Does a Lions Tour Harm the Home Unions' World Cup Chances?

I always enjoy Lions tours but I sometimes wonder whether they have begun to act as an obstacle to the development of Home Union national sides. I'm ignoring the financial contribution of tours to all the Unions because I just want to consider the playing impact.

Firstly, there's the timing. The Lions tour two years after a World Cup. This seems to me to be a key period of the development of any national side with ambitions to do well next time around. It's often mentioned that key stepping stones to England's 2003 success were the tour to Argentina and the later tour to Australia and New Zealand. The Home Union sides get three chances to tour in summer between World Cups and one of those is disrupted by the Lions.

How much better would it be for player development, team building, and continuity in selection if the Home Unions sides could take full advantage of all three tours? Two or three of the Home Union sides could use a Lions-free year to take on the Southern Hemisphere sides again. If they did want to stand down some leading players and tour Japan or North America, then this would still be an option.

In a Lions year, it's usually not viable for Home Union teams to play major sides with their remaining players (despite recent experience, it's not written in stone that Scotland will always provide a small contingent). England can perhaps still get away with facing Argentina because we have greater - not necessarily better - playing resources. A full strength Argentinian side is now a real handful, however, so even England will struggle on current trends should top Pumas turn out.

The only real advantage for a national side spending a summer tour with a development or "B" side is if leading players get a chance to rest, or even have some surgery to get rid of niggles. In a Lions year, these players will instead be knocking seven bells out of each other for a different cause.


There's another timing issue.


Many players see a World cup campaign as a career peak. For those beginning to feel their age, it's often an occasion to announce their international retirement, regardless of how their teams fared at the tournament. Four years to the next Cup seems a long way off, and committing to another cycle can see a bridge too far.

If you are a Home Unions player, however, there is the attraction of the next Lions tour, and two years can seem a lot easier to navigate mentally and physically. Most will not have lifted the Webb Ellis trophy, so there is the added appeal of hanging on to see if they can sign off with a taste of Lions success. Indeed, the pull of a tour was enough to encourage some of England's old guard to stick around even when they won the trophy.

I'm not suggesting that there should always be a clearout after a World Cup, or that such disruption is necessarily good for a team. It's undeniable, though, that the existence of the Lions acts as an additional incentive for older players to prolong their careers which other national teams don't have. Well, I suppose the host country for the Lions has a similar experience, but it currently only affects them every 12 years. Arguably, South Africa suffered from too many old lags from the 2007 World Cup sticking around to face the Lions in 2009.

The problem can become exacerbated if a player makes it to a Lions series, and then decides that perhaps the old body might even be able to stretch to another World Cup. We are looking at you, John Smit and Lawrence Dallaglio.

It's always difficult to retire from international competition. With the Lions acting as a convenient bridge between World Cups, it's perhaps even harder for Home Union players. The four year abyss is broken up into two manageable two year chunks. And the only reliable way you can get on a Lions tour, unless your name is Matt Stevens, is if you are still an active international.


Another issue is whether any of the Home Unions actually gain anything useful from a Lions tour. All four sides have poor records against the southern hemisphere Big Three. Losing a series surely does nothing to encourage the players to believe they can front up and regularly beat these teams. However, even if the Lions win, how does this help? We are handicapped here by the fact that they haven't won since 1997, so there isn't really a lot of evidence one way or the other. It doesn't seem to me, though, that any individual Home Union side has ever ridden a wave of Lions success, no matter how far back you go.

One remarkable statistic in the professional era is that every Six Nations championship following a Lions tour (or Five Nations, in 1998) has been won by France. On three of those four occasions, France claimed a Grand Slam. There's simply no evidence of positive momentum for any of the Home Nations sides following a series.

Not only, then, do the four teams lose the chance to all have meaningful summer tours in a Lions year, the next big competitive tournament has also proved to be a lost opportunity to put down a marker. This is not the ideal way for any of the teams to prepare for a World Cup challenge.

Meanwhile, for the host sides, a Lions tour can give their players valuable experience of playing almost World Cup-intensity Test match rugby. And it's experience which carries forward because they stay together for the next matches rather than scattering apart as the Lions do.

There's an assymetry at work here for the Lions. Win a series, and no-one really benefits because no single Home Union can claim the credit. Lose, and there's the risk the players come away feeling just as intimidated by a southern challenge as before.


Otherwise known as a no-win situation.

Well done for spotting France lying in wait but sport doesnt work like that though many fans and players would inevitably like to make life easier for themselves. In fact now that the genie is out pf the bottle its probably an even tougher ask. It does seem a no brainer that France will go into the 2014 6Ns with an advantage but that's just the way it is and a further challenge to the home unions. You can't take your ball home because you think you won't win. Legends are made of these situations

I suppose it depends on how you look at development.

Granted Scotland is the least affected by the Lions tour, but lets take them as an example.

