So are the Lions a tradition that is worth hanging onto in this Pro era?

First topic message reminder :

There has been a lot of topics written and discussed about the B+I Lions over the last few months, but there have been one or two of us that are of the opinion that maybe the Lions has run its course and perhaps maybe the home nations should look to build their teams so that they are able to beat the SH teams on their own, as imo we have the players (even Scotland can punch above their weight)

So are the Lions a tradition that is worth hanging onto in this Pro era or do you see at as nothing more than an exercise to make a few quid for the host nation, inflate a few egos and sell some shirts for Adidas?

Thought it would be fun to have a Poll to see what each Nations fans think.   

rainbow-warrior wrote:

I also suggest you ask him what nationality he is and then argue with him when he tells you, you silly and stupid little boy.

Strange comment, whats the point in posting if you have nothing to offer?   

Scrumpy wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

I also suggest you ask him what nationality he is and then argue with him when he tells you, you silly and stupid little boy.

Strange comment, whats the point in posting if you have nothing to offer?   

A bit like asking the SRU why they bother with the Lions when they have nothing to offer

May I ask if those who have voted no have been on a Lions tour and also if there are any that have been who have voted yes.

I know they are not cheap and I have been lucky enough to have gone 3 times and would go again, this year was firs winning series I have been on which made it even more enjoyable but I have had fantastic times on losing tours as well and have kept in touch with people form all over.

For me it would be a huge loss.

But surely you would enjoy a Welsh tour just as much?   

Its not really a case to keep a outdated leftover from the amateur days is it?

Scrumpy wrote:But surely you would enjoy a Welsh tour just as much?   

Its not really a case to keep a outdated leftover from the amateur days is it?

Scrumpy,

You're right I have enjoyed a Welsh tour but I think the uniqueness of a Lions tour tops the lot, also the players themselves still rate a Lions tour though I guess if it wasn't there.

The selection will never please everyone there will always be dis-agreements on coaches, players etc etc but for me I think it would be a shame if they let it stop.

Maybe if Bath ever get a player regularly capped then asked to represent the Lions you'll change your opinion eh ?   

munkian wrote:Maybe if Bath ever get a player regularly capped then asked to represent the Lions you'll change your opinion eh ?   

Grow up fella, we had a few over the years.   

Does it really hurt you when I say the Lions are an outdated concept?

Ah yes, the great Bananaman. Criminal he was over looked at centre recently

Paul James is probabaly your best shout

munkian wrote:Ah yes, the great Bananaman. Criminal he was over looked at centre recently

Paul James is probabaly your best shout

We wouldn't release him   

You would, PRL wouldn't.

And yeah, WUMs keep me up at night  

munkian wrote:You would, PRL wouldn't.

And yeah, WUMs keep me up at night  

Is that an App or is it something you should see a Doctor about????

Scrumpy wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

I also suggest you ask him what nationality he is and then argue with him when he tells you, you silly and stupid little boy.

Strange comment, whats the point in posting if you have nothing to offer?   

That is my offer to people like you who have nothing better to do that sit behind your PC playing lord Gob and trying to wind others up. In real life billy no mates I imagine.

GunsGerms wrote:The squabbling this year was unprecedented. I guess thats what happens when you throw a Kiwi with a personal agenda in the mix.

True, and being a kiwi that personal agenda was about winning as a team. Pity the sides fans had other ideas.

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:The squabbling this year was unprecedented. I guess thats what happens when you throw a Kiwi with a personal agenda in the mix.

True, and being a kiwi that personal agenda was about winning as a team. Pity the sides fans had other ideas.

His only personal agenda was winning.

It was egos on the tour that had a personal agenda, one in particular who seemed to think he had a god given right to call the shots.

And as for the 'fans' that have continued to whine bitch and moan, well…..they really aren't worth bothering with.

Surely a coaches top agenda should always be winning, anything else is a bonus.

rainbow-warrior wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

I also suggest you ask him what nationality he is and then argue with him when he tells you, you silly and stupid little boy.

Strange comment, whats the point in posting if you have nothing to offer?   

That is my offer to people like you who have nothing better to do that sit behind your PC playing lord Gob and trying to wind others up.  In real life billy no mates I imagine.

