Do the Ba Bas still have a place in modern rugby?

Simple question really - are the Ba Bas a relic of the amateur era that has become out of date in the modern game, or are they still a fantastic tradition that is worth maintaining?

The game has changed - it is no longer possible to have open, attacking, free flowing games due to modern defences and fitness. Therefore more often than not they just lose, and rarely show the attacking flair and entertainment that they are mean to be renowned for.

The case in point has been the past few weeks - on paper there were numerous world class players in the squad, but they spent the time getting pished, having a laugh, earning a lot of money yet getting pumped by England's C team and a heavy defeat to the Lions. And apart from Rokokoko's effort yesterday they showed very little of the attacking flair that they are meant to.

They have had some wins in the past - England, Ireland and Wales in the past few years (although granted weakened teams) - but I really wonder whether they have a purpose any more, other than providing a ready made team for pre/post season meaningless friendlies!

Thoughts? Am I just reading too much into the last few weeks?

Sadly they have reached their sell-by date.

Its just a jolly for many players and others

If they aren't serious about getting a quality squad together and provide them wirh enough preparation time to be competitive then yes they have reached their sell by date.

If it's purely in terms of victories you're talking about, then in the past 5 years the Barbarians have beaten Ireland, Wales, England, South Africa and New Zealand.

Why wouldn't you want to maintain a touring side that is effectively an All Stars set up? What's the harm in that? It lets home nations try out new players at international level as world ranking points are not at stake and provides a spectacle that everyone wants to see.

RDW - if you don't think that free flowing rugby is possible, then take a moment to re-watch Habana's hattrick against the All Blacks in 2009 or Visser's final try to sink England in 2011 (Joe Tekori, Van Niekirk and Visser breaking out from half way - a beautiful score).

This summer's squad are truly playing like a bunch of p!ssed donkeys though, right enough.

So is it a case of yes the barbarians are still a great tradition, but they need to start taking things a bit more seriously??

I would be sad to see the Barbarians fold.I do fear that the end is nigh though.Their credibility is seriously under scrutiny at the moment.

RDW_Scotland wrote:So is it a case of yes the barbarians are still a great tradition, but they need to start taking things a bit more seriously??

Absolutely, it is no use you put a squad together without thought and preparation. What's the use of going to a match that is a routing?

The BaBas will struggle if they continue in their current format, and I think it will be to everyones benefit if in future they restrict the number of their international appearances. Very much a case of less is more to be brought out for special occasions.

There is ofcourse another side to them away from the big twickers events and if they can continue with their many other non international, as well as developmental fixtures then I can see a role for Rugby's most famous club yet.

On the other hand, the Baa-baas have beaten NZ more recently than the lions! Perhaps careful casting those stones!!

Well, let's compare the last 20 Lions games and the last 20 Barbarian games.

Lions have won 7 of their last 20 Test games.
Barbarians have won 9 of their 20 last games against International sides.

Why is one seen as being a redundant circus for hard drinking mercenaries taking a quick wad of cash before the summer holidays, and the other seen as the epitome of professional seriousness and intent, and the pinnacle of a player's career?

Oh yes, I'll get told the Barbarians don't get taken as seriously by their opposition as the Lions get taken in NZ, SA and Australia.
True to an extent, but all the clinical precision seriousness going on in the Lions suggests they should have at least a more viable winning ratio than the Barbarian guys who go on the pish and have the craic, with only symbolic nods to anything called intense training and preparation.

Just a little too evasive to pick a target like the Barbarians (a cobbled together unit of diverse players from different clubs and Unions) and ignore the other famous cobbled together unit of diverse players from different clubs and unions.

Glorious beat me to it

I think that they're a waste of time. But then again I pretty much think the Lions are a waste of time too. But at least the Lions don't get thrashed in as many of their games as the Barbarians. Somethimes the Baabaas are not even close to competitive, and they don't even look bothered either.

I'd ditch both these relics of another era. And I'd reduce the number of games in the European domestic season. We need the players fresh for what should be the pinnacle of rugby, the international test matches.

