Support your team.

First topic message reminder :

Lets face it, every supporter has a biased opinion on his own players, but what is important to realise is where it stems from and where it goes.

It starts at your local club, the players you are most likely to walk into in your community, they guy that might even buy you a beer in a pub if you are pleasant enough.

It is the guy that may even have been at school with you or even a few years after you, it is the guy who might even come to your local community church, anyway the point is that is where it starts.

So when you countries national team is selected you have a favour towards your own players and want to see them qualify for higher honours, even if deep down you know one or two that your are punting for selection might not necessarily be the best. That is where the motivation behind your debate and comments come in.

For the most part, we manage to keep it above board, we debate the merits of each player and if we are open minded enough we will allow ourselves the courtesy of accepting the argument made by someone else to rather include their player as first choice.

At this point in time it becomes increasingly more difficult for us to be impartial and our natural defensive mechanism immediately jumps into action when there is any disrespect shown toward one of our players. This is where the problem starts in earnest, at this point we become sensitive and overzealous in our responses which then leads to a to and fro of disrespectful comments.

It is usually first aimed at a player of the opposing supporter's team, it can follow something along the line of, "well your guy can't tackle worth Sh1t" , it is inevitable then that the argument will escalate into personal attacks on each other.

the sad thing is we all know where it comes from, it is born out of loyalty to our own players, but instead of remaining loyal and respectful, we become spiteful and disrespectful.

We currently Lions test to conclude the Australian series, yet the escalation has taken on a new scale where instead of showing respect to Gatland for his decisions, or respect to an Irish Hero who has played way more test than most, it becomes a personal barrage of spiteful comments and retorts.

If the shoe fits, then please wear it, if it doesn't then I would expect you to be in agreement with me. But some of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

You are not letting the Lions down, you are letting your country and yourselves down.

Warren Gatland is the Welsh coach, and he is now the Lions coach, irrespective of results over the past 5 years, irrespective of who can throw the best set of statistics out there in a feeble attempt to show who's country is best, the facts are this is now.

and right now Gatland will do what he believes will win him the third test. He believes in his players, therefor it is only logical that he will select those he believes in, it isn't to give you a slap in the face, it isn't in disrespect to the English, the Scots or the Irish, it is because that is how he believes he will win.

Importantly it isn't for the Welsh supporters (if the shoe fits, wear it) to go all smarting around about whether they are the best or not, it isn't for them to be smug or arrogant, it is for them to be thankful and proud that it is their turn to have the biggest representation in the Lions jersey.

The Lions jersey is one of pride and respect, and (again if the shoe fits wear it) some of you are degrading a tradition older than any of you will ever become. We are all taught to respect our elders, so at least try (if the shoe fits) and be respectful of one of the biggest traditions in our sport.

So do yourselves all a favour, respect thy neighbour, do what your players do, they respect one another, when you fight in the trenches or the rugby field on a regular basis you get to know your opponent, you know his strengths and his weaknesses, when you get the opportunity to play with them, live with them, sleep, eat and travel with them, you learn to respect them even more.

So look within yourself, you can dismiss all of this if you want, that's up to you. But do your countries and your players proud. Show some respect and support your team, they need it.

Thanks for reading.

It is as much about the participating as four nations as it is about the winning, eh?

It has to be.  The Lions by definition requires it.  What's that quote about no taxation wthout representation....

offload wrote:It is as much about the participating as four nations as it is about the winning, eh?

It has to be.  The Lions by definition requires it.  What's that quote about no taxation without representation....

The tax thing is actually an American thing from their Revolution. The nerve of the ungrateful colonists to want a say in how their money was used. So, they wanted seats in Parliament. Wonder if they would be happy now?

doctor_grey wrote:

offload wrote:It is as much about the participating as four nations as it is about the winning, eh?

It has to be.  The Lions by definition requires it.  What's that quote about no taxation without representation....

The tax thing is actually an American thing from their Revolution.  The nerve of the ungrateful colonists to want a say in how their money was used.  So, they wanted seats in Parliament.  Wonder if they would be happy now?  

