The Lions Schedule is Up and it's Insane - Time to Get Rid?

by yappysnap Fri 13 Nov 2015, 8:55 am

First topic message reminder :

From The Rugby Paper

146049558DR066_Australia_v_by Nick Cain

The 2017 Lions should be history-makers, with a mission to become the first Lions side of the professional era to win a series against the All Blacks. That would make them only the third Lions side to emerge triumphant from New Zealand in the 127-year history of the world’s greatest touring team, following in the footsteps of their forebears in 1888 and 1971.

However, although the Lions deserve to be on an upward trajectory after the 2013 series triumph in Australia, with an even greater prize on offer in New Zealand two years from now, The Rugby Paper has learnt that they will again be handicapped massively. The 2017 Lions will embark on a far more difficult tour than they faced two years ago in Australia with virtually no preparation time and with many players leaving for New Zealand only 48-hours after playing in Premiership and Pro12 finals, where they will face the most brutal schedule the host nation has been able to put together.

Worse still, they will have been sabotaged from within, even more effectively than by the NZRFU’s unforgiving tour itinerary, which culminates in three Tests against the world champion All Blacks. We have learned that a Lions request that the tour should start a week later to enable the squad to have seven days of preparation before the opening match against a Provincial Union XV – with that game on June 10 rather than June 3, and the last Test on July 15 rather than July 8 – was torpedoed by Premiership Rugby (PRL).

PRL have said that the decision to oppose any changes to the tour dates has been taken in the interests of player welfare. A spokesman told us: “We felt it was a player welfare issue, and that the end of the tour would be too close to the start of the new season.” The Premiership Rugby decision is unbelievably myopic in its self-interest. It is not as if the Premiership is ignorant of the Lions landscape, or the landmark benefits of a successful Lions tour to Rugby Union throughout the Home Nations.

The schedule foisted on the Lions officials – and agreed to – has also been met with incredulity. In a five-week period it includes matches against all five Kiwi Super Rugby franchises, as well as the New Zealand Maori, going into the three Test series.

Triumph: Jamie Roberts holds the Tom Richards trophy aloft after success in Australia in 2013 (Picture: Getty Images)
Triumph: Jamie Roberts holds the Tom Richards trophy aloft after success in Australia in 2013 (Picture: Getty Images)

The victorious 2013 Lions head coach, Warren Gatland, spoke for many when he commented, “Whoever agreed to that schedule from the Lions point of view, it’s crazy”. Gatland, a New Zealander with inside knowledge of what confronts the tourists, added: “I don’t see how you could even win that. You’re playing five Super Rugby sides, the New Zealand Maori, and three Tests – and another game – all in a five-week period.”

It is also extraordinary that Gatland does not appear to have been consulted by the Lions officials who negotiated the unforgiving schedule.

The lack of communication, and co-operation between the Home Unions, and between club and country – especially in England – is nothing short of staggering given the enormous benefits to the game here should the Lions beat New Zealand again.

There seems to be no understanding, either, that the 1971 Lions tour (and its 1974 counterpart in South Africa) did more to promote, popularise and revolutionise Rugby Union in the UK and Ireland – and in New Zealand, where they rediscovered back play – than any single event before the advent of the World Cup in 1987.

The Lions magic has endured into the pro era with more than 30,000 fans making the trip Down Under in 2013, just as they did to South Africa (1997 and 2009). However, before the 2013 Lions departed for Australia, the tour manager, Andy Irvine, identified the need to modernise and recommended far-reaching changes to the side’s preparation. He called the concept of players setting off on the tour less than 48 hours after they had played in showpiece Premiership and Pro12 finals as “ridiculous”.

He flagged-up that the Home Unions committee agreement, drawn up to cover Lions tours from 2001 to 2017, was outmoded and detrimental to the touring side, and advocated strongly that no tour should depart after 2017 without all the players having at least two weeks preparation time together.

Given those recommendations, and the fact that the Lions tour is worth £150m to the host nation in tourist spend, including travel, tickets and accommodation – the Australian Union alone made £40m from the 2013 tour, enabling them to wipe out a £12.2m debt – you would think that it would not be beyond the wit of Lions officials, and those of the RFU and Premiership Rugby, to come up with a solution.

This would inevitably involve compensation to the English clubs – and their Welsh, Irish and Scots counterparts – for the extra week that they would have to wait before the players selected by the Lions were available to them at the start of the following season. However, given that the touring side made a profit estimated at £7m from the 2013 tour, on top of a £4m surplus in 2009, and that the Lions have the best-selling shirt brand in world rugby, an agreement should have been a formality.

The leverage the Lions financial clout gives them should also have been a winning hand in negotiations with New Zealand. Even if the Lions officials had their hands tied until the tour agreement ends after 2017, they should have made it clear to the New Zealand RFU chief executive, Steve Tew, that flexibility on the part of the host nation regarding the itinerary, and any scheduling changes, would put New Zealand in a favourable position regarding future tours of that country.

If push came to shove, and New Zealand did not budge, the Lions chief executive, John Feehan, should not have hesitated in telling them that Argentina and France would be looked at as favourable new destinations, meaning that their chances of hosting the Lions again might not come around for another 20 years.

The fact that the Lions officials have so far allowed this tour to be hamstrung (again) could be catastrophic for the touring side. The attitude appears to be that the Lions muddled through in Australia in 2013, and they can do it again, when, in reality, their chances of winning a series in New Zealand have been diminished massively by administrative bungling.