SecretFly wrote:Well, let's compare the last 20 Lions games and the last 20 Barbarian games.

Lions have won 7 of their last 20 Test games.
Barbarians have won 9 of their 20 last games against International sides.

Why is one seen as being a redundant circus for hard drinking mercenaries taking a quick wad of cash before the summer holidays, and the other seen as the epitome of professional seriousness and intent, and the pinnacle of a player's career?

Oh yes, I'll get told the Barbarians don't get taken as seriously by their opposition as the Lions get taken in NZ, SA and Australia.
True to an extent, but all the clinical precision seriousness going on in the Lions suggests they should have at least a more viable winning ratio than the Barbarian guys who go on the pish and have the craic, with only symbolic nods to anything called intense training and preparation.

Just a little too evasive to pick a target like the Barbarians (a cobbled together unit of diverse players from different clubs and Unions) and ignore the other famous cobbled together unit of diverse players from different clubs and unions.

Is that just international teams? Not exactly a fair comparison looking at lions playing full strength teams in a test series compared to the barbarians playing often weakened international teams...

Not fussed on Lions or Barbarians. However at least the Lions have a proper tour at length and given time to come together as a squad that is similar to international team preparation. So the games have some point or meaning so those that like them (which seems to be most people). Barbarian games don't seem to add anything really. It's not even a good test of players.

I don't have any real interest in the Barbarians matches which are scheduled against touring teams at the end of the Autumn Internationals. In the past, they were quasi-Lions selections, so there were some bragging rights at stake. They now rarely feature any Home Union players at all so it's difficult to care even when they win.

If test teams put out their top side against the baa baas or not used them as an end of tour blow out I think the results would be far different.

Anyhow you can compare baa baa games one after the other given the personnel is always different.

Why is it that the lions can look structured in say 4 weeks whereas the baa baas can't in 2? If not then why can't the baa baas have more time as a squad together? If they can then I think sure they can a future.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Is that just international teams? Not exactly a fair comparison looking at lions playing full strength teams in a test series compared to the barbarians playing often weakened international teams...

It's the fairest assessment you can get RDW. If the International sides are sending out 'weakened' units, then that's not a Barbarian's issue. If the International sides show their lack of respect for the Barbarians, then the Barbarian players obviously think it ok to yawn through their 'games' and take the easy money.

But I repeat... if the Lions are a viable alternative to the dinosaur that is the Barbarians, then they should at least have proof of viability in having a greater positive gap in their 'test' winning stats (especially as they get longer to prepare and be professional about the whole thing). At the moment the gap is negative using my reference point.

The baa baas have run their course unless the players pull their clubs socks up when playing for them.

Yesterday's showing was poor. Only rokococo looked like he wanted to win.

The point in the barbarians is to put on a spectacle. Yesterday, 10 mins into the game they got a penalty and went for the posts! They never used to do that.

However, they need to play teams that also want a spectacle. Not against a team that is defensively set up to counter attack only to win. It takes two to tango and if both teams are not going into it with the same attitude then there is no point!

I was about to post a similar thread on this very topic.

The lions squad is made up of the best players of the 4 home NH teams. Some of the squad as not played much rugby (international wise) that is.

The Baa baa are a team made up the players from just about every country in the world. Some of the Baa Bas have more caps than the Lions. Yet the Lions score 8 trys to the Baa Bas 1. Surely this should not happen with the experience of the BaaBas. Surely it should have been a lot closer.

After this score yesterday is this now the time for the BaaBas too say that is it.

I have never understood the fuss about the Barbarians to be honest. The way that teams prepare tactically now means that even a team like the Lions who spend weeks preparing professionally are up against it to compete.

A scratch side that always features an uncapped player and no real fan base doesnt appear sustainable.

I doubt it makes anyone much money and the games are low intensity unappealing games.

I would relegate the Barbarians to a development tool. They're just not good enough to take on the top nations' first teams and be competitive.