Says the man/boy who typed this at 1:12am   

The Lions needs a new 21st Cent mission. In the past it's been a touring team during a period when the NH and SH didn't play each other that frequently. Now we're doing that all the time. For God’s sake, poor old Wales seem to spend half their time these days playing Aus. The Lions then became a way that the BI/Ire teams might be competitive against the SH. That's just too sad these days, each nation should be trying to do that. And with Aus being pretty average at the moment, it shouldn't take the combined expertise of 4 national sides to be beating them at least 50% of the time. Tbh, I'm not that interested in going thro' all the hooha of the last series only to claim the bragging rights over Aus by a whisker. I suppose I can see some logic in only playing the best side in the world in an attempt to attain that level (maybe a bit like the Ashes, but against the ABs, and with a decent side).

So with the descent of the BaBas into irrelevance, the Lions should take over their original ethos. A good mix of the participating nations, an attacking game-plan, inclusion of a number of young emerging players. And Gats as the permanent water-boy.

Please tell Geech of this attacking game plan, so when he allegedly comes back to save the day, he might do better than one try when they're not chasing a game or playing a dead rubber like in SA 09.

Arise Sir Warren

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:The squabbling this year was unprecedented. I guess thats what happens when you throw a Kiwi with a personal agenda in the mix.

True, and being a kiwi that personal agenda was about winning as a team. Pity the sides fans had other ideas.

Gatland seems to be all about Gatland. to be fair, most people are that way, but some, like Gatland seek to maximise their 15 minutes by constantly courting controversy. SCW was the same way. Jose Mourhinho does the same thing. they hog the limelight and believe that helps and actually positively contributes to the team results.

not everyones cup of tea.

i personally think he's a douche bag and shouldn't be let near a Lions team again until he is i) no longer coaching wales and ii) shows some freaking creativity in gameplan.

nothing to do with the fact he is a kiwi. could be a martian for all i care.

I had never been on a winning Lions tour until this year so I didn't give a flying feck how we won - we won thats what it is about.

i am sick and tired of Wales be involved in great games of rugby against the big 3 and losing I would rather watch a dead awful 3 - 0 victory as long as we won.

Its about winning noting else matters in certain games and a Lions Series win is a rarity so for me I don't care who the coach is or how many from whatever Nations is playing as long as they got the win.

quinsforever wrote:i personally think....(Gatland)....shouldn't be let near a Lions team again until he is i) no longer coaching wales and ii) shows some freaking creativity in gameplan.

nothing to do with the fact he is a kiwi. could be a martian for all i care.

I think B&I Lions coaches should be from the Home Nations.  It is a B&I enterprise and I believe everyone should be B&I, players and coaches.  Mars is clearly not B&I (forgetting for the moment a few girls I dated a long time ago).

bedfordwelsh wrote:Its about winning noting else matters in certain games and a Lions Series win is a rarity so for me I don't care who the coach is or how many from whatever Nations is playing as long as they got the win.

I agree.  As long as everyone is from the Home nations, then it really doesn't matter.  I do believe it is a shame that more Scots were not involved.

doctor_grey wrote:

quinsforever wrote:i personally think....(Gatland)....shouldn't be let near a Lions team again until he is i) no longer coaching wales and ii) shows some freaking creativity in gameplan.

nothing to do with the fact he is a kiwi. could be a martian for all i care.

I think B&I Lions coaches should be from the Home Nations.  It is a B&I enterprise and I believe everyone should be B&I, players and coaches.  Mars is clearly not B&I (forgetting for the moment a few girls I dated a long time ago).

bedfordwelsh wrote:Its about winning noting else matters in certain games and a Lions Series win is a rarity so for me I don't care who the coach is or how many from whatever Nations is playing as long as they got the win.

I agree.  As long as everyone is from the Home nations, then it really doesn't matter.  I do believe it is a shame that more Scots were not involved.

Grey,

Thats all well and good with regards the coaches but currently 3 of the 4 teams eligible have foreign coaches so would that mean Lancaster should be picked by default and for what its worth I think he will be in with a hell of a shout in 2017 or do we purposely pick someone not involved with the 4 teams such as Geech or whoever else fits the bill?