Though this tour for the Scots they're getting subsidies without much representation  

I do support the team. Not a Gatland fan though.

Big fan of lots of the team. Enjoying watching Warburton, George North, Halfpenny and others and cheering them on rather than cursing their freakish size/ability/breakdown work etc. when we are on the receiving end of it.

Comments on Gatland have been seen as attacks on either The Lions or Wales as a nation. Please don't take it that way.

I will be cheering the boys on - hopefully it'll still be a win. For me the stand out players for the Lions in the last test were Warburton at the breakdown, and O'Driscoll in defence.

Biltong wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:HIya Biltong,

I think that is a great post which frames out a big part of the discussion.  In truth, there is no excuse for the lack of respect being thrown around - disagreements, yes - but respect is important (another of those life lessons we teach our kids, eh mate?).  How we express ourselves is a reflection of us, no?  It is a fine line between expressing anger or disagreement in a clear manner, and losing the plot.  Life has a way of moving us close to that line..........

But there is an odd thing about the Lions.  They are our team - they do belong to all of us as long as someone has a drop of English, Irish, Scots, or Welsh blood, and cares about the Rugby.  And, as one would expect for peoples shut away and living together on small islands off a continent for a few thousand years, we are a family, a strange, somewhat twisted, argumentative family.  Capable of greatness and failure, like most people.  

Despite the upbringing of some of us, we are emotional.  We will argue as a family will do.  But for those 80 minutes, I can promise even the worst curmudgeon amongst us will either under their breath or out loud will  cheer for the Lions.  

Many people are clearly not happy with the makeup of this last squad.  Which goes back to the original squad selection.  That much is clear.  And this is probably the most extreme reaction I have seen about Lions selection.  Regardless, most of it stays here and we will be pulling for the lads on Saturday.  Wearing red.  

Thanks again for the post. Appreciated, as ever.

Grey

Cheers Doc.

I think the concept of the Lions can be enhanced if there is an agreement that each nation must have a minimum of 4 starters, there is enough quality in each country to at least produce 4 players that whomever the chosen coach is, can work with.

It is as much about the participating as four nations as it is about the winning, eh?

Its hard to quantify, mate.  We must have contributions from all 4 Rugby nations.  This was a big problem back in 2005 as well.  But the questions of who, how many, which positions, and so on are as old as the Lions and there are no rules to guide us, except for good sense.  And this is one place where this tour is not getting it right.  Unfortunately, we cannot place rules around good sense, it comes from within.

I am not sure I would favour a fixed number of each Rugby nationalities as quality in positions ebbs and flows over time.  I do think it is better to have a coach from these islands.  Not for the jingoistic aspects, but for someone raised with the Lions concept.  I had a discussion with one of my sons about good decision making.  Same problem in microcosm.

Grey[/quote]
Cheers Doc.

I think the concept of the Lions can be enhanced if there is an agreement that each nation must have a minimum of 4 starters, there is enough quality in each country to at least produce 4 players that whomever the chosen coach is, can work with.

It is as much about the participating as four nations as it is about the winning, eh?[/quote]
To my mind the Lions should be the best players available rather than a selection based on a quota system.When Wales are in decline again I would be mortified to have token Welsh players selected just to balance the numbers.

 I like the minimum of 4 starters as that gives us 16 players on the field which I'm sure would help - Imagine Bowe and Cuthbert on the wings and BOD, Mannu and North in the centres

If the Lions win will there be an open top bus parade through Cardiff?  

Fine, make it three.  

VictorU3 wrote:If the Lions win will there be an open top bus parade through Cardiff?  

Do you think they will give us representation on the union Jack then - Maybe a dragon bang in the middle  

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Bilt, I have never attacked posters. If I do attack players I try to do it fairly and use facts and statistics to back up what I am saying rather than just throwing abuse with no facts to back it up.

My greatest criticism on the tour is Gatland, and his inability to blend the 4 nations who comprise the Lions to become greater than the sum of their/our parts.

As a Lions coach for this reason he has failed all of us and has picked a team he is familiar with rather than picking the best guys for each position.