In the summer and the autumn I'd have the top tier nations touring as they do and picking their touring squads. I'd then have a "Best of the Rest" Barbarians tour to Europe (possible opponents: Georgia, Russia, Romania, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Belgium), Americas (USA, Canada, Uruguay, Chile, Brazil), Far East (Japan, Hong Kong, Korea, Sri Lanka) or Africa (Namibia, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Madagascar). I feel would be far more beneficial for the "host" nation. They'll also provide some interesting tours for the players. The players could also get involved with community work and do a couple of coaching sessions in these countries, to really get kids there excited about rugby.

The tour would take place during the International windows so player release wouldn't be an issue.

For the record, I'd probably do away with the Lions, or consign them to a similar role.

That is actually a very good idea mate, will benefit those countries much more.

Lads if you want to see a good Baa-baa's team then you need to load up the squad with the majority of the Springbok starting XV. That way, the Barbarians can take on and beat teams like New Zealand...

There is no future for the Barbarians as currently constituted. They will just increasingly get further behind as the Test teams they face get more professional.

The Barbarians can't really function as a development tool. Competing contract demands mean the players just aren't available. At this time of year, only Northern Hemisphere club players are really available while it's the Southern boys in the autumn. Heavy international touring schedules reduce the numbers even further.

The main attraction for top players to give up time in their off-season is the prospect of playing big matches. Who is going to want to risk injury playing non-top tier sides? How happy will their clubs be about them doing that anyway?

The other incentive is a tidy sum of cash. The Barbarians aren't going to make enough money to offer anything decent if they are playing exclusively second tier teams.

The Saint wrote:Lads if you want to see a good Baa-baa's team then you need to load up the squad with the majority of the Springbok starting XV. That way, the Barbarians can take on and beat teams like New Zealand...

Agree. This was a Barbarians 'Lite' team really... maybe 2 or 3 'thank you' selections in that team. No offense intended but the Italian players in particular were out of their depth and one or two others in their twilight of their careers... or simply a little bit too long in the tooth.

I remember fearing (from the safety of my armchair) the Baa-Baas of yesteryear. When they get dismantled as they have in recent years, that fear has evaporated from my prespective.

I still think it's a fabulous tradition but as The Saint says - a formidable Barbarian side needs to have more teeth and a better representation of the top 5 rugby nations... depending on who they are playing.

The idea of a second 'Barbarians' side comprised of developing nations is a great idea too, however maybe we can call them something else?

Mercenaries, Bandits, Mutineeers, Foederati, Vigilantes, Marauders, Gallowglass, Slingshooters, Corsairs, Pirates, Filabusters... something really un-PC which would embody the struggle from within the top 10-20 (save for Scotland of course!) teams say?

One thing that I don't think helped the Barbarians in the last couple of fixtures is poor planning of the games all round. It really frustrates me seeing the Baa Baas v England game continuously put on the same weekend as the Premiership final when it dilutes firstly the quality of the England side but also the Baa Baas as they can't put players in the squad who may be involved in the final.

I'd so much rather have seen that game vs England played a week later, firstly so England were at full strength but also so that the Barbarians could have fielded players from the top AP teams who would've raring to have a go at the guys they usually play with/are challenging for an EPS place.

Similarly I'd have pushed the Lions vs Baa Baas game back a week so that players from the Top 14 would've been available for both sides.

A big part of the Barbarians selection has usually been including recently retired International players who will want to prove they've still got what it takes on the main stage. The problem is with many of such players tied into the T14 play-offs and finals they had to settle with the likes of Tindall, Fourie and Harinordoquy who are sadly now too far past it to challenge the Lions.

Imagine if the game had been this weekend so the top recently retired International players in France could've taken part. I would have loved to see the below side have a go at the Lions for instance:

1.Sheridan 2.Brits 3.Hayman 4.Botha 5.Hines 6.Zanni 7.Louw 8.Parisse
9.Fotuali'i 10.Evans 11.Ngwenya 12.Giteau 13.Lualala 14.Rocokoco 15.Daly
16.Ghiraldini 17.James 18.Castro 19.Mumm 20.Manoa 21.Yachvili 22.Hook 23.Payne

Only thing I've done there is replace some of the dead wood in the squad from the weekend with recent retirees playing well in France and the odd selection decision of Fotuali'i being on the bench.

been meaning to write a thread on this for a while...in a word yes they are done.....it's a beautiful tradition from an era i would love to see again but having them play and get hammered each time is just getting silly. People often say the Lions is done but they are almost always people who haven't toured....awesome and unique brand just needs to be made more lucrative for the host nation.

