Woodward claims Hong Kong match against Barbarians is a waste of time

Maybe it's Woodward catering to his readers but in his Daily Mail column he has labelled the Barbarians dishevelled and uninterested. He implies the Hong Kong venue has cynically been organized because it is the headquarters of the Lions' main sponsor HSBC.

Forecast to be 29 degrees with 90 per cent humidity, the game apparently will have an enforced drinks break in between each half. The Barbarians have had an enforced alcohol ban this week after their poor showing against a developmental England side.

Woodward claims that the conditions and the opposition will do little to prepare them against the Wallabies. They would've been best prepared to face a team like Tonga, Samoa or Fiji, as he believes they would've treated it with more respect.

In part I can see his view. But what does this say of the Barbarians concept? Has its time come and should warm up matches be played only between test sides rather than composite sides. If so, what does that say about the Lions concept? Will these words motivate the Barbarians to higher things?

I think these are legitimate comments in many ways. Like the failed Australia New Zealand test match a while back, ticket sales have been very poor. Th corporate sector has been targeted but little appears to have been done to attract any mainstream element with no doubt ticket prices being the main setback. The Lions will encounter more warmth and humidity in Brisbane but nowhere near these levels. I don't know who watched the England Baabaas match but it must have been disappointing in some ways that they didn't put up much of a fight against a very green looking England side. No doubt Woodward will face a backlash for these comments and people will dredge up 2005. But I can't help but feel a match against a reject Lions side against the touring Lions back in London would've served more of a useful lineup than this match.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/8742580/Woodward-slams-Lions-over-Barbarians-clash

Here's the link to the article I read.

I think had they collaborated with the Barbarians to try and get more Lions who were unlucky to miss the boat it would have been better- or taken the Lions to Fiji for their centenary year.

Ultimately, they had to organise another match- Australia only offered 9 games. I'm still optimistic (and I actually do expect) that the Barbarians will put up a better fight than they did versus England when they were shockingly poor. This is a much stronger team and has had the benefit of an extra weeks training. It was obvious they spent far too much time boozing before the England game and too little training. Team Bonding is part of the Barbarians ethos but if they want to seriously play test sides and compete they need to be a lot more professional.

The only thing I don't like is the commercial consideration in choice of venue. As much as they spin it, conditions are far from ideal for rugby with most Lions and BaaBaas losing several kilograms over their past few training sessions.

I'll watch the match tomorrow but it is a bit of a sideshow. The tour doesn't really start until we're in Australia.

Does Mr Gray look damn big there, even compared to Ian Evans?, and it looks like "Porkie" Hibbard can do with a tad more conditioning!.

Agree to a certain extent with SCW, and feel a little bit for the players chosen to play in the those conditions not only the weather 30degrees and bonkers humidity, but the perception of the quality of opponents. Bit of a "lose lose" situation in a way........... play well/win and it will be perceived to be against poor opposition, lose and it could put a black mark against their chances.

Money talks though. "What a load of Bankers"

I agree with CW, and a lot of others, but there are a positive or 2...

Firstly with that heat and humidity the game will act as overtraining, and as long as managed correctly it can have a positive effect on performance, even if it is minute.

The Hong kong stopover for a few days will be a good way to deal with the travel, 2 long flights broken up into far more managable ones.

The game itself acts like a buffer, not important enough for the players who played last weekend and miss out feel like theyve actually missed anything, and the players involved in a lot of cases have question marks over their fitness, injury or form, allowing all demons to be excised.

Uuuummm, now I'm struggling a bit...

The hype in HK might be lesser than landing on Aus soil, allowing for more together time out of the spotlight (especially after the UK and Ire tour)

Oh and they won't have to have any more dinners with comp winners?

Thats it i'm out

To a large degree I am in agreement with SCW.

However with his record he is not exactly pontificating from a position of strength.

Like most here I do agree with Woodward, and a game against one of the PI teams may have been better competition.

But after all this criticism, what will happen to moral if the Baabaa's do win? We've had a week of every hack out there laying in to them for being a useless bunch or chinless money grabbers playing for a team that's a relic from the past, if they were to win tomorrow then that'd be a terrible start for the Lions.

Remember the Baabaa's lost convincingly to England last season, and then went on to beat Ireland and Wales.

LondonTiger wrote:To a large degree I am in agreement with SCW.

However with his record he is not exactly pontificating from a position of strength.

