Quota System for Future Lions Tours

First topic message reminder :

Warren Gatland will formally suggest that a public debate occurs over a quota system for use on future British and Irish Lions Tours. Are you in favour of this or against it?

His motive in suggesting this is not exactly pure, it's more to do with him not being able to deal with the usual criticisms that pop up- but is it necessary?

Gatland wrote: “It’s worth debating and I think we should start it off. Do we need a minimum number of players from a country in the squad and then, when we are picking a Test side, does there need to be a minimum of one or two [from each country] in the starting XV?"

“I think I know what the answer will be with that, but, if we don’t raise it and debate it to get a consensus, then potentially we are going to end up with what we had recently on this tour.”

I would say with a coach who has strong ties to one specific national team like Gatland- yes, it absolutely is necessary. But by far the easiest way to resolve is surely to just pick a coach who hasn't worked as a coach of any NH team within the last two years before the tour. It's far too easy for a guy who is national coach of one of the home unions to just go and pick combinations from that team instead of doing what the Lions is meant to be about; experimenting, finding the best balance of all the home unions.

I compare certain players who some people like to mention to those from the Dragons in terms of Welsh squad places. We like to bang the drum for some of our players to get selected by Sir Warren (due to form shown), but he hasn't and he's been justified there too. He knows best.

I do genuinely wonder what selections he could've made otherwise, as even players who get classed as wasted selections (such as Geth) still offered things like leadership (which considering some people thought Sam our captain needed his hand holding, the more leaders in your squad, the better aye?) and had he got fit would've done a good job. Some players are worth the risk, especially with cover in the squad. Even the apparent magician was prepared to carry 1/2p with an injury to SA in 09

Football is about one thing - winning.

Rugby is about many things, of which winning is but one. Rugby is also about honesty and integrity, friendship, passion, controlled aggression and fair play.

If we sacrifice any of these things for the sake of winning, then we're all poorer as a result.

IanBru wrote:Football is about one thing - winning.

Rugby is about many things, of which winning is but one. Rugby is also about honesty and integrity, friendship, passion, controlled aggression and fair play.

If we sacrifice any of these things for the sake of winning, then we're all poorer as a result.

Ianbru

Sounds very pretty and admirable and i don't disagree with the sentiment but it is just that, sentiment. But none of these eminent qualities mean anything to a losing side. This is professional sport, a multi million dollar business, there is no 'honor' to be found in losing. That game is for losers.

Winning doesn't mean you have to give up any of the qualities you have listed, they are not mutually exclusive.

Scratch wrote:
Winning doesn't mean you have to give up any of the qualities you have listed, they are not mutually exclusive.

Exactly. Tell that to Gats.

Scratch wrote:

Ineffable wrote:

Scratch wrote:i think in future there should be a quota for the amount of fans allowed to accompany the tour, proportions being determined by how many players are selected from each country.
If an established player is not selected for a test then all fans from that country should be sent home and barred from using a rugby forum in perpetuity.
This will remove the petty, dull bitterness that i have seen displayed on this site and others

Ugh, could you at least try to empathise ?

Ug, no.

Empathise with what? I am fed up with the bleating from so called fans after a hugely successful WINNING tour. Fine, if we'd lost, the whole thing rightly comes under scrutiny and is fair game, but rugby is about one thing WINNING and there is no perfect set up.

It's not about ego players being humoured, has-been pundits and players being used because of the country they come from……they are all Lions, the idea is bigger than the individual or the country they came from and in respect of the Lions, Gatland's achievement is absolutely immense and should be applauded and not whinged about by bitter pillocks. That's me empathizing.  

Let's not forget that Henry failed in Aus after being 1 up, SCW just didn't get the Lions and was too weak to make the decisions Gats made, even Geech blew a golden opportunity in SA….but Gats, he took a Lions side halfway around the world and beat the Aussies in their own back yard.

You know, your first sentence said it all. You don't want to empathise at all, you're not even trying.

I take exception to "hugely successful" winning tour for a start. As many have pointed out the tour was on a knife edge, 2-1 with two games decided on a final kick. And we also lost a midweek game there was no need to lose. I also take exception to your comparison to other tours because it excludes the fact that this Aus side was easier to beat than any other side the Lions has come up against in the professional era.