From what I have read I think there are 9 uncapped players going on the tour to SA.

So that allows the coach to test the waters with some new talent. The more affected the team the more newbies you would find in the squad.

So from a development point of view I think it is beneficial.

Continuity at this stage with roughly 25 tests to go before the next RWC I doubt three tests will make a difference in that regard.

Ye Bilts right, continuity 2 years out means little, and there will probably be 8 - 12 players per squad drafted in before the world cup.

Wales have been obliterated by the lions but think of it this way...

The 15 lions will get new experiences, play top level rugby and grow as players, while 15 other players get a chance to tour to Japan, link in with the national set up and get a feel of what it's all about.

The only counter argument I can see is the effects of fatigue, highlighted by how many internationals who didn't make the plane are getting off to rest. But we are still 2 years out, so a rest period end of next season would be far better for the players IMHO.

Continuity is a key issue but 2 years out is too far, again look at Wales, we have been settled for 3 seasons or so, and have been pretty succesfull in the comps we have entered, winning 2 6N and semi at a world cup, but that team is aging and a number of players won't make 2015, so we need replacements, and the tour to Japan will be better for the players behind than it would be for the likes of Jones, Jenkins, Jones, Evans etc...

I think its a good thing.

Lions tour puts all players on edge. Some get are comfortable playing for their nation... may be goood enough for Ireland etc... but is it good enough for the Lions? Pushes people to raise their game.
Challenges players in difficult environments, out of their comfort zone and they get to learn off playing with other coaches/strategies/players.

Probably won't do Wales much good given the players will learn the mind of Gatland... how he prepares, his preferences etc.

Also gives players a chance to make wholesale changes to their touring side when senior players are away on test duty. Perhaps guys like Wade, Twelvetrees etc can make a stake for the jersey.

Injury wise its not great as players play 3-4 tough matches more than they would do in the summer add the travel etc.
Players that just don't get into the test 23 tend to get a little demoralised... look what happened to guys like Balshaw, Henson etc.

What about players like Robshaw, Brown etc who were disappointed to miss out on selection... how does it impact their morale??? Knowing that they in all probability had it been any other coach they would have gone (Gatland's choice of Lydiate wouldn't have been chosen by any others due to injury surely... but as one of Gatland's favourites he got in). Even the biggest performers need reassurance. Look at Football and Gazza... a total clown, a child but he was a brilliant performer in the big stage... yet he needed people constantly around him to reassure him etc. Look what happened when he didn't get that.

Overall I think its positive as coaches of the national teams get a unique outlook at their players and especially how their senior players react in pressurised environments. 2 years is far away enough for players to recover from injuries/form if managed the right way and the matches are played at an intensity not seen outside of the KO stages of a RWC.

John Smit was a unique case. PDV had no friends amongst the players and Smit was the only real one to defend him (as an Englishman he was also partially an outsider amongst a Boere core) and he came to depend on him too much where he was finally seen as undroppable.

Yeah i agree with the above...i dont think it does affect the chances.

1) Its been said being on a lions tour brings your game on the equivalent of 2-3 years..such is the standards and quality of the tour, and squad your with. So those home nations can only benefit...

2) Whilst the lions are away, the home nations tours tend to be development ones...thus senior non lions get a summer to recharge and the young pretenders get a chance to show what they can do.

On the France thing...and how they get one over other European sides after a Lions tour.

Is that all so clear cut?

France have won the Six Nations 5 times in 14 years.

Three of those times did fall the year after a Lions tour:
2010, 2006, 2002

They also won two outside that pattern in 2007 and 2004.

They've also been runners-up 3 times and 3rd three times.

So that's 11 years that France have been either 1st, 2nd or 3rd in a 14 year span. Hardly the record of an opportunistic side that takes advantage of superior sides once every four years after a tough Lions tour.

So where's the real pattern in France's relationship with winning in 6N? Well, there is a bit of a pretty distinct pattern when you relate it to WCs yes. The year before the last three world cups, France have won the 6N. So rather than saying they take advantage in years following Lions tours, better to think of it as their rhythm is based on a four yearly WC cycle instead.

The proof of the pudding on that one is their WC record itself... which for a NH side isn't all that bad. In the 7 WCs that have taken place to date, they've been 4th twice, 3rd once and runners-up three times. Again, hardly a record that suggests it merely takes advantage of NH sides (or exclusively thinks about NH sides!) in the lead in to WCs.

France will probably have the tougher tour this season too as they don't stop playing just because the Lions are all over the media. Three games against the All Blacks isn't exactly a holiday.

I think it's safe to say France don't really care what the other Europeans do during Lions years, they're looking after their own priorities in their own way.

I think if the Lions tour didnt exist, someone would invent something similar in between the WC cycles. A world club championship or similar. I can't see how an endless round of games against the same teams for 3 years followed by a WC would be seen as a 'good product', so something would be invented.