Hear, hear!
After what he did to the Lions, I wouldn't hold his opinion in too high a regard.
He does, however, have that smug look on his face which means that you would never tire of punching him. A bit like Richard Branson and Wee Alex Salmond

For the first time in 10 years Sir Clive Woodward has had a good idea, in an interview I read he suggested playing Fiji or Tonga, I'm sure it would have been a better idea, rugby-wise, to play in Fiji/ Tonga in the build up to the Test series. We can all sit here and criticise New Zealand and Australia for poaching their players and never having played in the country yet we're going over to the southern hemisphere with Tuilagi, Faletau and Vunipola and playing a fixture in Hong Kong (which is definitely not for commercial reasons). The heat wouldn't be more intense than in Hong Kong, the rugby would be tougher and it would help to honour their 100th Anniversary, think how much these nations have given to us - not just International players but in the clubs too.

Woodward is right,but i will be watching tomorrow thou

Waa waa waa so much lions negativity, its the first game, half the squad are.knackered after finals rugby, and many starters are finding match fitness after long term injuries. The number of games the whole.squad has to fit in over the next few weeks is ridiculous, the worst thing we could.do is play a pacific island team who have one aim to tackle.and hit as hard as they can likely injuring a couple of players. The babas had a shoddy game last week but this is no side of fools with the babas scalping big name teams over recent years. This match is the perfect warm up for our guys returning from injury, guys out of form and chaps on the periphery of the squad. And don't even get me started on sir bloomin Clive woodward he has achieved nothing in over a decade in rugby and masterminded.the most embarassing lions tour I can remember, he is a rugby legend but Im fed up with his constant negative commentary on English and lions rugby.

And the rest of the world thinks that after 2005, Clive Woodward is a waste of time.

Pot kettle black
I didn't hear Woodward complaining about the micky mouse fixture in 2005 vs Argentina with possibly the most horrific lions starting XV ever, possibly worst international XV ever!

Clearly the commercial imperatives of HSBC have had a large say in the location and opposition for the first match. However as a very warm, warm up game its probably better than playing Fiji as their ability to produce a good one off performance is certainly no better, and probably worse than the Ba-Ba's. (remember Twickers last autumn?)
Now Samoa could give the Lions a much stiffer test but probably have lead to one or two tour ending injuries. Unfortunately Scotland will feel the full force of the Samonas in a couple of weeks.
What is amusing though is that Woodward's high self regard means that he is quite able to overlook the fact that he shaped and led the most embarassing Lions tour in the last 50 years,
I remember laughing myself hoarse when Sir Clive was asked, upon his return to Britain, what, if anything, he would have done differently. To which he replied, with a straight face, that he would have taken an even larger squad than the the bloated one he took to the land of the long white cloud. Apparently having even less time to find combinations for the test matches, presumably with even more past it England internationals, would have given the Lions the edge!
You couldnt have made it up.

That imbecile left out the form 12 and 11 in world rugby out of the test 22, played an over the hill 10 at 12 and picked a pack full of out of form war pensioner geriatrics in the pack!

Wooden top is just well jel that Gats has got the foresight to book a stop over. If only Gats was such a visionary and played a game in Fiji with their big hitters. Also why hasn't he taken a spin doctor?

is this the same bloke who predicted last game of the six nations half time that England had a better bench and can't see anything but a England victory

Risca Rev wrote:Wooden top is just well jel that Gats has got the foresight to book a stop over. If only Gats was such a visionary and played a game in Fiji with their big hitters. Also why hasn't he taken a spin doctor?

wel jel...your so down with the kids rev.

Haha. I know, I'm disgusted with myself for using it.

SCW is right. Just because he made mistakes in 2005 doesn't mean his viewpoint is wrong here.

The Baa Baas have become a bit of a joke in recent times and flying out of the way to play in crazy conditions could really backfire on the Lions.

Still, it's all about money isn't it and they can't even sell all the tickets.

I'm no fan of Woodward, but he's right in most of the points he raises here.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:He implies the Hong Kong venue has cynically been organized because it is the headquarters of the Lions' main sponsor HSBC.

If this is what the Woodward said (or implied) then he really should check his facts before writing in a national publication (even if it is only the daily mail). HSBC is based in London, not Hong Kong. Something tells me he would fail to raise this point if the game were played in HSBC's actual home city.

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:SCW is right. Just because he made mistakes in 2005 doesn't mean his viewpoint is wrong here.

The Baa Baas have become a bit of a joke in recent times and flying out of the way to play in crazy conditions could really backfire on the Lions.