He has picked 'the best guys for each position' - in his view. It's his call to make, no one else's, and he's made it. We can disagree, but no coach in the world would pick players who he didn't think were the best options available.

RubyGuby wrote:

VictorU3 wrote:If the Lions win will there be an open top bus parade through Cardiff?  

Do you think they will give us representation on the union Jack then - Maybe a dragon bang in the middle  

But Wales is, the Union Jack has a little bit of red and white on it!

The concept of 'best' though always takes a nose dive when you consider the results - the Lions record.  Best players doing what they do best, does best?

It's a debatable point always because the results give the debate wings.

It's also debatable because often players perform better against SH as part of their own National sides than when with a Lions outfit.

If it's an experiment in trying to form a 'better' team than any single Nation involved then maybe it needs a lot more thought and planning in the years between tests.

There has to be another blueprint that should gain more advantage from four Nations working in tandem than that provided by single Nations.  

Maybe the idea that simply the 'best' players should play is outdated as it always tends to mean one International side getting the 'Lions' share and you might as well just have that Nation representing the Lions that year (by no means a goer with me!).
Maybe a quota system might appear to be accepting unecessary levels of mediocrity to bow to an unified ethos. But if the four nations always felt completely involved to the very end then that's much more committment in training, much more common resolve, less growling bitterness behind the scenes that is undoubtedly as real as the publicity smokescreens pretending to the world that it isn't

It is not always the best players who win games (Clermont) but the best teams (Munster).  Maybe the concept of 'best' players is simply the wrong criteria to use.

Well out Fly, perhaps combinations perform better than selected individuals.

That is for example the reason I suggested Murray and Sexton as the halfback combination prior to the series.

Support your team is a tricky one, as the Lions is so, so different to the other teams we may follow. It is 'our' team but every tour has a different coach and a different team and a different vibe. Some tours capture the imagination and some don't and so the extent the Lions garner support varies from tour to tour too.

It's a very special thing in rugby that only happens once every four years and this year I think we've reached the end of the line and a lot of people feel that we've gone about this the wrong way, that Gatland running back to his Welsh template shows a lack of ambition and illustrates that he hasn't been successful in building  a Lions team that can stand as something unique.

The Lions isn't really a pragmatic thing- for many its more an idea than a team. Like the Barbarians they are meant to capture the romantic and sentimental side of rugby that we don't see in the professional era. Four ancient rivals as one team, playing the best of rugby, together. The Lions may win, but they haven't thrived in that they just haven't captured the imagination this year. Some would rather see a glorious defeat than an ugly and inglorious win- some see it as just another test series to be won at all costs. Gatland is clearly the latter.

I think the conflict is between the rugby romantics and the rugby pragmatists as much as anything else. I'm a pragmatist when it comes to the meat and drink of professional rugby as everyone is, but this Lions tradition is a throwback to a different era with different values and I don't judge it by the same standards as I judge the other teams I follow. I don't just want to win; I want the Lions to play the kind of rugby that inspires generations- the Lions should aspire to greatness every time they tour even though all odds are against them. A scrappy 2-1 series win with negative rugby to the fore is no clincher of immortality.

Biltong there is another way. Our dear friend Alan Mackie, who hasn't posted for quite some time I'm sad to say, is a shining beacon to you all.

Everyone should become an All Black supporter. Think about it! Supporting a team that loses a lot is no fun. We lose on average about 15 to 20 % of our games. Think of all the stress you'll relieve yourselves of by turning your heart black.

Don't worry. You can have all the 6N banter as that doesn't involve NZ. You'll have a vested interest in the RC and when your own national team comes up against NZ in a World Cup, it's a win win situation as you don't mind who really wins.

So forget this Lions nonsense, the Force or whatever. Come to the dark side. Together we can rule the rugby supporter empire.  

Nice thread by the way BB but it's 37 degrees here and the beer is flowing mate.

Notch,I endorse everything you say.
I wonder how much pressure was put on by sponsors like HSBC who have pumped money into the Lions and are probably keen to back a winning side rather than one that keeps coming up short?
I love the ball being chucked about but where are the players to do it?Havent seen much in the 6N's for years.

