having not been there on ANZAC day i don't know) is immense as it is seen as the day when Australia first stepped out of the shadow of the Empire (Federation was only 15 years before) and took the international stage as a country in its own right. ANZAC Day for Australians holds a similar significance as Independence day does for Americans, Bastille day for the french etc. If the Saffers, Canadian, French etc were part of the British Army at the time of the Gallipoli campaign then sure, include them in the "Lions/Other" team but the ANZAC side must only consist of Kiwi's and Aussies otherwise it wouldn't be an ANZAC side. I understand the whole premise of a proposed ANZAC v "Lions/Others" test was to commemorate the 25th April, not WW1 as a whole.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

100%beefy wrote:what are YOU talking about auckland, suggesting people are ignorant?

who has tried to make this a french issue? insofar as WW1 is concerned the failure of the gallipolli campaign is a dreadful sideshow, it's waste of life even more tragic for that reason.
no front could ever have been established from a turkish defeat, it was an intellectual last ditch experiment in amphibious warfare which defeated a govt and sent churchill to the western front.
Not for one minute does the failure of the campaign diminish their sacrifice but if you wish to commemorate them do it for the right reason and understanding the campaign.

The british empire has never gone to war to rescue france as you state, but to dismiss them as you have suggests a misunderstanding verging on stupidity let alone ignorance, if you knew your history you would know why

At no stage did I ever state that the British Empire went to war to rescue France.

sure auckland, glad you have now checked your history

aucklandlaurie wrote:
No it was to acknowledge the centenial of Gallipoli, I dont see what France has to do with it. thats the reason why I'm overlooking them.

unbelievable since the french fought alongside the anzacs along with empire troops from across the world. and why the comment about rescuing france in 2 wars? embarassing. a classic case on an anzac who thinks gallippolli was just auz and nz.

Icu wrote:ANZAC is an acronym for Australia New Zealand Army Corp and surprisingly, consisted of NZ and Australian troops. The ANZAC legend was created on the 25th April 1915 when these combined forces landed at Gallipoli. The ANZAC's were not a combination of Aust, NZ, French, SA, Canadian troops etc - they were NZ'ers and Australians. Any attempt to include these countries as ANZAC's would be the 21st C equivalent to heresy here - it would not go down well at all with public or the Govt. This significance of this day for Aust (and presumably NZ - having not been there on ANZAC day i don't know) is immense as it is seen as the day when Australia first stepped out of the shadow of the Empire (Federation was only 15 years before) and took the international stage as a country in its own right. ANZAC Day for Australians holds a similar significance as Independence day does for Americans, Bastille day for the french etc. If the Saffers, Canadian, French etc were part of the British Army at the time of the Gallipoli campaign then sure, include them in the "Lions/Other" team but the ANZAC side must only consist of Kiwi's and Aussies otherwise it wouldn't be an ANZAC side. I understand the whole premise of a proposed ANZAC v "Lions/Others" test was to commemorate the 25th April, not WW1 as a whole.

Well put ICU, I hope some people read this post and then maybe begin to understand what the subject is here.

100%beefy wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
No it was to acknowledge the centenial of Gallipoli, I dont see what France has to do with it. thats the reason why I'm overlooking them.

unbelievable since the french fought alongside the anzacs along with empire troops from across the world. and why the comment about rescuing france in 2 wars? embarassing. a classic case on an anzac who thinks gallippolli was just auz and nz.

Gallipoli was just Aust and NZ as they were the troops that spearheaded the attack on the 25th April. The British Army plus a French force landed at other positions along the coast. The British et al may have joined the ANZAC's at Gallipoli later on, but on the 25th April it was just the Kiwi's and Aussies who took took part, hence the reason we celebrate ANZAC Day - not ANZAC, French and British day. Obviously they fought alongside the French, British, Indian, Canadian, Saffers etc throughout the campaign and later on in WW1 but on April 25th 1915 it was the ANZAC troops that got smashed by the Turks because of the ineptitude of the British High Command. 100 years on though, I am confident it would be the ANZAC's who would be doing the smashing.

Well you guys can do whatever you want and include whoever you want.
Maybe we can have our own commeration game marking WW1, inviting everyone, kiwis, aussies, americans..... and the French.