Still, it's all about money isn't it and they can't even sell all the tickets

Flying out of the way? Did they go via the moon or something?

Wooden Top wanted a game in Hong Kong, just v a big hitting nation. Where should they have played it?

So fed up hearing about the conditions. At the beginning of the season here in HK you get a couple games in these conditions...it's not that bad. You take your water breaks, sweat it out, and get on with it. It does feel great when you play a few weeks later in cooler climate too!

just a load of media BS stirred up because nothing out of the ordinary happened in the game.

I think Sir Clive is right.

Sir Clive the Mastermind of the successful 2005 Lions speaks. FFS avoid everything this meglomaniac sais.

My last favorite gem from the rugby guru was how the english bench was far too strong in Cardoff and England will "overwhelm" Wales in the last 20. This guy is unbelievable, just seeking the headlines as usual

RubyGuby wrote:Sir Clive the Mastermind of the successful 2005 Lions speaks. FFS avoid everything this meglomaniac sais.

My last favorite gem from the rugby guru was how the english bench was far too strong in Cardoff and England will "overwhelm" Wales in the last 20. This guy is unbelievable, just seeking the headlines as usual

I still like his line in 2005 about how the Lions' red jerseys were an advantage, because in soccer a team is more likely to win when playing in a red strip, put down to some mumbo jumbo about colour association.

I guess he forgot to look at the win percentages for rugby teams playing in black

I still like his line in 2005 about how the Lions' red jerseys were an advantage, because in soccer a team is more likely to win when playing in a red strip, put down to some mumbo jumbo about colour association.

I guess he forgot to look at the win percentages for rugby teams playing in black

My favourite from 2005 is on returning home he considered the tour "a success" Record defeats for a Lions!!!
Him and Alastair Campbell were made for each other Sattchi and Starchy

RubyGuby wrote:Sir Clive the Mastermind of the successful 2005 Lions speaks. FFS avoid everything this meglomaniac sais.

My last favorite gem from the rugby guru was how the english bench was far too strong in Cardoff and England will "overwhelm" Wales in the last 20. This guy is unbelievable, just seeking the headlines as usual

in this instance he was spot on though.

Spot on! That game has had a positive influence on the Lions camp irrespective. SCW just jealous as is usual nowadays.

it probably was organised to appease HSBC but from a logistical POV it made a lot of sense. Always nice to break up such a long journey with a stopover in HK. It is probably the only big rugby country on route so why not play the babas there?

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:I still like his line in 2005 about how the Lions' red jerseys were an advantage, because in soccer a team is more likely to win when playing in a red strip, put down to some mumbo jumbo about colour association.

Reminds me of when the late Jimmy Hill applauded the fashion decision of the Romanian football team to dye their hair blond at France '98, on the grounds they would all be more distinctive on the pitch.

However, deciding that Woodward has nothing of value to say about rugby seems to be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If leading the Lions to a comprehensive defeat in New Zealand gives him that status, then I suppose we also ought to have ignored anything Jim Telfer had to say about the sport after 1983. Woodward led an unhappy tour in 2005 but so did McGeechan in 1993, and Graham Henry in 2001.

Woodward has the best record of any Home Union coach in history against the Wallabies, including two wins away from home. You don't have to like the man to think he might sometimes have an interesting observation.

I'm also a bit puzzled that some think it was better for our preparation to break the trip in Hong Kong. If that was the case, you'd think all teams flying down for a tour or tournament to Australia would do the same. Strangely, they mostly prefer to get to their destination as quickly as possible, in order to start acclimatizing to the country where they will actually be playing.

The late Jimmy hill? He's still alive!

t1000advancedprototype wrote:The late Jimmy hill? He's still alive!

Ha! I think writing someone off as dead might count as slightly ruder than dismissing someone's views on rugby...

Might have to get back in my box.

RubyGuby wrote:Spot on! That game has had a positive influence on the Lions camp irrespective. SCW just jealous as is usual nowadays.

yeah as a group of players spending time with each other it did. Didn't really tell Gatland much about combinations as the conditions were awful.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Maybe it's Woodward catering to his readers but in his Daily Mail column he has labelled the Barbarians dishevelled and uninterested. He implies the Hong Kong venue has cynically been organized because it is the headquarters of the Lions' main sponsor HSBC.

Forecast to be 29 degrees with 90 per cent humidity, the game apparently will have an enforced drinks break in between each half. The Barbarians have had an enforced alcohol ban this week after their poor showing against a developmental England side.