Here's what Brian Moore thinks about it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/britishandirishlionsrugby/10094553/Lions-2013-can-the-Barbarians-go-on-much-longer-after-their-tame-performance-against-British-and-Irish-Lions.html

I think that we may be basing too much criticism on the recent test. I think that there is also an over-emphasis on whether the team wins matches which to me is completely beside the point when considering the utility of the club as an organisation.

On the issue of competitiveness, as I mentioned above - scalps over the past 5 years have included the All Blacks (2009), Ireland and the Springboks (2010), England and Wales (2011) and Ireland again in 2012. The Autumn International Ba-bas animal is very different from the pile of old scrote that we were dished up after a long season and in searing heat in Honkers.

The line-up (plus subs) in the victory against New Zealand was this one:
15. D Mitchell, Australia (M Steyn, South Africa 57);
14. J Rokocoko, New Zealand,
13. J Fourie, South Africa,
12. J Roberts, Wales,
11. B Habana, South Africa (L Halfpenny, Wales 70);
10. M Giteau, Australia,
9. F du Preez, South Africa (W Genia, Australia 62);

1. S Perugini, Italy (T Mtawarira, South Africa 40),
2. B du Plessis, South Africa (S Moore, Australia 40),
3. WP Nel, Cheetahs,
4. C del Fava, Italy (Q Geldenhuys 52),
5. V Matfield, South Africa, captain,
6. S Burger, South Africa,
7. G Smith, Australia,
8. R Elsom, Australia (A Powell, Wales 57).

No wonder they were competitive there. I actually think that the fact any victory is conventionally against the odds is what makes the team great.

I am not wumming at all but I genuinely don't understand why professionalism should make any difference to how we regard the institution. I would welcome some more exposition on why this might be the case.

Edit: I do not agree with Brian 'Mr Magoo' Moore on this occasion.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Simple question really - are the Ba Bas a relic of the amateur era that has become out of date in the modern game, or are they still a fantastic tradition that is worth maintaining?

The game has changed - it is no longer possible to have open, attacking, free flowing games due to modern defences and fitness. Therefore more often than not they just lose, and rarely show the attacking flair and entertainment that they are mean to be renowned for.

The case in point has been the past few weeks - on paper there were numerous world class players in the squad, but they spent the time getting pished, having a laugh, earning a lot of money yet getting pumped by England's C team and a heavy defeat to the Lions. And apart from Rokokoko's effort yesterday they showed very little of the attacking flair that they are meant to.

They have had some wins in the past - England, Ireland and Wales in the past few years (although granted weakened teams) - but I really wonder whether they have a purpose any more, other than providing a ready made team for pre/post season meaningless friendlies!

Thoughts? Am I just reading too much into the last few weeks?

You seem to have overlooked the fact that this game was quite different for the BaBas, usually when they play the All Blacks its at the end of the ABs tour, Sometimes they even invite one of the All Blacks to join their ranks and they play at Twickenham.

This time its played in an exotic Oriental spot, at the start of the Lions tour (in fact wasnt it their first game?) it looks to me like it was a jack up to give the Lions a trial run.

RDW

The Barbarians have beaten the All Blacks more times than Scotland, maybe that raises the question "Do scotland still have a place in Modern rugby?"......only kidding...

aucklandlaurie wrote:
RDW

The Barbarians have beaten the All Blacks more times than Scotland, maybe that raises the question "Do scotland still have a place in Modern rugby?"......only kidding...

I would love to know the answer to that myself, Laurie.

king_carlos wrote:...A big part of the Barbarians selection has usually been including recently retired International players who will want to prove they've still got what it takes on the main stage...