The tragedy is that, with a more level playing field, the Lions are capable of shaking the world order by beating the double world champions. It may seem like wishful-thinking following the gap that the All Blacks put between themselves and the chasing pack at this World Cup, but there are plenty of reasons for believing that New Zealand could be vulnerable given a level surface, especially in terms of preparation.

To start with, while New Zealand’s 2015 World Cup legacy is glowing, the Lions also have an impressive legacy to build from. The best building block is that as many as 12 of the Test side that beat the Wallabies are still likely to be available, including the Welsh talisman who led the 2013 campaign, Sam Warburton, and his outstanding team-mate Alun Wyn Jones. So too, is Gatland, the Wales coach who masterminded the victory that restored the pride in the Lions.

More importantly, the much-trumpeted demise of Northern Hemisphere rugby based on none of the Home Unions making the last four of the World Cup speaks more of headline hot-air than cold scrutiny. The reality is that Wales and Ireland went out because of a combination of depletion – as a result of savagely-timed injury culls – and a lack of deep enough reserves at Test level.

However, they did not go quietly, and with any luck the likes of Jonathan Davies, Leigh Halfpenny and Rhys Webb will be restored to fitness well before the Lions selection process starts a year from now. By that time, England may be in a better place to contribute Lions-class backs, with George Ford, Henry Slade, Jonathan Joseph and Anthony Watson stating their cases. Up-and-coming Scottish backs like Finn Russell and Mark Bennett, and forwards like Jonny Gray, will also have a say.

All over: Beauden Barrett scores the All Blacks third try in RWC final
All over: Beauden Barrett scores the All Blacks third try in RWC final

To pretend that there is no South-North gap after this World Cup would be blinkered, but it would also be a distortion to suggest that it is a yawning chasm. The small margins by which Wales failed against South Africa (a last-minute try), and Scotland were prevented from putting Australia out of the tournament (a controversial last minute refereeing decision) were a more accurate measure.

Ireland’s exit was more clear-cut against an inspired Argentina, but whether it would have happened by that margin – if at all – had Johnny Sexton, Sean O’Brien and Paul O’Connell been playing is debatable.

The point, as it always is with the Lions, is that the sum of the four Home Unions is far greater than their individual parts.

The quality of the players available to the Lions is proven, and while none as individual nations have beaten this generation of All Blacks – bar England in 2012 – the collective strength that Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland can muster is enough to make the All Blacks sit up and take notice.

In fact, they have already done so. The fanfare for the 2017 Lions began in earnest before Steve Hansen and his double world champion New Zealand side departed the shores. Their laconic head coach made it clear that he would not be standing down until after the Lions tour. And if it is to be Hansen’s ‘last post’ there is an outside chance that Richie McCaw could also attempt a Brad Thorn. The All Black lock was 36 when he was part of the 2011 World Cup-winning side, and McCaw would be the same age if he stayed on for the Lions.

South Africa fielded the 38-year-old Victor Matfield at this World Cup as a player-coach, and it could be that McCaw is used in the same way by New Zealand. It will depend on whether the man Hansen describes as the greatest player New Zealand have produced still has the appetite for Test rugby, and for the hair-shirt physical regime that goes with it.

What is not in doubt is that captain-elect Kieran Read has huge boots to fill if McCaw calls time on his career, and so, too, does his No.7 understudy, Sam Cane. Neither Read nor Cane played badly during the 2015 triumph, but nor were they luminaries in the back-to-back campaign.

With Hansen also mindful that Dan Carter, Colin Slade, Ma’a Nonu, Conrad Smith, Tony Woodcock and Keven Mealamu are retiring from All Black duty, he will be keen that the Lions receive no favours.

Hansen is getting his way, with the NZRFU, the Lions administration, and Premiership Rugby all doing his bidding.

Tagged All Blacks, British & Irish Lions, Lions, Lions Tour 2017, New Zealand

So to summarise that's 5 weeks, 10 matches, and players finishing their respective league finals one week before the start. What a mess.

by fa0019 Fri 13 Nov 2015, 3:27 pm

rodders wrote:Yeah I don't agree with that - the Lions should be about winning, its about sending down the best the home nations can offer in a backs to the wall situation down in the SH.

It needs to be brutal more than entertaining.

That traditional rugby tour has gone out of rugby - something has to give though the seasons are far too long.

Last Lions tour was garbage but the last tour to SA got it right.

Problem is AUS doesn't have a strong domestic setup unlike SA or NZ. Even though the brumbies won and reds gave them a decent run out I think we'll see a more decent tour in NZ. However there needs to be a respect issue if it is to continue. National squads pulling players from club games on purpose to prevent the Lions from turning up... this should be the last tour when they play club games on tour therefore. If they don't simply say. We'll tune up ourselves vs. the best clubs in Europe, Italy, France, Argentina... and then rock down for a 3 match series.

That would hit them in the pocket heavily.... Lions tours are loved in the SH as they bring so much value to the economies with the 50,000 travelling brits and irish on tour.

by fa0019 Fri 13 Nov 2015, 3:37 pm

Notch wrote:
fa0019 wrote:Not so sure guys... from what I've heard from players past (pro era players) the lions is the pinnacle for them.
When did Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England ever get a serious chance of series wins in SA, NZ, AUS?