With regards to France, I would argue that they are just generally a good team, they dont just win because other players are knackered.

Another way of looking at is Heineken Cups, Bath won in 1998, Leicester in 2002 and Munster in 2006. Only Toulouse in 2010 breaks the cycle of a team with Lions in from the previous year winning it.

I wonder how the Italians will fair next year, it's safe to say they are now a team who regularly pick up wins in the tournament, and are getting stronger all the time...

Will this lead to their highest ever finish? Will they get that England W they have so nearly had in recent years? will they pick up a 3rd win?

The Italians are touring SA with Scotland and will be playing three matches in SA in the mini tournament, I reckon that might also stand them in good stead.

Biltong wrote:The Italians are touring SA with Scotland and will be playing three matches in SA in the mini tournament, I reckon that might also stand them in good stead.

Or tire them out and allow a tired Ireland side to beat an exhausted Italian outfit come 6N???


When you joke about it you really do realise how silly the idea is that games played the summer of one year infuence the readiness of teams to play 6N in February of the following year. Or even more peculiarly, that playing under one Banner (Nation) during a summer gives you an edge on players who play under another banner (Lions). Same chances to advance your skills are there in both, same risks of getting a long term injury are there in both.

But, having said that - the only downside I see for players who play Lions is the little hints and tricks players pick up about how other national players play when in camp. They're closer to their opponents than they usually ever get. They see how they operate in training, they overhear little things about National tactics and moves etc. So you could say, that rather than France and now Italy being able to take advantage of Lion's fatigued players, the Lion's sides themselves might actually be cancelling each other out to an extent immediately after a Lions tour.

Good Post Rugby Fan - agree with most of that.

There are a few points that maybe need some elaboration:
1. Injury.
Tourists will say how the training for the Lions is at least twice as intensive as any other they have ever been involved in. This is to try to make up for the lack of opportunity to build a team. No player admits an injury and missing limbs are no more than "flesh wounds", as everyone wants to play in the Tests. All of which means that injury is both more likely and more severe than on other tours.

2. Player development.
Two years out from a RWC is crucial for player development, but with the Lions absentees it is the "wrong" players getting developed! Most of the senior guys away with the Lions are the ones who will be starting at the RWC, their replacements build a certain amount of depth but are unlikely to make the RWC Test team much stronger. It would be much better to have a look at alternatives for the weakest positions in the team, with the senior players around them to judge the options properly.

3. Number of games before the RWC.
For Ireland the 2013 summer tour is a write-off because the senior players are away, and little will be gained from matching the Wolfhounds against Canada and USA. The 2013 AIs are also a write-off because returning Lions (that aren't injured) will be given time off from their provinces. Those that appear in the AIs will be rusty especially if the new coach introduces some new players. So it is not just the summer tour games that are affected by the Lions but also the following AIs - say 6 games. That leaves about 17 games before the RWC when Schmidt will have a full deck to pick from and try to gel a team. So he has in effect lost 25% of his team building opportunities because of the Lions.

The point I'm looking to address is the performance of the Home Unions against southern hemisphere sides. To win a World Cup, one of those four teams will have to defeat at least one, and usually two, of the Big 3.

How does the Lions experience help the Home Unions achieve that goal? It doesn't. It certainly doesn't give the players any edge. At best, you might say the experience is neutral but I'm floating the idea that it may actually be detrimental to our individual chances.

I'm taking it for granted that all the Home Union teams carry some psychological baggage when they play the Big 3. They are consistently the top teams in the world, so it's not unreasonable to concede a playing advantage to them, but I really don't think the Home Union record against these sides should be as bad as it is.

The two teams to be hurt most in the professional era are Wales and Ireland. The only real way to build a team's confidence against these opponents is to take them on when you've got some momentum and get some wins.

In 2005, Wales won a Grand Slam but their main players spent the summer mixed up in Woodward's squad, getting their backsides kicked by New Zealand, using attack and defensive systems which were alien to those which had served them well in the Six Nations.

Surely it would have been better for them to have travelled instead as a Welsh team to take on the All Blacks. Or South Africa and Australia, just as France did that year. Or rested key players and gone on a development tour with a squad actively chosen, rather than passively selected from those not named to the Lions.

Wales had already suffered on the Lions tour of 2001 from the breakdown in the relationship between their players and Graham Henry. Perhaps that would have happened anyway, we'll never know. It's just as possible that the squad would have benefited from having him in charge, unquestioned, for longer. It didn't do New Zealand any harm.

In 2009, Ireland weren't helped by the Lions. As Grand Slam winners, they ought to have been confident of giving the Springboks a challenge on their own. While their best players were getting mentally and physically drained with the Lions in a brutal, and unsuccessful tour, France were off beating New Zealand. The same French team which Ireland had defeated in the Six Nations.