Woodward claims that the conditions and the opposition will do little to prepare them against the Wallabies. They would've been best prepared to face a team like Tonga, Samoa or Fiji, as he believes they would've treated it with more respect.

In part I can see his view. But what does this say of the Barbarians concept? Has its time come and should warm up matches be played only between test sides rather than composite sides. If so, what does that say about the Lions concept? Will these words motivate the Barbarians to higher things?

I think these are legitimate comments in many ways. Like the failed Australia New Zealand test match a while back, ticket sales have been very poor. Th corporate sector has been targeted but little appears to have been done to attract any mainstream element with no doubt ticket prices being the main setback. The Lions will encounter more warmth and humidity in Brisbane but nowhere near these levels. I don't know who watched the England Baabaas match but it must have been disappointing in some ways that they didn't put up much of a fight against a very green looking England side. No doubt Woodward will face a backlash for these comments and people will dredge up 2005. But I can't help but feel a match against a reject Lions side against the touring Lions back in London would've served more of a useful lineup than this match.

HSBC headquarters is in London, not Hong Kong, so he is wrong as well as bitter.

Still a bloody stupid place to hold the match. Would have been nice to see it in Britain or Ireland for a send off.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Maybe it's Woodward catering to his readers but in his Daily Mail column he has labelled the Barbarians dishevelled and uninterested. He implies the Hong Kong venue has cynically been organized because it is the headquarters of the Lions' main sponsor HSBC.

Forecast to be 29 degrees with 90 per cent humidity, the game apparently will have an enforced drinks break in between each half. The Barbarians have had an enforced alcohol ban this week after their poor showing against a developmental England side.

Woodward claims that the conditions and the opposition will do little to prepare them against the Wallabies. They would've been best prepared to face a team like Tonga, Samoa or Fiji, as he believes they would've treated it with more respect.

In part I can see his view. But what does this say of the Barbarians concept? Has its time come and should warm up matches be played only between test sides rather than composite sides. If so, what does that say about the Lions concept? Will these words motivate the Barbarians to higher things?

I think these are legitimate comments in many ways. Like the failed Australia New Zealand test match a while back, ticket sales have been very poor. Th corporate sector has been targeted but little appears to have been done to attract any mainstream element with no doubt ticket prices being the main setback. The Lions will encounter more warmth and humidity in Brisbane but nowhere near these levels. I don't know who watched the England Baabaas match but it must have been disappointing in some ways that they didn't put up much of a fight against a very green looking England side. No doubt Woodward will face a backlash for these comments and people will dredge up 2005. But I can't help but feel a match against a reject Lions side against the touring Lions back in London would've served more of a useful lineup than this match.

HSBC headquarters is in London, not Hong Kong, so he is wrong as well as bitter.

Do you know what HSBC stands for?

Maybe instead of holding this game, Gatland could have given alastair campbell a call to arrange for a photo taken to be taken of him on the phone to Jonny Wilkinson to show there's no bad feelings over not being picked.

SCW was in charge of the most embarassing Lions tour imo, totally took it away from what it should be and rightly got hammered by NZ. He can keep his comments to himself.

He's not finished yet. He's now directing his attention to Australia and saying the Lions should no longer come to Australia if they don't put out full strength sides.

This time I think he's on shaky ground. His analogy of Leicester playing the ABs does not work as the Force have a Super game this weekend. I'm sure if Leicester played a game on Friday the same players wouldn't be asked to front up on Saturday against NZ. You could argue even a full strength Force side wouldn't be a match for the Lions anyway. Australia doesn't have a competitive side like the NZ Maori and if you take the Oz test players out of their franchises you expose their depth. The Lions are not going to put their test side or at least the bulk of it against the midweek sides so why does Australia. If the Lions aren't happy with the sides they face why don't they arrange games against teams like Samoa or Fiji?

I understand the resentment that the Lions face so many obstacles to being competitive but how much do they learn or benefit from these warm up games? Match conditioning may vary if a pack is lightweight but the Lions test squad is largely already known by Gatland and his players in mind protected from these games in Australia.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:He's not finished yet. He's now directing his attention to Australia and saying the Lions should no longer come to Australia if they don't put out full strength sides.