Do you really believe that the Lions will ever again have a realistic shot at a tour victory in SA and NZ? We know it's going to be 3-0 in two years and whether or not I think it's a good tour comes down to whether I enjoy the ride. I'll give you Australia, but in many ways I think Ireland at their very best would have a realistic shot at winning a series down there and we'd see that happen more regularly without the Lions blocking up the schedule.

09 - very tight games, 1 or 2 better quality players on or off on either side could have swung it.
05 - NZ were very very strong, probably the strongest I've seen in pro rugby. Lions did not have the players at the time.
97 - Won
93 - should have won, very very close.

Yeah I do think its possible. Its a big ask for 2017 but possible... certainly and if they can't win a single test game at the very minimum I don't think they will have done themselves justice.

In terms of scrapping it and allow countries to compete individually, perhaps but I do think that players become better players on lions tours. Take BOD for instance, I reckon his self belief and his own respect went through the roof in 2001 would he have got that with Ireland?

by **rodders** Fri 13 Nov 2015, 3:38 pm

I'd actually kick Australia off the schedule - they don't have enough depth to offer a decent tour schedule compared to NZ and SA . Plus it's too nice a place and the guys have too relaxing a time down there.

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 13 Nov 2015, 3:48 pm

Is there a limit to the final squad size?

by fa0019 Fri 13 Nov 2015, 3:49 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Is there a limit to the final squad size?

No reason why... too few and your players may burn out... too many and your players won't get game time and may feel like they're just there to hold tackle bags which tends to lower morale... i.e. the 45 man tour in 2005.

by SecretFly Fri 13 Nov 2015, 4:03 pm

fa0019 wrote:

In terms of scrapping it and allow countries to compete individually, perhaps but I do think that players become better players on lions tours. Take BOD for instance, I reckon his self belief and his own respect went through the roof in 2001 would he have got that with Ireland?

For those of us that believe Nation is the pinnacle.... yes.

Ironically, your arguments for the continuation of The Lions are actually some of the best reasons for dropping it. It distracts from Nations building from within, it exerts a false pseudo 'National' 'unifying' perspective onto competing Nations for a year or more in advance of and during the tours, (not conducive to selfish National development requirements during that period); and it offers a 'higher' goal/carrot than Nation to the players involved or seeking to be.

Tell me, would any of the New Zealand player that raised the World Cup a few weeks ago ever think such a thought? Is there a higher goal in the minds of New Zealand players? Or indeed, is there a higher goal in the minds of SA or Australian players than Nation?
The Lions only strengthens the determination and pride within these SH Nations that they can meet and challenge an amalgamation of the supposed 'best' of the Lions Nations and still often come out on top. It helps them that the Lions nations water themselves down every four years and arrive under the title of 'Lions'.

Better to use the 21st century and the professionalism that came with it for each 'Lion' nation to now look after its own house exclusively.... neither lend players nor coaches to a product that tempts players minds and coaches minds away from the requirements of their own National teams.

by **rodders** Fri 13 Nov 2015, 4:05 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Is there a limit to the final squad size?

Not really but once you go beyond 74 million you'd be looking at the likes of the Armitage brothers.

by fa0019 Fri 13 Nov 2015, 4:15 pm

SecretFly wrote:
fa0019 wrote:

In terms of scrapping it and allow countries to compete individually, perhaps but I do think that players become better players on lions tours. Take BOD for instance, I reckon his self belief and his own respect went through the roof in 2001 would he have got that with Ireland?

For those of us that believe Nation is the pinnacle.... yes.

Ironically, your arguments for the continuation of The Lions are actually some of the best reasons for dropping it. It distracts from Nations building from within, it exerts a false pseudo 'National' 'unifying' perspective onto competing Nations for a year or more in advance of and during the tours, (not conducive to selfish National development requirements during that period); and it offers a 'higher' goal/carrot than Nation to the players involved or seeking to be.

Tell me, would any of the New Zealand player that raised the World Cup a few weeks ago ever think such a thought? Is there a higher goal in the minds of New Zealand players? Or indeed, is there a higher goal in the minds of SA or Australian players than Nation?
The Lions only strengthens the determination and pride within these SH Nations that they can meet and challenge an amalgamation of the supposed 'best' of the Lions Nations and still often come out on top. It helps them that the Lions nations water themselves down every four years and arrive under the title of 'Lions'.

Better to use the 21st century and the professionalism that came with it for each 'Lion' nation to now look after its own house exclusively.... neither lend players nor coaches to a product that tempts players minds and coaches minds away from the requirements of their own National teams.

I'm not really for or against the Lions continuing etc. it depends on it remaining a viable competitive tour and the opposition treating them with respect not making them play amateur farmers like they did in 2009 to prevent them from improving as a team.

The lions are a touring side, even NZ have only ever won 1 series in SA... and that includes the pro era when they've played more than 1 game a year in SA etc. Its a tough ask, tougher than a 1 off match, a world cup final as generally you have to beat a team in their own backyard not only once but twice out of three.

What would be seen as a greater achievement? Winning a world cup and beating NZ in the final or beating NZ in a 3 match test series at home? From a national pride perspective no doubt it will be a world cup... from a playing perspective no doubt it will be a lions test series.

Perhaps as you say the 4 should disembark and try and win these series themselves... but in reality huge things would have to change for that to happen. The teams are potentially good enough to win matches in the 3N countries but series today.... very very unlikely, even with good fortune of teams filled with world class players, lack of injuries and great form.