That's - unfortunately - a good point.  I would prefer not to see Lancaster as Lions coach.  I would (almost) rather see Austin Healey.

Joking aside, I suppose that means we reach into the club/region/franchise level to find our coaches.  I would still prefer that to bringing in foreign coaches as I want to keep the 'B&I' in 'B&I'.  

You raise a really great point about the thin coaching talent levels, or the lack of confidence in our coaches, in the Home Nations.  We have all been playing Rugby for a million years and we ucannot find decent coaches for our national teams?  That is an embarrassment.  There should be multiple qualified candidates banging on the door to lead national teams.  And a strong coaching progression to get them there.  When Lancaster was appointed, there not a lot of candidates.  Looking at the big picture, that is bad.

The problem, which has been highlighted many times before with picking coaches who are currently with a national side is that there will always be a level of bias, especially in the close call selections. Most coaches would go with what they know.

National coaches aside, you obviously have Geech, you have Jenkins at Gloucester who was on the 05 tour so has some experience of a Lions tour, you have Dai Young who has had experience of coaching the Baa Baas but not sure if any would be upto the main role.

What about the likes of Mallinder, Cockerill etc etc would they be upto it and would them themselves along with Jenkins and Young be able to totally detach themselves from the selection process and be unbiased?

I think Dai Young would probably be a very good coach for Lions.  He clearly knows his Rugby and is just edgy enough to get the most out of teams.  

Cockerill would be a lot of fun to have as coach.  No player would violate team rules because they would all be scared (rhymes with 'witless').  Just think of the hours of enjoyment we would have listening to press conferences and interviews.  And in new Zealand, we would see that famous clip of him facing up to the Haka over and over. He also is a very good coach and leader, and very importantly comes from the best winning tradition in the Northern Hemisphere.  

I am not sure about Mallinder.  I was happy he did not get selected for the England job.  To me, there is still something missing with his coaching.  Total inability to get his teams prepared for the Heineken cup, but they come back furiously after big losses.  The problem is he has not been able to prevent those big losses in the first place. Talk to him and he knows Rugby cold.  Just something missing and I can't put my finger on it.

Conor O'Shea would be another good candidate.  Would represent the Lions very well (and he would have to get rid of those stupid sweaters he sometimes wears).

Put together a staff including most of these guys, add in Jenks, and we have a terrific staff.  I would also add in Dorian West because of how well Saints pack plays, not just the set-piece but also ruck and maul as well as any team in the world.  Only question is who would be the head guy?  O'Shea is the most corporate type, careful with his words and always seems to come off well.  Young is a little more earthy and humourous.  And then there is Cockers........

I pick Cockers.

Thats a good list Grey and proves there are some NH coaches out there, guess maybe some don't fit the bill of the Unions.

However it would still bring in the bias element, lets use Gatland and Cockerill as two examples for a mo.

Gatland picked A Jones and Lydiate over Cole and Croft some would say bias but if Cockerill was coach if he went for Cole and Croft would he not be accused of the same?

What if Mallinder fo example picked Foden over Halfpenny or Brown even.

Jenkins picked Morgan over Faletau, Heaslip or Billy V etc etc.

The only way to have a totally biased (if possible) selection is to pick someone with no affiliation to Club or Country which inevitably leads to a foreign coach and even some of those may have pre concieved ideas on players.

I think you lay it out pretty clear, there is no way to ensure the Lions head coach is immune from bias or allegations of bias.  And I am OK with that because there is no way around it.  I agree with you that I just want Lions to win.  

There is always some unavoidable political dimension to leading the Lions.  We see that every year to greater or lesser degrees.   But as long as there is an apparent effort to be open minded, then let's just get going.  I think Gatland's worst choice and for me the obviously biased selection was Gethin Jenkins.  For me it was clear he would probably never play much because of his injury and was not even first choice prop at his club.  The selection of Paul O'Connell was also somewhat political.  It was also very clear he would never survive the tour, but he apparently added intangibles that he was valuable to keep around.   Farrell, in my mind was also a political selection.  So, there you go, even Gatland was trying to manage the politics of the world around him to whatever degree.  For the sake of peace on earth and goodwill towards men, we can avoid mentioning the politics of the Brian O'Driscoll situation.