You say "usually" but that's really only true of the last decade. It's quite telling that a lot of people now associate the Barbarians with over-the-hill names. The growing demands of the international schedule, and the determination of clubs to control their contracted players, forced the Barbarians to look further afield for talent. An old lag is often cut more generous slack by his club, or just doesn't care about any repercussions.

This is especially true at the end of the Northern season. For the games at the end of the southern season - the final curtain to the Autumn International series - The Baa Baas have been able to call on members of all the other touring teams. It sometimes makes for a higher quality contest (wins over New Zealand in 2009 and South Africa in 2010) but it's not particularly compelling for a Home Union crowd.

No-one is going to set the international and club calendar with the Barbarians in mind, so I don't see how they are going to re-connect with the crowds. I

For me Baa baas games should be first and foremost entertaining.

Therefore when they play International teams both teams should agree before hand that they won't concentrate all there efforts on defence and should look at it as an opportunity to attack and be adventurous without the worry of defeat.

Then the Baa baas will still have a place in modern rugby, as I for one would be happy to part with £££s to watch a game live.

And they should be allowed to put the ball in crooked to the scrums...

On further reflection I’m starting to agree with GC on this one – I think the latest squad has tarred everyone’s opinions a bit (include Mr Moore).

However the original point still stands – the ‘traditional’ Barbarians approach really doesn’t have a place in the modern game any more I don’t think – you can’t have professional players going out on the lash all week, taking training easy and then expect the game at the weekend to be a good spectacle against an organised, fired up opposition.

It is no longer the case that you can just throw the ball about and score lots of entertaining tries – if it was so easy then every time would do it! Modern rugby is based on physical dominance, sustained pressure and organisation, rightly or wrongly.

Yes you still do get the odd blistering counter attack as Rocokoko showd, but the Ba Bas can no longer rely on that.

The greatest problem is that they are getting together a few days before a game and training, there is little chance to gel or create a real understanding or cohesion given the speed of the modern game.

Most of the Lions were at least together for a few weeks and with a lot of players familiar with each other wereas the BaaBaas are brought from across the globe, though mostly Europe this time around, it relies on individual brillance to excite and we cant expect them to beat teams who train and play together for months on end

To be clear I’m not saying that Ba Bas should be winning more games – it is the entertainment factor that is missing! They provided very little entertainment against England and the Lions.

RDW: Three things.

1.Dont take Brian Moore seriously, hes an idiot,

2. Dont hang the Barbarians out to dry just because the Barbarians this year were poorly managed.

3. The Barbarians arent an International team, dont judge them as such.

1 - I don't

2 - As my recent post this morning has stated, I'm not

3 - I don't

What they need is some Irishmen

RDW_Scotland wrote:To be clear I’m not saying that Ba Bas should be winning more games – it is the entertainment factor that is missing! They provided very little entertainment against England and the Lions.

They can do both but its hard to play a free flowing style when youve only known the guys around you a few days, the management should be looking to pick and play players from a handful of clubs or nations so can provide some continuity

Maybe the Baa Baas needs a shift of focus and in essence they should be picking younger potential or fringe international players who have a point to prove rather than the past the sell by date "names"

Maybe there should be two Barbarians.

Chippendale Barbarians for high profile genuine attempts at competitiveness.
Ikea Barbarians for affordable rugby in any shape as long as it's a cube.

Then we could all choose whether to tune in or not.

Ikea Ireland vs Ikea Barbarians (mow the lawn instead) ...that kind of thing.

SecretFly wrote:Maybe there should be two Barbarians.

Chippendale Barbarians for high profile genuine attempts at competitiveness.
Ikea Barbarians for affordable rugby in any shape as long as it's a cube.

Then we could all choose whether to tune in or not.

Ikea Ireland vs Ikea Barbarians (mow the lawn instead) ...that kind of thing.

I think you make good points there Fly - Anything would be better than The Aldi Barbarians I've see over the past couple of weeks

RDW_Scotland wrote:To be clear I’m not saying that Ba Bas should be winning more games – it is the entertainment factor that is missing! They provided very little entertainment against England and the Lions.