France don't have a particularly stellar touring record in the south. For instance, their last victory over Australia was in 1990, during a losing series. However, they do get wins, including series wins, so they aren't saddled with the weight of history in the same way as Wales and Ireland.

I'm not arguing that either Home Union side would definitely have won a series if they had travelled south alone, rather than gone as part of the Lions but, if they had lost, they would at least have done so on their own terms. And there's always the chance they would have won a match, just as France have managed in South Africa and New Zealand, and got the monkey off their backs. Even Scotland, the team least affected by Lions tours in the professional era, have recorded a win over Australia away from home.

Perhaps some might argue that last year's experience, when England, Wales and Ireland all failed to win a game during their three match series against the Big 3, suggests I'm too optimistic about thinking Home Union sides are better off travelling alone. Well, it was certainly a very poor start but I think more opportunities like this in the past, without a Lions series getting in the way, would have turned up more wins. These confrontations will take place more regularly in the future, so we'll see.

Mind you, if there are genuine moves to a global season then some of this discussion will be rendered moot.

Meanwhile, we have another Lions series. I'm looking forward to it. Perhaps we'll beat the Wallabies and all the players will get a boost when they next face major southern opposition. I suppose it could happen, but it has never happened before.

Rugby Fan wrote:I always enjoy Lions tours but I sometimes wonder whether they have begun to act as an obstacle to the development of Home Union national sides. I'm ignoring the financial contribution of tours to all the Unions because I just want to consider the playing impact.

Firstly, there's the timing. The Lions tour two years after a World Cup. This seems to me to be a key period of the development of any national side with ambitions to do well next time around. It's often mentioned that one of the key stepping stones to England's 2003 success was the 2001 tour to Argentina. The Home Union sides get three chances to tour in summer between World Cups and one of those is disrupted by the Lions.

How much better would it be for player development, team building, and continuity in selection if the Home Unions sides could take full advantage of all three tours? Two or three of the Home Union sides could use a Lions-free year to take on the Southern Hemisphere sides again. If they did want to stand down some leading players and tour Japan or North America, then this would still be an option.

In a Lions year, it's usually not viable for Home Union teams to play major sides with their remaining players (despite recent experience, it's not written in stone that Scotland will always provide a small contingent). England can perhaps still get away with facing Argentina because we have greater - not necessarily better - playing resources. A full strength Argentinian side is now a real handful, however, so even England will struggle on current trends should top Pumas turn out.

The only real advantage for a national side spending a summer tour with a development or "B" side is if leading players get a chance to rest, or even have some surgery to get rid of niggles. In a Lions year, these players will instead be knocking seven bells out of each other for a different cause.


There's another timing issue.


Many players see a World cup campaign as a career peak. For those beginning to feel their age, it's often an occasion to announce their international retirement, regardless of how their teams fared at the tournament. Four years to the next Cup seems a long way off, and committing to another cycle can see a bridge too far.

If you are a Home Unions player, however, there is the attraction of the next Lions tour, and two years can seem a lot easier to navigate mentally and physically. Most will not have lifted the Webb Ellis trophy, so there is the added appeal of hanging on to see if they can sign off with a taste of Lions success. Indeed, the pull of a tour was enough to encourage some of England's old guard to stick around even when they won the trophy.

I'm not suggesting that there should always be a clearout after a World Cup, or that such disruption is necessarily good for a team. It's undeniable, though, that the existence of the Lions acts as an additional incentive for older players to prolong their careers which other national teams don't have. Well, I suppose the host country for the Lions has a similar experience, but it currently only affects them every 12 years. Arguably, South Africa suffered from too many old lags from the 2007 World Cup sticking around to face the Lions in 2009.

The problem can become exacerbated if a player makes it to a Lions series, and then decides that perhaps the old body might even be able to stretch to another World Cup. We are looking at you, John Smit and Lawrence Dallaglio.

It's always difficult to retire from international competition. With the Lions acting as a convenient bridge between World Cups, it's perhaps even harder for Home Union players. The four year abyss is broken up into two manageable two year chunks. And the only reliable way you can get on a Lions tour, unless your name is Matt Stevens, is if you are still an active international.


Another issue is whether any of the Home Unions actually gain anything useful from a Lions tour. All four sides have poor records against the southern hemisphere Big Three. Losing a series surely does nothing to encourage the players to believe they can front up and regularly beat these teams. However, even if the Lions win, how does this help? We are handicapped here by the fact that they haven't won since 1997, so there isn't really a lot of evidence one way or the other. It doesn't seem to me, though, that any individual Home Union side has ever ridden a wave of Lions success, no matter how far back you go.

One remarkable statistic in the professional era is that every Six Nations championship following a Lions tour (or Five Nations, in 1998) has been won by France. On three of those four occasions, France claimed a Grand Slam. There's simply no evidence of positive momentum for any of the Home Nations sides following a series.