Haha Kia, the thing about the Boks are they must fight the good fight against the dark side, without us the All Blacks will win a lot more, then the forces for good and evil will lose all perspective.  

What makes you think that doesn't already exist, kia?

My second team is always NZ.... it means I can be in competitions right to the end...usually

You always need a villain BB and the Boks have always filled that role for us.  Other soft people might see it as respect...

Fly make them your number one team. Only by giving yourself over completely to the dark side can you truly know the real force of being an AB supporter.

Taffineastbourne wrote:Notch,I endorse everything you say.
I wonder how much pressure was put on by sponsors like HSBC who have pumped money into the Lions and are probably keen to back a winning side rather than one that keeps coming up short?
I love the ball being chucked about but where are the players to do it?Havent seen much in the 6N's for years.

Ireland chucked the ball around against Wales with Sexton, Zebo and BOD leading the charge.

England and Scotland both played running rugby against each other at twickers with Twelvetrees, Farrell, Jackson, Hogg, Maitland and Laidlaw.

Scotland chucked it about against italy with Scott, Visser and Laidlaw.

Wales did it against italy with Biggar and JD2.

Ireland did it against Scotland With Gilroy, Paddy Jackson and luke marshall cutting us up.

And finally Wales tore England to pieces in Cardiff.

I think a lot of teams played an expansive game in the 6N.

Notch - agree with most of that. The current Lions aren't a team I can support because they are harmful to Ireland without any redeeming features.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:Notch,I endorse everything you say.
I wonder how much pressure was put on by sponsors like HSBC who have pumped money into the Lions and are probably keen to back a winning side rather than one that keeps coming up short?
I love the ball being chucked about but where are the players to do it?Havent seen much in the 6N's for years.

Ireland chucked the ball around against Wales with Sexton, Zebo and BOD leading the charge.

England and Scotland both played running rugby against each other at twickers with Twelvetrees, Farrell, Jackson, Hogg, Maitland and Laidlaw.

Scotland chucked it about against italy with Scott, Visser and Laidlaw.

Wales did it against italy with Biggar and JD2.

Ireland did it against Scotland With Gilroy, Paddy Jackson and luke marshall cutting us up.

And finally Wales tore England to pieces in Cardiff.

I think a lot of teams played an expansive game in the 6N.

Yet again the gulf between our interpretations is established.

 "that Gatland running back to his Welsh template shows a lack of ambition"


That would be the same lack of ambition that put 30 points in the 6 Nations runners up - The lack of ambition that has taken them to semi final of the world cup in 2011, a GS in 2012 and the 6 Nations championship again in 2013. You fellas eulogise about 1 GS in 70 years and accuse this fella of a lack of ambition - Lets see what George and the boys can do on Saturday and I pray Sexton doesn't let us down with his lack of ambition and composure this time

RubyGuby wrote:You fellas eulogise about 1 GS in 70 years and accuse this fella of a lack of ambition

... except it was 2 in 70 years - I know, I know ... that's just pure unadulterated naked ambition...

To be fair to Gatland, if a coach is going down, he should go down with men of his own choosing. Please keep all responses clean.

RubyGuby wrote:  Lets see what George and the boys can do on Saturday and I pray Sexton doesn't let us down  with his lack of ambition and composure this time

He'll be pinned for the loss anyway, Ruby.  The stirrings on the frontier even yesterday evening gave vent to the encroaching set-up if Ye Lion knights come home battered and bruised.

"Verily, I say onto you", sayeth Lord Gatland, "I didst scent an enemy in our ranks but felt the poison was cut out when I severed the head of BOD.  Now comes to me the news from Sir Phillips of Goitalone.  A demon pursued his very steps throughout the battle but remained out of range and Sir Phillips could neither see him nor send a cannon ball his way.  It turns out the spy was an Irish peasant from Sneem.  A cursed Knave who when challenged by other Red Knights, made voice as to sound like Sir Biggar of BetterthanPriestland.  We could not assail the Oz battlements and were defeated by the inferior Matildas."