November 11 is marked as a day of remembrance in France and the UK because WWI was a terrible waste of lives. The system of alliances brought the continental powers into conflict over the assassination of someone no one really knew. It would be the equivalent of some Mongolian warlord being killed and North Korea going into battle with China and Russia over the Us and Japan. Completely lacking in logic. The only sensible thing to do is mark its end and honour the dead who fell and not allow another situation to happen.

The context of ANZAC day is different. Australians and New Zealanders fought in many theaters of war throughout the 20th century. But we commemorate this day to honour the soldiers who gave birth to our sense of nationhood. WW2 would be the final nail in the motherland in the sense that we were on our own in the Pacific. The empire was impossible to defend. ANZAC day is not about honoring the contribution to Gallipoli. It is honoring the contribution Gallipoli made to our sense of nationhood. In that way it is sacrosanct. It doesn't matter who the ANZAC team plays. What ONeill wants and what I agree with is for rugby to mark this day. The timing is wrong but holding the game in Europe is fitting as by judging from the comments the significance of Anzac Day is completely misunderstood.

Kia I understand the importance of ANZAC day. Im sorry if I came across otherwise. However my suggestion was simply that the French should be included in the side that face the ANZAC team. Cant see why some folk were objecting to that.

Given what people have mentioned above about ANZAC day then shouldn't the match rather be a Australia vs. New Zealand match?

Although its not played on ANZAC day and rather suggested on remembrance day it would be odd to leave out all those who commemorate remembrance day.

Don't think there's anything wrong with making that suggestion. The All Blacks wear poppies on their sleeves when they play in France out of respect for their event and the contribution NZ made. The focus must be on the ANZACS though. It's not on WW1 or Gallipoli. O'Neill is trying to set up a game involving the ANZACs. It's not a slight on everyone else who fought in WWI and lost their lives in that terrible war. You simply can't include everyone in that.

I guess the British and Irish Lions are already an established side in that they already exist as a concept. The Irish may not like the idea of promoting WWI and I get that but that's not the intended spirit of this game. Nor is honouring the war dead though I understand that may make the opposition and the people going to the game more receptive to the idea.

I just hope that something gets organised because it's inexcusable that rugby in NZ or Australia doesn't mark this event. I can understand why some nations don't want to get mixed up in that. Like I said, who we play is not important. Just the combined ANZAC team playing somebody is important. That's how much it means to us. Obviously we would want the opposition to be on board and that goes back to promoting the game and the reasons behind it.

Fa a Australia NZ match is hardly a rare event. It hardly represents Australians and New Zealanders fighting together. The timing of the event is a difficult one and I could see why some would object to having Remembrance Day overshadowed by Australia and NZ. A World XV played three tests against NZ for its centenary. I'd hope rugby could find a way and a time to do the same here. In a World Cup year the scheduling is the difficult thing.

I love the idea but someone's going to be left out and get arsey. Because the Lions games are rare that'd be great and make it interesting-if I were an Argie to have played the Lions in that warm up game would have been awesome. Hell if you wanted a venue to include everyone why not have it as Sarajevo when all hell broke loose back then. I'd like it as an ANZAC team though. Maybe as the Brits were driving the whole offensive to get the Dardanelles they could select the team

I'd like Turkey to be acknowledged in some way shape or form too-not necessarily on the rugby field (yes I'm sure you wouldn't mind kebab stalls at halftime but that's taking the michael a bit lol). The relationship between them and the ANZACs now is amazing to me and they're every bit as important. After all we were kind of the bad guys in that region.

I see the war as a pointless battle for hegemony between several equally devious empires led by a bunch of inbred egotistical royal cousins, causing untold suffering for millions from many nations including our own. Not worth celebrating or glorifying imho.

But ANZAC day is more about marking the emergence of a new national spirit in both Australia and New Zealand I think. Not about glorifying the British or any other empire. And it would be a nice thing to help two proud nations commemorate that. And the B&I are a huge brand. It would a cool match to watch.

As we say in the South Island FR, good on ya mate.

Anyway its not true the French only paid us back with eye gouging. They have given us historic losses at World Cups and sunk a boat we weren't using properly.