I agree - the selection of Yachvilli at 9 was a really bad call. They needed to start with the replacement scrum half, and have someone like Matawalu involved as well. The Baa Baas are supposed to entertain and seek to destructure the game. This time round they played quite a structured game badly. Both wingers needed to see far more of the ball.

Still, I love the Baa Baas, and given the calibre of player still willing to turn up, they are clearly still hugely respected by the players.

SecretFly wrote:Lions have won 7 of their last 20 Test games.
Barbarians have won 9 of their 20 last games against International sides.

Lions have the better record- all their wins have been away against TriNations sides whereas the Barbarians have played generally understrength test sides in the Northern Hemisphere. Lions tests are of higher intensity, viewed by players on both sides as the pinnacle of their international careers along with the RWC, whereas normally Barbarians games are used as warm-ups for summer tours and a chance to look at emerging players. Thats why the Lions/BaaBaas comparison is a bit moot... for now.

That said, there is a place for the Barbarians- just not with Mike Tindall as backs coach! They need to be more focused and better prepared in the future but recent history has had them playing their part in some cracking games. This tour was one to forget, thats all.

The real threat to their existence is getting players available. I think they should play less often and aim for higher quality players.

Perhaps a change in format is necessary rather than play one off games every six months or so, perhaps they should tour occasionally like the Lions. Using players who aren't playing regularly for their country or have retired they could pick a squad of players for a season that plays during International windows and trains regularly touring a southern hemisphere nation in the Summer and a northern hemisphere nation in the Autumn. For example this season they could pick a squad of:

1. Andrew Sheridan
2. Schalke Brits
3. John Welsh
4. Nathan Hines
5. Ali Williams
6. Julien Bonnaire
7. Steffon Armitage
8. Nick Easter
9. Mike Blair
10. Nick Evans
11. Isa Nacewa
12. Alex Dunbar
13. Robbie Freuan
14. Shane Williams
15. Geordan Murphy


Over time they could turn it into a great honour to play for the Baa Baas and create the idea that winning with the Barbarians was the ultimate. By playing with each other six times a year they could become a well organised unit especially if they included a training period.

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Lions have won 7 of their last 20 Test games.
Barbarians have won 9 of their 20 last games against International sides.

Lions have the better record- all their wins have been away against TriNations sides whereas the Barbarians have played generally understrength test sides in the Northern Hemisphere. Lions tests are of higher intensity, viewed by players on both sides as the pinnacle of their international careers along with the RWC, whereas normally Barbarians games are used as warm-ups for summer tours and a chance to look at emerging players. Thats why the Lions/BaaBaas comparison is a bit moot... for now.

Interesting actually. Lions should have a better record based on the idea that they take themselves more seriously, have a longer duration together, have much more time to correct errors and/or hone tactics before the tests themselves during the lesser games, have coaches that have been in place and preparing for the tours for a significant time before departure, have the best quality players from Four Nations competing against players from One (well in recent decades anyway), train hard and scientifically.
Yes, the Lion's fans want the Lions brand to have a better record. But they don't.

Overall games:

Lions 111 tests - wins 44 - %= 39.64%
Baa-Baas 83 games - wins 42 - %= 50.60%

Against Tri Nation sides:
Lions v Australia = 75%
Lions v South Africa = 36%
Lion v New Zealand = 15%

Baa-Baas v Australia = 25%
Baa-Baas v South Africa = 57%
Baa-Baas v New Zealand = 20%

Interesting that, as Australia is the side Lions statistically do best against and yet the Barbarians's record is least effective against them and better than Lions for the other two.

It's all subjective stuff though as Lions have played those sides more often etc, etc; but as a crass, direct and scientific 'records' account, Barbarians win. Not bad for a true scratch side of little preparation or tactical design - and, they can only play what's infront of them.

VictorU3 wrote:For me Baa baas games should be first and foremost entertaining.

Therefore when they play International teams both teams should agree before hand that they won't concentrate all there efforts on defence and should look at it as an opportunity to attack and be adventurous without the worry of defeat.

Then the Baa baas will still have a place in modern rugby, as I for one would be happy to part with £££s to watch a game live.

yes, but laughing with them not at them