 I like it

Notch wrote:Support your team is a tricky one, as the Lions is so, so different to the other teams we may follow. It is 'our' team but every tour has a different coach and a different team and a different vibe. Some tours capture the imagination and some don't and so the extent the Lions garner support varies from tour to tour too.

It's a very special thing in rugby that only happens once every four years and this year I think we've reached the end of the line and a lot of people feel that we've gone about this the wrong way, that Gatland running back to his Welsh template shows a lack of ambition and illustrates that he hasn't been successful in building  a Lions team that can stand as something unique.

The Lions isn't really a pragmatic thing- for many its more an idea than a team. Like the Barbarians they are meant to capture the romantic and sentimental side of rugby that we don't see in the professional era. Four ancient rivals as one team, playing the best of rugby, together. The Lions may win, but they haven't thrived in that they just haven't captured the imagination this year. Some would rather see a glorious defeat than an ugly and inglorious win- some see it as just another test series to be won at all costs. Gatland is clearly the latter.

I think the conflict is between the rugby romantics and the rugby pragmatists as much as anything else. I'm a pragmatist when it comes to the meat and drink of professional rugby as everyone is, but this Lions tradition is a throwback to a different era with different values and I don't judge it by the same standards as I judge the other teams I follow. I don't just want to win; I want the Lions to play the kind of rugby that inspires generations- the Lions should aspire to greatness every time they tour even though all odds are against them. A scrappy 2-1 series win with negative rugby to the fore is no clincher of immortality.

I agree with a lot of the sentiments in this post.  Support for my country is unquestioned (though I may often heavily criticise), but that level of support for the Lions needs to be earnt a bit more.  Degree of representation often leads to firmer support, but it's certainly not the biggest factor (I wouldn't have had more Englishmen in this series' test sides for instance, though probably different ones).  The key aspect for me with the Lions is that it should be a showcase for B&I rugby, successfully melding the top players doing what they do best and enjoying their rugby.  Obviously I would like winning rugby, but that does take more of a backseat compared to what I want from my national side, where I'm more accepting of functionality and a restrictive mindset if it might get you over the line.

Probably the Lions series I've enjoyed most was 2009, not a winning series, not beautiful open rugby, but passionate performances in a style the players looked like they believed in, made the best of their abilities and enjoyed.

Biltong wrote:Hood, mate I have no problem with the Lions concept or the fact that it belongs to the British and Irish. I also don't have a problem with offering dividing opinion on the subject, what I do have a problem with is the disrespect.

Let me put it this way, I come onto this site to learn about European rugby, I tend to ask many questions, specifically on the club side as there is a lot I don't know. But do you know how utterly frustrating and unpleasant it is to sort out petty squabbles, unpleasant threads and still find a time to sort out the good well reasoned posts between the dribble?

Ha, yeah thinking about it you probably are in an unenviable position so appreciate it must be frustrating. I didn't mean to sound chippy either, and should say i'm not a big poster here but very glad to see you back!

The point of disrespect I'm not sure about. It's a shame that it's been full of bickering but I'm not sure there's a huge difference there to other tours. I think the players are pretty united, and as I say, I reckon most people wind their necks in come the game. I have to say I have no problem with a Lions team with no England players, unless I think that completely compromises the team. There actually isn't a single English player I would now say I feel HAS to start, and I wouldn't care if none did. But i do appreciate why Scots for example now feel less attached to the concept.

I honestly think the point of 'respect' in rugby is overplayed. I've said it before and I know it's not popular, but I think rugby in general is a bit precious about it. The whole North finger wag was a case in point. Rugby fans (and I'm not pointing the finger at you Biltong!) sometimes seem so desperate to show their game is 'better' than football that they'll get horribly princess like about 'respecting the game'. It's a game, it's sport, it's meant to be fun - wind ups, niggles, warts and all - in my humble opinion. It's a top game, but it's only a game, and I guess that was my only point really - if we want to be all angsty and moody and tribal, it's just part of how we interact with the game and each other over here. It's not right or wrong. Sad, in my opinion, but no more than that.

Agree about it only being a sport at the end of the day, problem is when people are passionate about things they tend to become over defensive and over react to crtiticism, then they take it personal and the personal abuse comes out.