I did think there were a disproportionate number of Welsh in the Lions starting XV this year.  But I felt the same about the number of English back in 2005 (when it was also clear that some of those English were on the downside of their careers and better choices were available).  

So I am not so fussed about where the coaches come from as long as they are B&I.  As long as we have coaches with a real desire to win the tour, that's all we can ask, methinks.

Many conclusions could be drawn from this Poll, most would get me into hot water if I were to say them but I think its clear that the Lions don't mean as much to three of the four home nations fans anymore, maybe its down to lack of wins against SH teams or maybe some people love to hold on to traditions and get all watery eyed at the thought of seasons gone by more than others?

  

Merry Christmas all  

Scrumpy,

You might as well say what you think as you have put your thoughts out there before but the to the English lads I met and toured with to Oz in the summer it certainly meant a lot to them still and we have already started planning for the NZ trip in 2017.

Scrumpy wrote:Many conclusions could be drawn from this Poll, most would get me into hot water if I were to say them but I think its clear that the Lions don't mean as much to three of the four home nations fans anymore, maybe its down to lack of wins against SH teams or maybe some people love to hold on to traditions and get all watery eyed at the thought of seasons gone by more than others?

  

Merry Christmas all  

Your stats mean nothing other than sour grapes are alive and well. Certianly don't know what statistical analysis you used to deduce that 'maybe some people love to hold on to traditions and get all watery eyed' but only you know what goes on in that cider soaked head of yours.

Firstly you had 49 respondents, that's about a urine poor sample as you can get and though I have no time to do an ANOVA the following is obvious.

50% of respondents favor the lions irrespective of nationality, 50% don't. Hugely controversial. But also note 50% of neutral fans also favour them. So the trend is clear. National bias colors results, so lets look at why that might be.

England. Poorly represented after a dismal showing at the 6 Nations yet again.
8/11 or 72% of England fans don’t favour the Lions…I wonder why?   

Ireland, mostly revolting after His Holiness the Pope, sorry, I should have said BOD, who seems to think he has a right to be selected but got dropped because he was not the best player for the job,
3/5 or 60% of Irish fans don’t favour the Lions…..it's hardly a massive majority but again, I also wonder why?

Scotland, though probably the most justified in feeling they were under represented, still 2/4 or 50% favour the Lions. That means 50% do. Now you tell me what Scot might get teary eyed over the tradition and I will lay an egg right now. Say what you like they are practical and get on with the job. Based on the OP agenda this bucks the trend.

Wales, after a successful defence of the 6 Nations by creaming England, form the majority of the lions team lead by their coach and 14/16 or 87% of fans favour the Lions….makes no sense at all. Oh and they win, further shock.

Can't be arced debunking your BS anymore

Try harder next time

With a coaching staff that could be viewed as more neutral I think the proportion of people favouring the Lions would increase. Get the balance right and even a defeat is viewed more favourably than a tainted victory (in some peoples eyes).

Scrumpy wrote:

That about sums you up Scrumpy.

The head Coach needs to be natural, of course they will always have their favourites and more than likely they will keep better players out of the team or be made Captain but something needs to be done otherwise the Lions will die if its allowed to continue in the same manner, I hope the powers that be have heard the rumblings from rugby fans that another tour of Warren Ball is not an option!

Scratch do you feel better now that you've got that off your chest?

  

As I said, getting a totally neutral coach is nigh on in possible especially if you then want him to be from Britain or Ireland.

The problem with the Lions is that there is no benefit to the B&I teams. Everything is far too heavily weighted in favour of the SH opposition.

The players love it from an egotistical self-aggrandizement point of view, but surely that is against every principle of the team game that makes rugby what it is. When the tours were a couple of dozen games then the Lions could justifiably be called a "team" because they actually played together. Now it is all about players getting another line on their personal CV, and that is at the whim of the coach as there is hardly any evidence for it to be on merit.

The Lions helps the SH teams unify by building their morale and developing their players as well as getting a significant financial shot in the arm. The concept is also great to divide B&I Test teams by having some guys selected and others left behind. It takes away a whole summer tour for four NH Test sides two years out from a RWC, with associated injuries and disruption the following season.