If teams don't want it then it will wrap up. If players don't want it then it will wrap up. But from what I see in recent players past... they still see it as THEIR pinnacle, their Everest.. even if the fans now concentrate on their own individual teams rather.

by funnyExiledScot Fri 13 Nov 2015, 5:35 pm

Notch wrote:
fa0019 wrote:Not so sure guys... from what I've heard from players past (pro era players) the lions is the pinnacle for them.
When did Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England ever get a serious chance of series wins in SA, NZ, AUS?

Do you really believe that the Lions will ever again have a realistic shot at a tour victory in SA and NZ? We know it's going to be 3-0 in two years and whether or not I think it's a good tour comes down to whether I enjoy the ride. I'll give you Australia, but in many ways I think Ireland at their very best would have a realistic shot at winning a series down there and we'd see that happen more regularly without the Lions blocking up the schedule.

Yes. Given how mighty close the last tour was against SA (and the fact that the Lions won the prior tour in SA), I see no reason why we would accept that it isn't realistic that they'll win again (particularly given that we have no idea how strong our player pool will be in 2021 - or theirs).

Re: Ireland, let's just wait until they actually win a series in the SH shall we. I hate the fact that people continue to down play the achievement of the 2013 Lions by stating how poor Australia were - didn't they spank Ireland at the Aviva in the very same year (Wales and Scotland also got home beatings that year)?? The Lions were rubbish in 2005, perhaps that NZ team weren't very good either?? It is a great achievement to win a series in the SH with a composite team, and all the challenges of touring. The last two tours have been fantastic contests and I'm not sure the Lions has ever been in better shape (or more popular).

by **Notch** Fri 13 Nov 2015, 6:05 pm

fa0019 wrote:What would be seen as a greater achievement? Winning a world cup and beating NZ in the final or beating NZ in a 3 match test series at home? From a national pride perspective no doubt it will be a world cup... from a playing perspective no doubt it will be a lions test series.

It'll not surprise you to hear I can't relate to this whatsoever and must respectful disagree, sir!

Obviously you go on to sort of answer the obvious follow-up question, which is 'What would be seen as a greater achievement by who?' By fans? Players? Coaches? The press? Amongst fans and the press there's obviously no unified view and everyone has their own opinion. But I don't think we should generalise about players either.

The truth is, I'm not sure that if there are current players who feel a much stronger allegiance to their country and a lack of attachment to the Lions that they're going to needlessly stick their neck out on social media or when they're being interviewed and say that. I can accept that the bonds of being in a team and trying to win a series against all odds brings players together and forges friendships off the pitch that makes the experience very special for them. Is that romantic view applicable to all the players? I'm sure there are other attractions to the concept for the more mercenary types. I'm sure for some it's primarily a boost to their career and improves their future earning prospects. For some it might be about the prestige. For some its the competitive edge of forcing the selectors to effectively endorse you as the best in your position ahead of your rivals from other Unions. And in truth its probably most likely to be a combination of all of the above. I feel that you're going to hear players allude to the romance of it when the inevitable cash-in DVDs come around, but they're selling a narrative that probably leaves some of those other factors out. And there's very good money in making yourself a part of that narrative. Saying you're a British and Irish Lion never detracted from anyones rugby CV.

As for the fans views... I accept that you have yours, but for me Ireland beating New Zealand at home at the end of a season in a game where they rested half their team would mean more to me than the Lions beating New Zealand 3-0 away from home never mind a World Cup Final. This is because the Ireland national rugby team means something to me and the Lions just don't, other than the chance of maybe seeing a decent and entertaining test match. I watch it for the same reasons I watch the Barbarians and I know that's not something you'll probably ever see eye to eye with me on but comparing the Lions to the World Cup, to me, is bizarre.

I mean, yeah it's a bigger achievement in some ways. New Zealand winning the World Cup was a much bigger achievement than Ireland winning the Six Nations but whilst I enjoyed the Final as a game of rugby, I was only emotionally invested in the latter achievement. I'm not sure the bigger achievement argument really stacks up.

by **Notch** Fri 13 Nov 2015, 6:06 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:Re: Ireland, let's just wait until they actually win a series in the SH shall we.

Unfortunately I have to. I've been waiting for a long time and we might get more regular chances to make it happen if we ditched the Lions!

by **Notch** Fri 13 Nov 2015, 6:19 pm

I mean, sure it's a great achievement. The question is whether you actually care about it.

by robbo277 Fri 13 Nov 2015, 7:53 pm

I cared about the last Lions tour at the time. But 3 months later not so much.

I agree with whoever said the Lions should be used like the Barbarians (and if I didn't read it on here, I'll introduce the idea). England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland pick their squads to tour the Southern Hemisphere teams, and the Lions pick from who's left (mixture of the young, the old and the exiled in France) and tour the Pacific Islands, Asia, or the Americas. Somewhere slightly different and obviously on a much smaller scale than the current tour.

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 13 Nov 2015, 7:58 pm

fa0019 wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:Is there a limit to the final squad size?

No reason why... too few and your players may burn out... too many and your players won't get game time and may feel like they're just there to hold tackle bags which tends to lower morale... i.e. the 45 man tour in 2005.

45 is looking pretty acceptable for this tour.

by funnyExiledScot Fri 13 Nov 2015, 9:32 pm

robbo277 wrote:I cared about the last Lions tour at the time. But 3 months later not so much.

I agree with whoever said the Lions should be used like the Barbarians (and if I didn't read it on here, I'll introduce the idea). England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland pick their squads to tour the Southern Hemisphere teams, and the Lions pick from who's left (mixture of the young, the old and the exiled in France) and tour the Pacific Islands, Asia, or the Americas. Somewhere slightly different and obviously on a much smaller scale than the current tour.