That is where it becomes tiring.

Would I support England if there were no Tigers playing?

Without question.

Do I cheer on Team GB at the Olympics if our competing athelete is not English?

Again without question.

Lions?

With every fibre of my being.

Biltong wrote:Agree about it only being a sport at the end of the day, problem is when people are passionate about things they tend to become over defensive and over react to crtiticism, then they take it personal and the personal abuse comes out.

That is where it becomes tiring.

A fair point. Some others have posted on the romanticism of the Lions and I can appreciate this. I think a lot of the bickering has been about the way the Lions have played as much as who has been picked.

If we lose, we lose. But let's lose with a bit of dash and verve, trying to make things happen. I actually think a lot of the 'legends' who pipe up every four years get it wrong when they say 'win and you're legends, lose and you're forgotten' or some such. It's not the winning, it's the winning against tough odds and opposition playing GREAT rugby.

I first started watching a little rugby (club) in 2001. Caught a bit of the World Cup in 2003 but didn't really start watching properly until 2006 when I moved to Wales. I then had three years of being told England were Poopie, boring, all their achievements worthless (not nastily, just stated) culminating in the World Cup in 2007, watched in Wales where everyone was cheering for South Africa. That was also when I first went on the old 606. I sat amazed as I went through 1000+ posts of why England didn't deserve to be in semi/final and how it had ruined rugby. Every Scottish person I've met (not many) have openly said they always want England to lose. Nice guys , good friends, just not liking English sport.

Why on Earth would I care for the Lions? On top of that I've been repeatly told I MUST support them which has firmly put me against them (it may not be obvious but I can be a stubborn arse).

Edit: oh I'm fully aware this may be a childish response but can't help the way you feel.

  I have put this post up at Resolven Workingmens Club and at Resolven RFC - Enjoy the game Hammer

You'll be fine being english there but don't tell them you have a friend from Glynneath - They call us Germans for some reason! Maybe it's our efficiency

Notch wrote:Support your team is a tricky one, as the Lions is so, so different to the other teams we may follow. It is 'our' team but every tour has a different coach and a different team and a different vibe. Some tours capture the imagination and some don't and so the extent the Lions garner support varies from tour to tour too.

It's a very special thing in rugby that only happens once every four years and this year I think we've reached the end of the line and a lot of people feel that we've gone about this the wrong way, that Gatland running back to his Welsh template shows a lack of ambition and illustrates that he hasn't been successful in building  a Lions team that can stand as something unique.

The Lions isn't really a pragmatic thing- for many its more an idea than a team. Like the Barbarians they are meant to capture the romantic and sentimental side of rugby that we don't see in the professional era. Four ancient rivals as one team, playing the best of rugby, together. The Lions may win, but they haven't thrived in that they just haven't captured the imagination this year. Some would rather see a glorious defeat than an ugly and inglorious win- some see it as just another test series to be won at all costs. Gatland is clearly the latter.

I think the conflict is between the rugby romantics and the rugby pragmatists as much as anything else. I'm a pragmatist when it comes to the meat and drink of professional rugby as everyone is, but this Lions tradition is a throwback to a different era with different values and I don't judge it by the same standards as I judge the other teams I follow. I don't just want to win; I want the Lions to play the kind of rugby that inspires generations- the Lions should aspire to greatness every time they tour even though all odds are against them. A scrappy 2-1 series win with negative rugby to the fore is no clincher of immortality.

I agree with much of your post Notch, but the two bits I've highlighted don't quite ring true:

1) Gatland hasn't reverted to his Welsh template, he's used it more or less all along. He's reverted to Welsh personnel, but that's not the same thing - and I think some people are complaining that he's done the former when what really irks them is that he's done the latter.

2) The Lions of 1997, certainly in the Tests, didn't play the rugby of the gods. They had a good win in the first, were outscored three tries to nil in the second and lost the third by quite a margin. When is a scrappy 2-1 series win not a scrappy 2-1 series win?