There is no good rugby reason to keep the Lions from a northern hemisphere point of view, but  it does generate a lot of broadcasting money, massages a lot of individual egos, and is a wheeze for those well-heeled fans who want to experience the ultimate tour.

A part of me loves the lions, the sheer romance and adventure is like nothing else in rugby. However I just don't see where the lions really fit into the professional age? Especially where the international agenda must be driven by player welfare (strict limits on matches played per season – don’t forget the current player of the year won having played less than 25 games in 2013 – go figure?) and real global expansion.

The Lions is and always will be a part of the games history, but if the game is going to move beyond being an 'empire game' it must make real choices to broaden its horizons.

European development has been steady but has stalled and American and pacific nations are equally on the slow train. Rugby union has real opportunities to expand, especially in the USA & Canada, but none of this will happen if we choose to use our precious time/resources investing in what I believe is sadly an anachronism.

People are selfish and rugby has taken many wrong turns throughout its history, so why should now be any different?

Besides the tradition and the romance of the Lions, which I thoroughly enjoy, there are more hard nosed benefits:
They raise the profile of Rugby and draw in more fans and more interest. This helps grow Rugby and is therefore critically needed.
They make money for the host nation which helps them financially. Australia in particular are treading the fiscal waters.
They make money for all the support organisations from television to shopkeepers who sell Lions merchandise to tour operators to pub which show the Lions to stadium workers and so on.
In simpler terms they bring people to Rugby whilst making money for all involved. In that guise, I believe the Lions need to remain and it is worth adjusting the calendars to accommodate them. Not more matches, just work it to include the Lions.

It’s not the function of the home unions to provide financial opportunity to which ever host nation. Undoubtedly that is a consequence of the tour but it should never be the reason for the tour in the first place.

As I said before the game needs to move beyond that of an 'empire game' and broaden its international reach. To do this the game must open up and become more inclusive - A REAL EUROPEAN INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION every 4 years would be of far greater benefit to the game as a whole instead of the SH jolly that is the Lions junket.

I know the moneyed interests will continue to demand the Lions tour; however the clock is ticking as far as I can see. I for one would be happy to see English representation ended.

How has the Lions raised the profile of the game - particularly since it became professional? For an institution that has been running 125 years it would be interesting to enumerate the "hordes" of new support it has garnered in that period. As far as I can see the Lions is a product for those fans already totally immersed in the game, and so may sell some more shirts and sky subscriptions (and at the same time taking that rugby money away from teams closer to home).

The Lions is a one-way 'Benefit Concert' for the All Blacks, the Springboks and the Wallabies, that apart from bolstering their dominance, does zilch for the growth of rugby outside that cosy club. It is about time the Lions were consigned to history and the baton passed to a different composite team that tours for the benefit of the lesser rugby nations rather than the greatest.

On an average day, I see approx. 25 patients a day in a sports medicine medical practice, whether I have been in the UK or in the US. Over the weeks and months which lead up to and encompass a Lions tour that's a a pretty good way to take a sampling of how people view sport. And I see a lot more Rugby interest and conversation whenever there is RWC or Lions tour, as compared to typical days. So, to me, the Lions must be raising interest.

Additionally, whenever a Lions tour comes around, there seems to me to be a lot more media attention: Pages in the newspaper, air time on sports reports tv, more people in general talking Rugby, and so on.

The reality of professional sports is this, the best teams attract the most attention, hence the most money.

Whether they ate the Lions touring or the best of Europe touring, but if they don't play against the top teams there will be less interest and a lot less revenue.

Biltong wrote:The reality of professional sports is this, the best teams attract the most attention, hence the most money.

Whether they ate the Lions touring or the best of Europe touring, but if they don't play against the top teams there will be less interest and a lot less revenue.

Agree. Staging prestige events logically brings more attention and revenue globally.

To grow Rugby outside of Argentina and the former Empire (most of France was part of the Empire during the time of Henry II) would require using some of the funds generated by the big events and ploughing it back into grass roots Rugby in those other countries. That does happen to a certain extent today, but the question is whether it is enough, especially when some of the major unions are not exactly flush with cash to maintain their own business. It is a tough conversation.