Not only, then, do the four teams lose the chance to all have meaningful summer tours in a Lions year, the next big competitive tournament has also proved to be a lost opportunity to put down a marker. This is not the ideal way for any of the teams to prepare for a World Cup challenge.

Meanwhile, for the host sides, a Lions tour can give their players valuable experience of playing almost World Cup-intensity Test match rugby. And it's experience which carries forward because they stay together for the next matches rather than scattering apart as the Lions do.

There's an assymetry at work here for the Lions. Win a series, and no-one really benefits because no single Home Union can claim the credit. Lose, and there's the risk the players come away feeling just as intimidated by a southern challenge as before.


Otherwise known as a no-win situation.

I don't see your point even though it is a very long one. The only time a NH side won the WC in 2003 there was a Lions tour in 2001. That England team was in development from 99 onwards winning the 6n in 3 of the 4 years leading up to 2003 and slaming that year. You do not build a WC winning team in 2 years, so if you ain't there now, you ain't winning no WC. England are nowhere near having a WC winning side and are already out of time. Lions Tours have nothing to do with it.

If it takes four years to build a RWC team, the B&I unions are immediately disadvantaged against their SH opposition as they effectively have one year less to build their team.

dragonbreath wrote:I don't see your point even though it is a very long one...You do not build a WC winning team in 2 years..

I haven't said that. I'm arguing that you need all four years to build up to a World Cup and a Lions Tour, always scheduled smack bang in the middle of that cycle, can adversely affect the preparation of the Home Union sides.

The England World Cup side didn't gain anything useful from the 2001 Lions Tour. They had started to beat Big 3 opposition on their own, with two victories over South Africa and one over Australia in the 12 months before the Lions tour.

The first thing the England team did after the unsuccessful Lions tour was lose feebly to Ireland in the Six Nations match which had been postponed because of foot and mouth. The Ireland starting XV for that match featured three members of the Lions squad, the England team featured thirteen.

It's a stretch to say that England team suffered from the 2001 Lions because they went on to beat Australia and South Africa again only a few weeks later. However, the French victory in the following year's Six Nations does fit a familiar post-tour pattern and England did manage to miss out on two Grand Slams in six months.

At best, the 2001 Lions tour proved to be a distraction for England but not a fatal one. The highest casualty was probably Iain Balshaw, who came back from the tour a busted flush.

Agree with Dragonbreath to an extent

To take the French three test tour of NZ, or our Quadrangular Tournament of SA, Samoa and Italy as examples they might not be as hard as the five week ten game Lions tour, however with 35-37 players touring most will only play 5-6 games max some will only play 3-4. Now I am certain the training for all three of the above mentioned tours will not be that far off the same intensity. I mean we are playing SA who are second ranked and Samoa very physical along with Italy who are rapidly improving and all who are taking the tournament very seriously....... with 3, 4 and 5 day training camps on-going. I am sure the French will equally be determined and serious in their approach to the tests against the All Blacks.

The Lions tour will provide massive exposure to techniques and coaching that the players probably will/might otherwise never experience, and build their confidence as players and people (in a competition that will be as close to a WC environment as it could be)........ for a WC which will still be two years in the future. Most NH sides will build the Lions tour into their four year plan, as will the SH sides who have equally tough tournaments.

So in my mind a Lions tour will be more beneficial than detrimental to a players progression towards an optimum performance in a world cup.

flyhalffactory wrote:The Lions tour will provide massive exposure to techniques and coaching that the players probably will never experience, and build their confidence as players and people...

What's the evidence this ever happens? Of all the players who have gone on Lions tours, how many have used the experience as a springboard to greater achievements at a World Cup?

flyhalffactory wrote:So in my mind a Lions tour will be more beneficial than detrimental to a players progression

I'm interested you focus on individual player development. As my first questions suggest, I don't think these benefits really accrue. More importantly, all the home unions should want to see their teams as a whole develop. Why can't individual development take place within the fortunes of the national squad, as it does with all other sides?

When the chips are down, you want players to look around at their team mates and think, "We've been here before and turned it around, we can do it again here". Not "I've been here before with some other blokes, and sometimes we turned it around, but mostly we didn't. Not sure about you lot".

Rugby fan

There is no concrete evidence to highlight how a Lions tour advances a players status. Its just my opinion that having exposure to a world class environment of coaches, players and opposition will on the whole improve a player or group of players. Of course an improved player will pass that experience and confidence onto his international team-mates who didn't tour.

And yes we want our players develop at the same pace, at the same time, in the same place as a uniformed group, playing in the same league, in the same uniformed team but unfortunately that's slightly away with the fairies. Competition dictates that individual grow and progress at different rates and at different times. An example is Glasgow's Barclay going to West Wales and playing for the Scarlets, or Sexton going on his French excursion to improve themselves.

flyhalffactory wrote:The Lions tour will provide massive exposure to techniques and coaching that the players probably will/might otherwise never experience, and build their confidence as players and people (in a competition that will be as close to a WC environment as it could be)........ for a WC which will still be two years in the future. Most NH sides will build the Lions tour into their four year plan, as will the SH sides who have equally tough tournaments.