In which case why bother?? No-one would support or follow that!

by **Notch** Fri 13 Nov 2015, 9:37 pm

funnyExiledScot wrote:In which case why bother?? No-one would support or follow that!

I think it's a better idea than what we have tbh. What we have isn't really working, it's delivering players back to their clubs fatigued and/or injured, so any suggestion is a good one.

by funnyExiledScot Fri 13 Nov 2015, 10:06 pm

Notch wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:In which case why bother?? No-one would support or follow that!

I think it's a better idea than what we have tbh. What we have isn't really working, it's delivering players back to their clubs fatigued and/or injured, so any suggestion is a good one.

It's about priorities isn't it, and we are coming from opposite view points. Lions comes before club rugby for me. Obviously not for you.

by David-Douglas Fri 13 Nov 2015, 11:51 pm

Why have a Mickey Mouse organisation such as the PRL got any say whatsoever in the Lions never mind some sort of veto?
This is a matter for Unions only. If the PRL don't like the itinerary then they can ask their member players to withdraw from the tour - lets see how many players will go for that.

by Rory_Gallagher Sat 14 Nov 2015, 12:06 am

funnyExiledScot wrote:
Notch wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:In which case why bother?? No-one would support or follow that!

I think it's a better idea than what we have tbh. What we have isn't really working, it's delivering players back to their clubs fatigued and/or injured, so any suggestion is a good one.

It's about priorities isn't it, and we are coming from opposite view points. Lions comes before club rugby for me. Obviously not for you.

Player welfare must be the first priority and the reality is that the club and international games are integral obviously whereas a makeshift tour that happens every 4 years isn't.

Something has to give.

by **Rugby Fan** Sat 14 Nov 2015, 12:30 am

fa0019 wrote:... too many and your players won't get game time and may feel like they're just there to hold tackle bags which tends to lower morale... i.e. the 45 man tour in 2005.

Funnily enough, McGeechan used 44 players in 2009, and Gatland ended up using 45. Lions tours are ridiculously attritional these days. Woodward had the right idea about what numbers might be required but handled them wrongly. By splitting the tour, he still needed call-ups, ended up using 51 and yet only had one fit centre for the last Test.

As far as management & coaching go, Woodward took 26, McGeechan took 23 and Gatland had 25.

by The Great Aukster Sat 14 Nov 2015, 12:38 am

It is frankly ridiculous that following the discussion on the disparity between the NH and the SH performances at the RWC that there is any debate about the usefulness of the Lions. The concept is so heavily weighted in favour of the hosts that it is a quadrennial poison to B&I rugby.

It's great for fans and massages the egos of players but is undoubtedly having a disastrous effect on the Test aspirations of the NH sides. The home unions would be better served just to stump up £10m each and pay NZ by bank transfer than go on tour.

What will it take before this dinosaur is made extinct - no NH teams in the last 8 at the RWC?

by blackcanelion Sat 14 Nov 2015, 12:41 am

With English rugby journalism it's no surprise the game is struggling to find another coach.

Yes it's a hard itinerary, but pretty similar to the last tours of South Africa and Australia. One of the key complaints by the Press last tour to NZ was that the itinerary wasn't hard enough. The reality is super rugby sides and Maori are the only real opinions this time of year. I doubt they'll be full strength, though.

by The Great Aukster Sat 14 Nov 2015, 12:48 am

If it's similar to previous tours the NZ sides won't risk any Test players but expect to take a few Lions out.

by LeinsterFan4life Sat 14 Nov 2015, 1:22 am

The lions in this day and age, seems to be a way to help fund the SH unions. It's a cash cow but not a HUGE one for the NH unions.

These 5 weeks could be used for a European competition... Imagine the benefits for the Tier 2 nations.

by **Notch** Sat 14 Nov 2015, 1:40 am

LeinsterFan4life wrote: Imagine the benefits for the Tier 2 nations.

EXACTLY. I've mooted replacing the tour with an expanded European championship of some kind. We turn around to these nations and tell them we can't find space in the calendar to get them regular high-level rugby- and then we send our very best players off on a Lions tour to play the reserves of some Super Rugby teams for a few weeks before they even get near to test action.

It's so hypocritical.

by blackcanelion Sat 14 Nov 2015, 4:13 am

LeinsterFan4life wrote:The lions in this day and age, seems to be a way to help fund the SH unions. It's a cash cow but not a HUGE one for the NH unions.

These 5 weeks could be used for a European competition... Imagine the benefits for the Tier 2 nations.

It wouldn't. England, Ireland and Wales would tour instead. The tours are reciprocal. They are in exchange for the tours up north in November. As to whether they are a cash cow, has to be weighed against the effective loss of a viable tour once every three tours (On a lions tour year, you get either the Lions, France or....). The irony is the teams that benefit most from the current setup are England and France. The double irony being that money from this goes to the clubs and it could be argued subsidies the contracting of SH players. Any renegotiation is likely to involve discussion of the revenue split. The SH unions have said this as a general point. One thing that is almost certain, is any financial loss from losing a lions tour would be more than made up for by additional internationals and a fairer distribution of money generated.