You say (in a more recent post) that winning doesn't have to compromise on those values we all hold dear in rugby, but I take exception to that as well - it very well might. When it comes to Gatland and his limited gameplan he gave up on integrity and together-ness in order to ensure he won because he doesn't seem to know another way around coaching.

I think you are being a little biased in your view. I've already conceded that Scotland - my team - should have had minimal representation on this tour, but I have pointed out that it still should have been more. I don't see what's wrong with that. Calling for us to be happy with under-representation just a "winning-at-all-costs-with-the-only-strategy-I-can-employ" approach doesn't seem particularly fair. Strangely I'm not really blaming Gatland; it's not his fault he was called to win and didn't know another way how. Like I've suggested I think next time a coach without home nations involvement OR a coaching set up representing all 4N current setups would work much better in the spirit of the game.

Pretty sure proffessional rugby is all about winning.

Most teams would take an ugly 3-0 win as only the W is important

Ineffable wrote:

Scratch wrote:

Ineffable wrote:

Scratch wrote:i think in future there should be a quota for the amount of fans allowed to accompany the tour, proportions being determined by how many players are selected from each country.
If an established player is not selected for a test then all fans from that country should be sent home and barred from using a rugby forum in perpetuity.
This will remove the petty, dull bitterness that i have seen displayed on this site and others

Ugh, could you at least try to empathise ?

Ug, no.

Empathise with what? I am fed up with the bleating from so called fans after a hugely successful WINNING tour. Fine, if we'd lost, the whole thing rightly comes under scrutiny and is fair game, but rugby is about one thing WINNING and there is no perfect set up.

It's not about ego players being humoured, has-been pundits and players being used because of the country they come from……they are all Lions, the idea is bigger than the individual or the country they came from and in respect of the Lions, Gatland's achievement is absolutely immense and should be applauded and not whinged about by bitter pillocks. That's me empathizing.  

Let's not forget that Henry failed in Aus after being 1 up, SCW just didn't get the Lions and was too weak to make the decisions Gats made, even Geech blew a golden opportunity in SA….but Gats, he took a Lions side halfway around the world and beat the Aussies in their own back yard.

You know, your first sentence said it all. You don't want to empathise at all, you're not even trying.

I take exception to "hugely successful" winning tour for a start. As many have pointed out the tour was on a knife edge, 2-1 with two games decided on a final kick. And we also lost a midweek game there was no need to lose. I also take exception to your comparison to other tours because it excludes the fact that this Aus side was easier to beat than any other side the Lions has come up against in the professional era.

You say (in a more recent post) that winning doesn't have to compromise on those values we all hold dear in rugby, but I take exception to that as well - it very well might. When it comes to Gatland and his limited gameplan he gave up on integrity and together-ness in order to ensure he won because he doesn't seem to know another way around coaching.

I think you are being a little biased in your view. I've already conceded that Scotland - my team - should have had minimal representation on this tour, but I have pointed out that it still should have been more. I don't see what's wrong with that. Calling for us to be happy with under-representation just a "winning-at-all-costs-with-the-only-strategy-I-can-employ" approach doesn't seem particularly fair. Strangely I'm not really blaming Gatland; it's not his fault he was called to win and didn't know another way how. Like I've suggested I think next time a coach without home nations involvement OR a coaching set up representing all 4N current setups would work much better in the spirit of the game.

Not sure your post even warrants a reply but there is so much flake in it I need some answers

you take exception to a lot don't you?

Do you take exception to the Win?

So scotland should have had minimal representation but more than that…..what does that even mean?

Winning is not fair, nor is life generally.

He was called to win and didn't know another way how? You've lost me again….should he have been called to be 'fair but don't worry too much about winning?" Genuinely not sure what world you live in but you must get disappointed a lot because this Knights of the Round Table approach to rugby is an anachronism in the pro game…..the W is absolutely everything, everything else is incidental.

I wonder if you took exception to Geech not including Scots?

how exactly did Gats he give up on integrity and together ness? If 'together ness' was important, whatever that even means, then obviously it didn't do too much harm because we won…as for integrity, that's a huge allegation and i take exception to that.

But you don't blame him….who do you blame?