So in my mind a Lions tour will be more beneficial than detrimental to a players progression towards an optimum performance in a world cup.

For Welsh Players how will the Lions provide "massive exposure to techniques and coaching"? Are Rowntree or Farrell really that groundbreaking? What about Howley and Jenkins do they have the coaching credentials to rule the world?

There simply isn't time for any players to be coached in techniques that will change their physical game. Psychologically the few who are selected for the Test team will feel good about themselves, but the ones who aren't will be deflated. Of course they will not be as deflated as their team mates who didn't make the tour, and when their national side is re-united there is a new hierarchy of the haves and have nots. In other words the Lions is superb at introducing divisions into the B&I nations whereas their SH opponents are never more united.

Rugby Fan wrote:

dragonbreath wrote:I don't see your point even though it is a very long one...You do not build a WC winning team in 2 years..

I haven't said that. I'm arguing that you need all four years to build up to a World Cup and a Lions Tour, always scheduled smack bang in the middle of that cycle, can adversely affect the preparation of the Home Union sides.

The England World Cup side didn't gain anything useful from the 2001 Lions Tour. They had started to beat Big 3 opposition on their own, with two victories over South Africa and one over Australia in the 12 months before the Lions tour.

The first thing the England team did after the unsuccessful Lions tour was lose feebly to Ireland in the Six Nations match which had been postponed because of foot and mouth. The Ireland starting XV for that match featured three members of the Lions squad, the England team featured thirteen.

It's a stretch to say that England team suffered from the 2001 Lions because they went on to beat Australia and South Africa again only a few weeks later. However, the French victory in the following year's Six Nations does fit a familiar post-tour pattern and England did manage to miss out on two Grand Slams in six months.

At best, the 2001 Lions tour proved to be a distraction for England but not a fatal one. The highest casualty was probably Iain Balshaw, who came back from the tour a busted flush.

So that is why Home nations do not regularly win the WC its these blasted Lions tours. If it were not for them we would clearly have dominated the WC tournaments. Sorry but complete

dragonbreath wrote:So that is why Home nations do not regularly win the WC its these blasted Lions tours. If it were not for them we would clearly have dominated the WC tournaments. Sorry but complete

I agree, those claims are complete rubbish. That's why I haven't made them.

Flyhalffactory,

I agree that the Lions represents a peak for many Home Union players and I do think a tour can be a real step up in intensity. That's part of the problem.

Many Home Union players excelled on tour in 2009, despite the series loss. Rather than going on to pass on their experience and confidence to those who didn't feature, a fair number saw their form drop alarmingly. It's as if they were emotionally and physically drained. For instance, Tom Croft and Jamie Roberts are only now back to the standard they showed four years ago. They didn't kick on. Nor did Rob Kearney, who was imperious at full back.

How did Wales use their key Lions come to the 2009 Autumn Internationals a few months later? Well, they couldn't in some cases. Mike Phillips, Adam Jones and Lee Byrne were out injured. Jones was injured in South Africa while Byrne had a foot problem, which he probably would have dealt with in summer, if not for the pull of Lions action. Who knows if Phillips would have broken down without the Lions, but it likely didn't help.

Wales ran the All Blacks close in Cardiff in 2009 but they probably missed those three players. If the Welsh Lions had passed on any confidence to their team mates then it was conspicuously absent in the next match against Samoa. Wales misfired and the Islanders came close to nicking it at the death.

This isn't a pop at Wales. Quite the opposite. Like today, they had the men and talent to mount a challenge to the best. They could have been doing that as Wales in summer 2009, or using the time to get a proper run-in for a competitive set of Autumn matches. The Lions got in their way.

I haven't suggested anywhere that player development is ever some lock-step progress across a team. It's inevitable that players come on at different speeds and peak at different times. Surely, though, it serves the individual Home Union teams better if those Test match peaks take place in national colours rather than under a Lions banner.

I enjoy Lions tours. This isn't an argument for them to end, I'm making a different point.

Put simply, imagine if Lions tours didn't exist, and all the four Home Unions had to work out the ideal four year schedule to see their teams peaking for a World Cup. Who really believes they would come together and agree that picking a combined team to tour for a summer in the middle of that cycle would be part of the best possible preparation?

Yes, the unions might come up with the idea, or something similar, for financial and marketing reasons. Certainly not for playing reasons.

on the basis that france are given a default advantage in next years 6 nations, and scotland also are advantaged while wales are seriously disadvantaged (yet another reason why i resent the WRU letting Gats have his lions jolly) then yes, i think rwc is directly affected by this tour.
Wales would be within their rights to say that after their Massive domination of the 6 Nations from 05 and especially since 2012, that they will expect to successfully defend their title in 14, but the lions means that is unlikely.
If they do win either next year or 15 then i expect them to comfortably qualify for the knockout phases, probably at the expense of england assuming that either this year or next they achieve a 75% Ws in the AIs

Rugby Fan wrote:Put simply, imagine if Lions tours didn't exist, and all the four Home Unions had to work out the ideal four year schedule to see their teams peaking for a World Cup. Who really believes they would come together and agree that picking a combined team to tour for a summer in the middle of that cycle would be part of the best possible preparation?

