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

First topic message reminder :

Simple question really - are the Ba Bas a relic of the amateur era that has become out of date in the modern game, or are they still a fantastic tradition that is worth maintaining?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

SecretFly wrote:

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.

The question is how serious do the international teams take Barbarian games vs Lions tests?

Too lazy to look it up, but I sincerely doubt we put our strongest teams out against the Barbarians, whereas in comparison the alions are taken very seriously in SA.

Records are records. Opinions are opinions. The point being made earlier was that the Lions have a better record and are therefore a more viable entity than the 'joke' side, the Barbarians.

I've given some figures now which clearly say, record wise, Lions don't have what many people seem to think they have.

The rest of it - opinions - well they can go on forever and obviously will do. But opinions don't rely on records and records don't have opinions.

I'm just plotting some numbers and suggesting the *yawn and smirk* Barbarians (who don't even take themselves seriously!!! - a point regularly forgotten here ) still have the better overall win record.

More meaningless stats:just what we need!
Results without taking account the quality of opponents would have ended up with a weird selection of Lions as an unbeaten side lurking in some minor League would have provided the core of the touring party!

Taffineastbourne wrote:More meaningless stats:just what we need!
Results without taking account the quality of opponents would have ended up with a weird selection of Lions as an unbeaten side lurking in some minor League would have provided the core of the touring party!

Or Stats that just don't agree with what you need

The other bit needs more clarification.

This is hilarious:

Someone makes a point founded on nothing better than sweeping generalisation and fantasy.
Some one else comes along and states the contrary, based on statistics.
Some one else come along and says statistics are meaningless.

Anyone for a Haka discussion?

kapa o pango or kamate?

I don't know if you're deliberately missing the point there or not Fly- the point is BaaBaas games are friendlies for test sides used to blood younger players and try out combinations whereas Lions Tests are the highest profile and most important test matches in the season they take place in.

We're not comparing like with like. A win for the Lions is a tougher proposition than a Barbarians win. And all-time stats are also pointless in a debate about how these teams fit in post-professionalism.

I'm not running down the Barbarians but the Lions concept is very different- the Lions are taken much more seriously as opponents and the jersey is treated with more reverence by the players who wear it. I think the Barbarians still have a place but there has to be a re-evaluation of what the tradition is about.

I fail to see why the Lions are playing the Barbarians in the first place. Its hardly the "final challenge " is it?

SecretFly wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:More meaningless stats:just what we need!
Results without taking account the quality of opponents would have ended up with a weird selection of Lions as an unbeaten side lurking in some minor League would have provided the core of the touring party!

Or Stats that just don't agree with what you need

The other bit needs more clarification.

Secret,the point that Iwas trying to make was that just looking at results without taking account of the quality of opposition is flawed.using your logic Upton Snodbury 111's finishing their season unbeaten are a better side than the Tigers who lost a few games.

Taffineastbourne wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:More meaningless stats:just what we need!
Results without taking account the quality of opponents would have ended up with a weird selection of Lions as an unbeaten side lurking in some minor League would have provided the core of the touring party!

Or Stats that just don't agree with what you need

The other bit needs more clarification.

Secret,the point that Iwas trying to make was that just looking at results without taking account of the quality of opposition is flawed.using your logic Upton Snodbury 111's finishing their season unbeaten are a better side than the Tigers who lost a few games.

Taff........... I did take quality of opposition into account. I did mention the fact that people will obviously say the Lions are taken more seriously by their opponents, etc.

But that's all opinion. I was simply rising above attitudes to and opinions of...and what people might like to think of both groups...; instead, I plotted numbers. Now you and others have the right to question the significance of those numbers, that's not my concern. I was merely pointing out that the 'record' - the officially tabulated record of both units states that Barbarians have won more of their last 20 games, have a better overall percenatage of wins, have a greater success rate in percentage terms over South Africa and New Zealand than the Lions have.

Now, I also added a few opinions. I said given how professionally run the Lions are, and how long they get to prepare, and how they are clinically selected from the best of four Unions, you would still expect their record of wins in percentage terms to be above that of a genuine scratch side sucked together at short notice, with scant attention to detail and with a cavalier attitude to intensity and seriousness in training.

So, the 'record' might be irrelevant to people's fixed opinions on the worth of the Lions but its not flawed. If 'quality' becomes the key, then 'quality' must be factored in for both. In that scenario, the Barbarian's lack of quality preparation and forethought against the quality of the opponents the Lions meet kinda perfectly cancel each other out.

It's reasonable to assume that Tri-Nations quality does influence the Lions overall record of wins. But it's also reasonable to assume that International seriously constructed sides, with continuous agendas of improvement even when using 2nd or 3rd string players (especially those tri-nations ones!), should have made the Barbarians suffer more on their overall records of wins for their innate rushed together tradition and less than ultra serious preparations.