Additionally, that also assumes that the games were held in tier 2 nations more than is done already. The reality is most home nations send 2nd string to almost full strength sides already tour 2nd tier nations during lions tours. They do so because there is nowhere else to tour and they need to develop their squads. Lat time Scotland was in SA (who needed a tour from someone), Wales was in Japan, Ireland toured Canada and the USA and England toured Argentina. France was in NZ. What would change. If the Lions tour disappeared Wales and Ireland would probably have toured South Africa in NZ or something similar.

by **Rugby Fan** Sat 14 Nov 2015, 7:21 am

blackcanelion wrote:... England, Ireland and Wales would tour instead...

The Home Nations already go on separate tours in Lions years.

by yappysnap Sat 14 Nov 2015, 8:01 am

I'd much prefer all home unions to go on two match tours of the SH over summer and then play up to 2 other games against club teams or tier 2 teams.

At the same time somewhere in the NH we could then have an A league + Tier 2 comp (so Wolfhounds, Saxons, Scotland A etc) for a few weeks.

Obviously it probably wouldn't generate the shirt sales so won't ever happen but i'd prefer that.

by blackcanelion Sat 14 Nov 2015, 10:39 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
blackcanelion wrote:... England, Ireland and Wales would tour instead...
The Home Nations already go on separate tours in Lions years.

Scrap the Lions tours and they'd have to change. The Autumn tours to the UK in November are big money earners for unions, in return they tour down under. This is an earner for SANZAAR nations. For it too work teams have to tour every year (apart from 1 cancellation each around world cups). There's an allowance for the fact that Wales, Ireland and England are understrength (i.e. the need to tour is waived - Scotland is currently included in the top tiers for tours, so doesn't have set tours for NZ, SA and Australia). Currently they tour the likes of Japan, USA, Canada and Argentina (Argentina don't generally field their top team in June anymore, as they rest their top players between the European club competitions and the rugby championship - this could change). The Lions tours stop. NZ, SA and Australia will want the tours back on. Alternatively (or possibly and) they'll want a fairer more equitable division of profits.

by doctor_grey Sat 14 Nov 2015, 12:25 pm

The schedule is nuts. Kills our players. Clearly something has to give. Almost seems as if no one gives a toss about the athletes, only that the money keeps coming in.

I know we have said this many times before, but we need a rational schedule and some ways of balancing out some funding.

by 123456789 Sat 14 Nov 2015, 4:54 pm

We need to remember that most of the players won't actually be in the finals of their respective play-offs, many won't even be in the semi-finals, however the Unions and the Leagues need to learn the benefit of the Lions going into the world cup in 2019, we need to remember that the group of players who've actually beaten New Zealand will probably be restricted to a select group who played for England in 2012, the Lions (if done properly) gives the best chance for a British or Irish player to take part in a victory over the All Blacks which could be very important psychologically.
We need to find a way to make the Lions a more effective concept, maybe training camps for players not taking part in the European cup during the latter stages or maybe scrapping the LV Cup for the Lions season so training camps can be run then. Perhaps it's also time we start taking the Woodward type squad seriously and looking into ways to make it work, perhaps even taking a Lions u20 side along to play against the weaker teams and then New Zealand u20s.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun 15 Nov 2015, 12:41 am

123456789 wrote:...which could be very important psychologically...

That seems to me to be a complete myth. There's no evidence that turning out for the Lions gives any boost to player performance against the same opposition when they are playing for their national sides.

by blackcanelion Sun 15 Nov 2015, 12:44 am

doctor_grey wrote:The schedule is nuts. Kills our players. Clearly something has to give. Almost seems as if no one gives a toss about the athletes, only that the money keeps coming in.

I know we have said this many times before, but we need a rational schedule and some ways of balancing out some funding.

Completely agree particularly up north. I think everyone does. The solution is where points differ. From my perspective a key part of the problem is the inability of England and France in particular to modify their commitments. It seems to me that the club game is off limits, the 6 nations timing is off limits, no one wants to change November, but June is fair game. June tours are the only tour that doesn't really adversely affect Europe. No loss of revenue, no loss of games for local fans to go to, and a shorter season. However, in terms of the global game it has a real impact on others.

I'd be much happier if home nations could sort out their own problems first. The SH unions expect reciprocal tours. That's actually fair, natural and necessary for an international sport to grow and prosper. From a SH perspective I'd say France and England RU's, in particular, need to sort their houses out. I'm not sure a 6 nations dictate is going to work. The SH teams have previously effectively threatened to stop touring France due to understrength sides coming downunder.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun 15 Nov 2015, 1:08 am

blackcanelion wrote:...The SH unions expect reciprocal tours...

Individual national sides can satisfy that requirement. As I mentioned above, they already tour. There's no obligation for the Home Nations to send a combined side down south.

by blackcanelion Sun 15 Nov 2015, 7:06 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
blackcanelion wrote:...The SH unions expect reciprocal tours...
Individual national sides can satisfy that requirement. As I mentioned above, they already tour. There's no obligation for the Home Nations to send a combined side down south.

Your right. However, on a Lions year England, Wales and Ireland would have to send full strength sides on a 3 match tour of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. They currently tour 2nd tier nations this year. This is pretty much an exemption from the normal exchange of normal tours due to the Lions. Which was my point. It's a slightly longer tour with more games, but this largely offset by the size and quality of the squad. Additionally, I'm guessing the NZ super sides will be under strength, a la Leicester, Munster etc when we tour up north.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun 15 Nov 2015, 8:16 am

blackcanelion wrote:...Your right. However, on a Lions year England, Wales and Ireland would have to send full strength sides on a 3 match tour of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. They currently tour 2nd tier nations this year. This is pretty much an exemption from the normal exchange of normal tours due to the Lions...