This time I think he's on shaky ground. His analogy of Leicester playing the ABs does not work as the Force have a Super game this weekend. I'm sure if Leicester played a game on Friday the same players wouldn't be asked to front up on Saturday against NZ. You could argue even a full strength Force side wouldn't be a match for the Lions anyway. Australia doesn't have a competitive side like the NZ Maori and if you take the Oz test players out of their franchises you expose their depth. The Lions are not going to put their test side or at least the bulk of it against the midweek sides so why does Australia. If the Lions aren't happy with the sides they face why don't they arrange games against teams like Samoa or Fiji?

I understand the resentment that the Lions face so many obstacles to being competitive but how much do they learn or benefit from these warm up games? Match conditioning may vary if a pack is lightweight but the Lions test squad is largely already known by Gatland and his players in mind protected from these games in Australia.

Kia... the thing is they haven't even tried to hide the fact they have rested their players... they are fielding only 3 regular first choice players and many aren't even in the SR squad. They may not be the worst side the lions have faced but its certainly the biggest drop of first choice players that I've seen in the last 7 lions tours. Its Pathetic.

In 09 Leicester played SA in a midweek game whilst having games on both weekends inbetween. They didn't field a full strength side but they mixed experience and youth.... and it pulled off.

this was the side Leicester put out that day...

Hamilton, Amorosino, Forsyth, M Tuilagi, Murphy, Mauger, Youngs, Stankovich, Davies, Castrogiovanni, Green, Hemingway, Parling, Pienaar, Deacon.

About 7 of those players were first team players... the rest were youngsters like Youngs, Tuilagi and Amorosino and one or two second team chaps. Its a fair balance.

The had such an impact that Steenkamp and Du Plessis were sent home in disgrace. At the time the media were told they had an injury but PDV in his autobiography later said that it was all a lie and that their performance was so disgraceful that he sent them both home with a cover story to save face.
I've said for a long time that it should be a give receive relationship. The money, the challenge is always stacked in the lion hosts favour (and nothing to do with the quality of the players either). In the last tour SA signed a contract to say that their club teams would field their best available... yet PDV has openly said in his autobiography that he withheld all his players to prevent the Lions from better coming together as a team and that he would rather face the consequences with a series win then give the Lions a better chance of victory.

the ARU are biting the hand that feeds them... they have openly stressed the importance of the Lions tour to their financial strength yet they spit in the Lions faces. SCW is right on this one IMO, you have to call it how it is.

Don't schedule any games between Australian sides then. If they know what opposition is going to put up then organize your own games and refuse to play these mid week sides. Use that financial pulling power to your advantage. Say you'll only play these squads as warm up games or you don't tour. Watch how quickly the SH sides accommodate those wishes when put in those terms.

I agree Kia.... its been suggested for a while. If its going to continue then lets cut the tour to lets say 5 matches (2 warm ups, 3 tests) and have 5 matches outside of the touring country lets say vs. Italy, France, Argentina as warm ups. In the end its a professional tour... not some 3 month jolly booze up. Those days are long gone I'm afraid (England in 2011 didn't get the memo).

It would help the Lions preparation and put more money back into the home unions pockets with home Lions games compared to putting into the hosts pockets.

The big problem also is that these matches cloud selection choices.

Take Lee Mears for instance... he was no where near the test jersey last time around but played a blinder in the club matches prior to the first test and scrummaged well (against packs 50+kg lighter than bok packs mind). McGeechan took a stab at him as his all over game was better than the rets and seemed to scrum well enough. Other players like Rees and Ford were better scrummagers and lineout operators but lesser in all over play.

But come the tests that was blown out the water. Same in 05 with Byrne much to your delight I'm sure. Set pieces were that much better and he and the lions got nailed. The Lions need tough matches to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Ian McGeechan has just said the Western Force selection is "disrespectful".

What we are seeing is what happens when you put a tour slap bang in the middle of the host teams players being in the middle of a seven month competition.

Lions tours mind have been going for a lot longer than SR mind.... always at the same time of year. Its not like they couldn't have mitigated for this problem if they wants to or its a last minute surprise fixture.

They don't happen every year though and they only affect one of the 3 SR nations. Difficult to stop the other two just because one is playing. I guess you could have conference games before or after to make up the numbers. The test players will still be rested though.

I think the solution is to play warm up games at home like a lions reject team but say its a last chance saloon to make the squad. Maybe a french compodite side not involved in t14 or a top club. Have only a couple of games like Australia A and maybe a pacific island side as well.

Each s15 team has a bye week don't they? When the lions tour, why not arrange it so each team has their bye week the week they're due to face the lions?