RubyGuby wrote:  I have put this post up at Resolven Workingmens Club and at Resolven RFC - Enjoy the game Hammer

You'll be fine being english there but don't tell them you have a friend from Glynneath - They call us Germans for some reason! Maybe it's our efficiency

 
Guess where I was watching the 2007 final.

Notch wrote:Support your team is a tricky one, as the Lions is so, so different to the other teams we may follow. It is 'our' team but every tour has a different coach and a different team and a different vibe. Some tours capture the imagination and some don't and so the extent the Lions garner support varies from tour to tour too.

It's a very special thing in rugby that only happens once every four years and this year I think we've reached the end of the line and a lot of people feel that we've gone about this the wrong way, that Gatland running back to his Welsh template shows a lack of ambition and illustrates that he hasn't been successful in building  a Lions team that can stand as something unique.

The Lions isn't really a pragmatic thing- for many its more an idea than a team. Like the Barbarians they are meant to capture the romantic and sentimental side of rugby that we don't see in the professional era. Four ancient rivals as one team, playing the best of rugby, together. The Lions may win, but they haven't thrived in that they just haven't captured the imagination this year. Some would rather see a glorious defeat than an ugly and inglorious win- some see it as just another test series to be won at all costs. Gatland is clearly the latter.

I think the conflict is between the rugby romantics and the rugby pragmatists as much as anything else. I'm a pragmatist when it comes to the meat and drink of professional rugby as everyone is, but this Lions tradition is a throwback to a different era with different values and I don't judge it by the same standards as I judge the other teams I follow. I don't just want to win; I want the Lions to play the kind of rugby that inspires generations- the Lions should aspire to greatness every time they tour even though all odds are against them. A scrappy 2-1 series win with negative rugby to the fore is no clincher of immortality.

I agree with all of this post, but just picking up on this bit as Lucky did and adding a bit more.  The last time the Lions were successful was 1997.  I've re-watched the games again recently due to the myriad of re-runs shown on sky and ESPN Classic.  The Lions play certainly wasn't that inspirational.  Intense, edge of the seat stuff, but the play was generally very bish, bosh and poor (in the tests).  Neil Jenkins had to be the worst full back ever to don the 15 shirt - no positional awareness, no bravery in defence, like a revolving door.  But he could kick.  We only just about sneaked a 2nd victory through kicks.  No-one remember that now though, of course.  But a the time no-one knew how we managed to win.  Only 1 try was scored in those first two winning tests, and that (like North in the first test on this tour) was a bit of individual magic from Dawson (shudder the thought!).  Those games were attritional, the Lions were often stodgy and lacked a bit of creativity relying on the likes of Gibbs to crash it up the middle.  It worked that time, but very nearly didn't - Guscott might have missed the drop goal, like 1/2p missed the penalty.  But these 1997 guys are now, 15 years on, revered as heroes and all conquering.  The highlights real of course makes it look great because that's exactly what highlights are - i.e. the best bits.  In future this tour will show highlights of the first test and the 4 brilliant tries scored.  My overall point being that we've failed in the last 3 tours trying to entertain and enthrall the generations of fans, but the last successful time was when we did it scrappy, slightly negative and a bit uninspiring.

Griff, there was also the anomaly of the second test where the Lions were outscored 3 tries to zip, Wilkinson scored 18 points and we missed every kick.

It wasn't Wilkinson, Biltong. He would have been about 17! But yes, I get our point, and I agree- the Lions hung on playing very little rugby and just kicking the points.

It was actually 5 penalties to Neil Jenkins and a drop goal to Guscott to win it.

Sorry man, You are correct.

Metal Tiger wrote:Would I support England if there were no Tigers playing?

Without question.

Do I cheer on Team GB at the Olympics if our competing athelete is not English?

Again without question.

Lions?

With every fibre of my being.

The Lions are different from the other 2 examples though.

For Team GB at the olympics the fastest guys or the strongest guys were chosen. There was no ambiguity. Hence the best got picked.

Being an Englishman you can relate to whoever plays for England, even if you have no guys from your club playing for them.

The Lions is a different kettle of fish. It's all about opinions and personal loylaties to players from coaces that kicks up such a stink.