Yes, the unions might come up with the idea, or something similar, for financial and marketing reasons. Certainly not for playing reasons.

Rugby
I disagree with you entirely, your rationale is flawed

A player generally improves by mixing with players of the same or higher level...... If you take an example of Mr Gatland when he arrived to take over the Welsh hot seat one of the first things he said was that Wales have to play the top three on a regular basis. Stephen Jones going to France made him a better player, possibly Gethin Jenkins having not played very often might not have improved maybe? utter rubbish of course he has improved...... exposure to first class players and coaches on a daily basis even if it has meant that he has been warming the bench has made him more aware.

I know Stuart Hogg, Maitland and Gray who for the next two months will have exposure to a different coaching team, new techniques, just watching on the field and off the Halfpennys, Kearneys, Bowes, Norths, POCs, AWJs etc maybe just maybe actually getting to a stage where they might be selected ahead of them.

WOW what confidence to bring back to Scotland for the new season and discuss all the new bits and pieces to their clubs and country team mates. And the other posters who are suggesting a divide of "them (Scot/Wal/Eng/Ire Lions) and Us (Scot/Wal/Eng/Ire tourists )" will occur is just clutching at straws..... hell I am sure all the Scotland rugby team are proud of our boys and will be itching to pick their brains when they come back from Oz.

There have been plenty of examples on Lions tours of how players who some (outside of their Country) consider not very good but have gone on to lift themselves when mixing with better players.

Who really expected Smith and Wallace to be test props in 97, Dafydd James played in all 3 tests in 01 but even the most one eyed Welsh amongst would never have predicted that.

It is three test matches Rugbyfan not a whole season.

flyhalffactory wrote:A player generally improves by mixing with players of the same or higher level...... If you take an example of Mr Gatland when he arrived to take over the Welsh hot seat one of the first things he said was that Wales have to play the top three on a regular basis. Stephen Jones going to France made him a better player, possibly Gethin Jenkins having not played very often might not have improved maybe? utter rubbish of course he has improved...... exposure to first class players and coaches on a daily basis even if it has meant that he has been warming the bench has made him more aware.

It seems ironic then that the Lions deny Wales (and the rest) the chance to tour against the SH teams.

There is a world of difference between spending months or seasons in a different environment, building technique and conditioning over time, and being thrust into a totally alien world of 6 (audition) matches in 18 days. That punishing shedule doesn't happen anywhere else, and certainly won't happen to the hosts who will rest players rather than flog them to death. Then again the host country will try to look after their players because it is in their interest to do so.

Aukster

What are you going on about?

The 4 Nations visit (summer) and receive (autumn) SH visitors, in fact with regard to the WRU they have recently pushed in an extra international mush against the regions wishes.

The 4 Nations all have summer tours where in most post season generally use them as development and match fitness programmes for players coming back from injury. Wales are going to Japan for example and have a cracking squad of players who just be the star performers come 2015

Lions tour - a five week period once every four years
This is a 37 man squad playing what 10 games over 5 weeks. I doubt very much that with all the modern forms of communications, travel and freedom of labour movement, this is not the same as a Lions tour of the 1960-70s or even 80s. I remember it was a huge event when you played the All Blacks as you rarely encountered them more than every four years, now we seem to play them twice a year.

Four years is a very long or very short time dependant on the players individually or the nation as a whole. For every player that has a perceived post Lions drop in form, there are others who have come back with a bang.

Rugby Fan wrote:

dragonbreath wrote:So that is why Home nations do not regularly win the WC its these blasted Lions tours. If it were not for them we would clearly have dominated the WC tournaments. Sorry but complete

I agree, those claims are complete rubbish. That's why I haven't made them.

Not explicitly but if you condense your dissertation that is what you are left with

Lets be perfectly honest, while some players may come back injured from a Lions tour, 5 weeks out of the 200 odd inbetween world cups isn't going to make the difference between and losing a WC. This is especially true when not all of a 6N team even go on the tour.

If there was no Lions, the 6N would shortly be jetting off for yet another tour of the old tri nations countries, 90% of the games would be lost and frankly I don't think that is better for anyone. At least during a Lions series the depleted teams are playing fixtures against the 'lesser' teams, which is far better for world rugby than watching NZ hammer someone again.

A Lions tour certainly doesn't harm the 3N/4N chances of their opposition-who've gone onto win the 3N the last three times straight afterwards.