Doc, you can just look at other sporting codes and see they aren't exactly finding new markets either.

Just look at the American sporting codes, aprt from Japan, where else is Baseball professional?

Same goes for american football.

To grow a sport elsewhere takes a hell of a lot more money than anyone is really prepared to spend

I actually think the 'Celtic Lions' has a nice ring to it.........only joking.

That fact is that decisions like the 'future of the Lions' and others like the european club competitions are all a product of developing professionalism and the games general evolution. We cannot stand still. Rugby Union as far as I can see has the potential for a very exciting future. However there is no doubt for many the changes will be painful.

Biltong wrote:Doc, you can just look at other sporting codes and see they aren't exactly finding new markets either.

Just look at the American sporting codes, aprt from Japan, where else is Baseball professional?

Same goes for american football.

To grow a sport elsewhere takes a hell of a lot more money than anyone is really prepared to spend

And this is the reason why we should invest our limited financial resources into SANZAR?

Sorry Biltong I disagree, however attractive the Lions tours are, and nobody can disagree that they are, I just know that ultimately they are a dead end, a cul-de-sac. There is no development, no expansion and it is time for the Lions buffer to be removed to enable real European progress.

Absolutely agree - Growing sport is difficult outside of a core market.  Baseball is a good example.  It is professional in Mexico and parts of Latin America, as well as Japan and Korea.  But it did not grow as part of a global development strategy.  Baseball developed in Japan (as far as I understand) from Japanese expats who lived in California and went back home before the war.  Then it received a big boost with all the American servicemen in Japan after the war.  

I think we are talking about something completely new in major sport history - to grow a sport in other countries which have little background in that sport.  There is no road map to guide us.  Its unprecedented.  We all know intuitively we need to grow or we go backwards (though some people would not mind that).  The question is how to do it in a sport which is not wealthy like soccer or the major American sports.  

I think its worth a separate thread to discuss exactly how we can grow Rugby.  The approach would seem to me to be different in many countries.  As examples:  Northern Spain already has influence with the southwestern French teams.  The US and Canada have established a base, but need development.  Romania and Georgia need funding.  Can we leverage the existing 7s platform in Kenya to turn it into a full fledged 15s country?   Can Uruguay use proximity to Argentina to grow more?

The ultimate point is we need a global strategy, and good Rugby business people to assess the probable, the possible, and the fanciful, and then develop a strategy.  That is still easier than holding firm to the strategy and making it happen.  

The counterpoint is there is virtually no global thinking in Rugby now.   Partially because every nation is still trying to firm their own base.  Partially because we still have the remnants of the old amatuer 'small sport' thnking in place.  Partially because we simply don't have many people with any vision involved.  But, as ever, the rising tide raises all ships.   Go forward or fail.  We can't grow everywhere at once, but carefully, prudently, strategically should be.

kingelderfield wrote:

Biltong wrote:Doc, you can just look at other sporting codes and see they aren't exactly finding new markets either.

Just look at the American sporting codes, aprt from Japan, where else is Baseball professional?

Same goes for american football.

To grow a sport elsewhere takes a hell of a lot more money than anyone is really prepared to spend

And this is the reason why we should invest our limited financial resources into SANZAR?

Sorry Biltong I disagree, however attractive the Lions tours are, and nobody can disagree that they are, I just know that ultimately they are a dead end, a cul-de-sac. There is no development, no expansion and it is time for the Lions buffer to be removed to enable real European progress.

Who said you must invest in SANZAR?

The fact is the Lions tour the sanzar unions bringing with them millions pounds/dollars of inward investment and therefore the opportunity cost is the failure to invest and develop the game elsewhere.

A 12 Nation European cup every 4 years would generate equal if not more coverage and money and would offer real european development opportunities.

The hosting alone would offer huge opportunities.

It might even inspire the SH to do the same?

Would a European Cup be a money spinner or help develop other nations if its held every 4 years? It would basically be the 6 Nations with a more thrashings of the smaller nations. I'd love to see the 2nd tier get more coverage and possibly promotion and relegation between but this doesn't have to affect the Lions.