The Lions is not an exemption year for the Home Nations. There are four Home Nations but add in France & Italy and there'll be a scheduling problem, but not from a lack of tourists.

Under the current summer tour arrangements, England are on a four year rotating schedule of Australia, South Africa, NZ and Argentina. The Pumas have traditionally coincided with a Lions year for us. If Wales, Ireland and France were to do the same, you'll notice that Italy and Scotland wouldn't get a look-in, so there might have to be some other accommodation, especially since Japan and North America like the occasional visit.

There is one major advantage this arrangement would give the home nations. The summer tour following the World Cup is not a great chance to develop the side since many players are exhausted from Cup preparation, followed by the tournament itself, then a full domestic season, with the tour to top it off. The second year - which is the Lions year - is an ideal time which national sides currently don't get to use. They do get a useful touring window in the third year after a Cup. However, as we have seen, any players beasted on a Lions tour the year before are often better off rested given that the following year is the World Cup itself.

by blackcanelion Sun 15 Nov 2015, 8:49 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
blackcanelion wrote:...Your right. However, on a Lions year England, Wales and Ireland would have to send full strength sides on a 3 match tour of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. They currently tour 2nd tier nations this year. This is pretty much an exemption from the normal exchange of normal tours due to the Lions...
The Lions is not an exemption year for the Home Nations. There are four Home Nations but add in France & Italy and there'll be a scheduling problem, but not from a lack of tourists.

Under the current summer tour arrangements, England are on a four year rotating schedule of Australia, South Africa, NZ and Argentina. The Pumas have traditionally coincided with a Lions year for us. If Wales, Ireland and France were to do the same, you'll notice that Italy and Scotland wouldn't get a look-in, so there might have to be some other accommodation, especially since Japan and North America like the occasional visit.

There is one major advantage this arrangement would give the home nations. The summer tour following the World Cup is not a great chance to develop the side since many players are exhausted from Cup preparation, followed by the tournament itself, then a full domestic season, with the tour to top it off. The second year - which is the Lions year - is an ideal time which national sides currently don't get to use. They do get a useful touring window in the third year after a Cup. However, as we have seen, any players beasted on a Lions tour the year before are often better off rested given that the following year is the World Cup itself.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Scotland and Italy weren't included in the main tour schedule because they weren't considered competitive (by their own unions I might add). They tour tier 2 nations instead.

The current tour schedule provides for 3 3 match tours by each SANZAAR nation every 4 years in November in exchange for 3 3 match tours by the European nations. In a Lions tour year we get 1 tour by the Lions, 1 tour by the French. Last time SA organised a tournament with 2nd tier nations but essentially missed out. An understrength European side also play a 2 match tour in Argentina.

Lions tours only work down south due to their history and added strength. They have to be bigger than usual because they potentially have to account for the loss of revenue on another year. Lose the Lions, and NZ, South Africa and Australia are going to want a viable replacement for the year which means 2 out of the Wales, Ireland or England touring and the other going to Argentina (as happens anyway).

by eirebilly Sun 15 Nov 2015, 9:04 am

Its a hell of a schedule and almost non workable.

Personally, I love the Lions tours. Went on the 2005 tour and it was fantastic. It was brilliant to see all the fans from the home nations bonding and having a great time. Long may it continue in my opinion.

by bedfordwelsh Sun 15 Nov 2015, 9:15 am

I have alwaus loved the Lions tours and have been lucky enough to go to Australia X2, South Africa and hopefully 2017 will be my 2nd one to NZ and every tour has been fantastic.

Mixing with fans from the home Country and the other touring countries is amazing and with the odd exceptions all have been brilliant and still keep in touch and meet up with some friends at least twice a year.

On these tours I have also been lucky enough to meet some of the players and they all love it and for them they do see it as the pinnacle of their carears.

Yes getting the balance of any tour these days is hard but this tour is no longer or shorter than some that have passed.

by eirebilly Sun 15 Nov 2015, 9:33 am

+1 on that Bedford.

I was very lucky in 2005, to be invited to a traditional Maori display at Rotorua which they gave me a Haka lesson (damn near broke my knees) and a hangi.

I would probably never have had that experience if it wasn't for the Lions tour. Met some great people and have had a few of the people from Rotorua over for holidays in Europe. Great people, great fun and an amazing experience.

by eirebilly Sun 15 Nov 2015, 1:55 pm

Its understandable that Dan Carter wants to stick up for his mates but I find his comments in his book (exert only) but how can you defend the tackle on BOD in 2005. It was a horrible spear tackle and I would like once to hear a fellow professional from the AB's actually say so instead of defending it.

http://www.balls.ie/rugby/dan-carter-tackle-brian-odriscoll/316003

by **George Carlin** Sun 15 Nov 2015, 2:34 pm

I just want to be absolutely clear about this.

People are actually suggesting that one of the few genuine touring sides left in professional sport, which has been in existence since 1888, which only plays every 4 years in any event, which provides an excuse for fans from the home nations to come together in a single show of collegiality and which provides a wonderful reason to travel abroad - should be scrapped because people are miffed that their players (a) won't be selected and (b) if they are selected, may get injured?

And the suggestion to replace these games is a slightly different version of the international matches which are played every single bloody year?