I think there is a little over analysis on this thread. There is no evidence that a Lions tour helps or hinders a team at the World Cup. Surely any opportunity that a player gets, particularly younger players, to take on the best teams in the world away from home is invaluable experience. Since only one "home union" has lifted the WC (and they were clearly the best team in the world at the time) I don't think the other NH failiures can be put down to Lions tours every 4 years !

flyhalffactory wrote:What are you going on about?

Gatland suggested Wales needed to be playing against better teams on a regular basis - nothing contentious there (Woodward said the same). The irony is that the Lions' tour denies the B&I teams an opportunity to play against better teams, therefore that is contrary to what he had pinpointed as essential.

I wrote this list of players on the old 606 board in february 2010 after the 2009 tour, it shows the lions tourists that were injured on or since the lions tour alot were long term knee, neck and shoulder problems.

Lee Byrne – Injured
Stephen Jones – injured
Mike Phillips – injured
Gethin Jenkins - injured
Lee Mears – injured,
Phil Vickery – injured
Tom Croft - two knee injuries
Matthew Rees - injured
Adam Jones - injured
Donncha O'Callaghan - injured
Harry Ellis - injured
Rob Kearney - injured
Luke Fitzgerald- injured
Simon Shaw – injured,
Andrew Sheridan – injured
Flutey- injured
Worsley- injured
Stephen ferris – injured

Also alot of guys that weren't injured had a serious drop in form. Basically during a lions rugby season guys play rugby for soo long at such high intensity the majority suffer the following year either physically or mentally. Does this effect world cup chances, well thats debatable, as a long term injury can sometimes result in freshness the following year and allow deeper squad depth to grow, but it definatley has an effect in the season straight after after the lions.

offload wrote:I think there is a little over analysis on this thread. There is no evidence that a Lions tour helps or hinders a team at the World Cup. Surely any opportunity that a player gets, particularly younger players, to take on the best teams in the world away from home is invaluable experience. Since only one "home union" has lifted the WC (and they were clearly the best team in the world at the time) I don't think the other NH failiures can be put down to Lions tours every 4 years !

If there is no evidence that a player with Lions' experience helps his team (at the RWC or otherwise), then how is that experience "invaluable"?

...unless you mean for his personal rugby memorabilia collection?

100%beefy wrote:Wales would be within their rights to say that after their Massive domination of the 6 Nations from 05 and especially since 2012, that they will expect to successfully defend their title in 14, but the lions means that is unlikely.

Just to pick you up on the "massive domination" comment. Six Nations table of the last Lions cycle:


Played Won Drawn Lost For Against Difference Tries points
1 England 20 14 1 5 412 306 106 31 29
2 Wales 20 14 0 6 439 330 109 35 28
3 France 20 11 2 7 426 337 89 37 24
4 Ireland 20 9 2 9 392 351 41 39 20
5 Italy 20 5 0 15 267 507 -240 20 10
6 Scotland 20 4 1 15 319 424 -105 20 9

The Great Aukster wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:What are you going on about?

Gatland suggested Wales needed to be playing against better teams on a regular basis - nothing contentious there (Woodward said the same). The irony is that the Lions' tour denies the B&I teams an opportunity to play against better teams, therefore that is contrary to what he had pinpointed as essential.

Are you seriously suggesting that the 37 (and probably 40 plus by the time the tour ends) home nations players are denied having exposure to the crème de la crème of world rugby, not just mixing with arguably the best 37 B&I players on and off the field for five-six weeks, but learning from the Lions committee (ex-players / coaches), the Lions coaches, upping your game every training session and every game to try to get in that test team, facing world class opposition players, coaching style, and crowds. Australia will be putting their best available sides out for the three tests and the other seven club sides will no doubt be upping their game over and beyond anything they will have ever done.

And that is my point to do well on a world stage you have to have gain regular exposure to this environment........ Gatland I am sure would be the first to admit that with the right attitude the 15 Welshmen (and coaches) will become much better players on a Lions tour than a 2-3 match summer tour of say Japan, Argentina or Samoa.

I can see your rationale on a short term basis..... players come back injured, or the mental "high" of being around world class mentality bringing about a "loss of form" when back to your club, (province, or region) but that has more to do with how their club is perceived to be by the player when he starts pre-season training. In the case of Jamie Roberts as an example he went from playing with BOD and the likes, becoming Player Of The Tournament to then playing for Cardiff Blues and their internal politics, pettiness and arguments of "where they should be playing", "central contracts", "the player drain" etc. However its also to do with the "professionalism" of the player when he comes back I cant recall Gavin Hastings, Will Greenwood. Johnny Wilkinson, BOD, ever losing form straight after a Lions.

Does it harm your chances of WC success?...................Its something that you cant prove one way or another, I just think it offers a different slant on a professional environment over a 5-6 week period during a 4 year window between world cups and with the right mental attitude it can improve you as a player.