Honestly? I am at a loss, I really am.

by doctor_grey Sun 15 Nov 2015, 3:43 pm

eirebilly wrote:Its understandable that Dan Carter wants to stick up for his mates but I find his comments in his book (exert only) but how can you defend the tackle on BOD in 2005. It was a horrible spear tackle and I would like once to hear a fellow professional from the AB's actually say so instead of defending it.

http://www.balls.ie/rugby/dan-carter-tackle-brian-odriscoll/316003

Billy, I haven't seen that video in years. Almost forgot how bad it was. One of the worst and, to me, deliberate incidents I have seen in Rugby. My opinion, of course.

And I recall thinking at that time O'Driscoll could easily have broken his neck - I wonder how it would have been percieved if indeed he did have a spinal injury. I think the difference between having only a shoulder injury to damaging his neck was likely fractions of an inch. O'Driscoll was very fortunate, considering. Many of the laws we have now about spear tackling derive from that.

by No 7&1/2 Sun 15 Nov 2015, 3:59 pm

Not really surprising as pros they have to back each other at the time and its backing or defending the identity of the all blacks. Clear as day a horrible act no matter the pretence.

by **Rugby Fan** Sun 15 Nov 2015, 4:22 pm

George Carlin wrote:I just want to be absolutely clear about this.

People are actually suggesting that one of the few genuine touring sides left in professional sport, which has been in existence since 1888, which only plays every 4 years in any event, which provides an excuse for fans from the home nations to come together in a single show of collegiality and which provides a wonderful reason to travel abroad - should be scrapped because people are miffed that their players (a) won't be selected and (b) if they are selected, may get injured?

And the suggestion to replace these games is a slightly different version of the international matches which are played every single bloody year?

Honestly? I am at a loss, I really am.

My argument is that Lions tour aren't just a poor fit with the club calendar, they are a also very bad fit with the international calendar. If the Lions tours are to be retained then the whole schedule needs to be rethought.

by bedfordwelsh Sun 15 Nov 2015, 6:42 pm

George Carlin wrote:I just want to be absolutely clear about this.

People are actually suggesting that one of the few genuine touring sides left in professional sport, which has been in existence since 1888, which only plays every 4 years in any event, which provides an excuse for fans from the home nations to come together in a single show of collegiality and which provides a wonderful reason to travel abroad - should be scrapped because people are miffed that their players (a) won't be selected and (b) if they are selected, may get injured?

And the suggestion to replace these games is a slightly different version of the international matches which are played every single bloody year?

Honestly? I am at a loss, I really am.

by kingelderfield Sun 15 Nov 2015, 10:06 pm

I really struggle with this. I love the lions, the best rugby I have ever seen played has been Lions rugby.

Lions rugby is special, I can't make sense of it....but the reality is here in England we have professional clubs who are reasonably self funding and who own the players contracts. The fact is we are asking to much of the players and the game as a whole must find a better solution to the one currently in existence.

Added to this there is an argument that the Lions are holding back progress and the development of the international game.

Quarts don't fit into pint pots and time and tide wait for no one.

Perhaps an answer would be for England to leave the party leaving the organisation and selection down to the Celts, who by their choice could select individual english players.

All in I feel the Lions are the past and the game has to take its future elsewhere. This is not to say that the Lions concept dosn't have a future, rather that we cannot achieve everything and our priorities should be elsewhere.....winning the 6 nations, the world cup, developing the european game, the US and Canada.

by Sin é Sun 15 Nov 2015, 11:44 pm

Bruce Craig is some piece of works. He is claiming now that the cancelled Toulon game will not be played now and he is blaming the demands of international rugby / world cup as the reason why.

He will stoop to any level to have a go at the Rugby Unions. Shame on him.

by doctor_grey Mon 16 Nov 2015, 1:06 am

Sin é wrote:Bruce Craig is some piece of works. He is claiming now that the cancelled Toulon game will not be played now and he is blaming the demands of international rugby / world cup as the reason why.

He will stoop to any level to have a go at the Rugby Unions. Shame on him.

YOu have the quote? Hard to imagine someone saying anything about anything with so much more important issues at stake than Rugby. Even a.........gentleman like him.

by Sin é Mon 16 Nov 2015, 8:40 am

doctor_grey wrote:
Sin é wrote:Bruce Craig is some piece of works. He is claiming now that the cancelled Toulon game will not be played now and he is blaming the demands of international rugby / world cup as the reason why.

He will stoop to any level to have a go at the Rugby Unions. Shame on him.
YOu have the quote? Hard to imagine someone saying anything about anything with so much more important issues at stake than Rugby. Even a.........gentleman like him.

SUNDAY in Guardian. The man even lives in France and should show a bit of respect to the people of his adopted country.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/15/bath-chairman-bruce-craig-toulon-european-champions-cup-paris-terror-attacks

Guardian wrote:“It is very clear to me that the Toulon match cannot happen,” Craig told the Daily Telegraph. “The midweek option is not an option to my mind. That would be to the detriment of player welfare and the integrity of two competitions.

“There is no way we should be letting that happen. You can’t play three high-profile games in a week.”

Craig added that in the wider context of the events in Paris the problem of rescheduling “is not a serious matter”. He said there were no free weekends between now and the end of the season and criticised the fact England are touring Australia at the end of a World Cup season. The players are “like lambs to the slaughter”, he said. “They are just being destroyed.”

The problem has been aggravated by the delayed start to the domestic English season. The leagues in France and the Pro12 started before the Aviva Premiership.

by Sponsored content