And so it begins.. (if it hadn't already begun)

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37208971

AP bosses (Mark McCall and Dai Young) call Lions schedule 'ludicrous'

marty2086 wrote:Nice to know you are so intune with the Kiwi psyche, you seem to know everyone elses mind better than your own since you have not been able to stick to one coherent point through this whole thread

Have you been drinking?

asoreleftshoulder wrote:No imo, the winning fans will always be bragging about winning the league/cup last season and the teams/players will have rivalries and relevant history with each other, this applies to both club and internationals.

With the Lions it will be another 8 years before they play Oz again so the previous series is irrelevant.NZ don't care about the Lions record v Oz/SA, it's a completely one off series and there's no chance for a rivalry to build up as there's a 12 year gap before the teams meet again.

The only way to solve it is a Lions 1 v a Lions 2

Lions 1 to include representatives of all the Six Nation sides (France and Italy) and Lions 2 (representatives from NZ, Aus, SA and Argentina)

Every 8 years.

A genuine big event that would spike the interest of all National sides that usually do combat against each other. Not as repetitive as the current Lions show to help really stir the senses more. (Maybe its my age but all these 4 Yearly shows - Football world cup, Olympics, Rugby etc - they've all become too frequent to have any real sense of occasion. Four years ain't as long as it used to be in the old days!

And if Deans had won the series or if it wasn't on the schedule he would not have went after it, making it relevant

We have very different interpretations of what that article says.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:We have very different interpretations of what that article says.

The article says his days were numbered and the Lions allowed for the context

It says his days were numbered regardless of the Lions.

I'm not really a huge fan of the Lions but I don't particularly see a need for its removal.

The plus point about Lions years are that you get to see a more developmental National side touring somewhere a bit less mainstream. Personally I loved England's tour of Argentina last time out. Plus it was on free to air.

ebop wrote:

beshocked wrote:Sadly I think the Lions has to go. The rugby calendar is becoming more demanding as it is and with pressure to cut games somewhere, The Lions tours seem the obvious place to start.

The Lions never used to be an imposition

What a shame club rugby has made it that way

Never mind, I'm sure those club games are great spectacles

I don't think club rugby has made it that way - the increasing physicality of the game has done it really. Back in the late 90s the Lions was manageable - there were still 12 teams in the premiership, and European cup rugby. The only difference was that instead of a 2 game playoff we had a national cup competition - so more games for the teams that did well in the cups.

It's international rugby that has increased the number of games played in that time - 5 nations increasing to 6, periodically doing 4 autumn tests instead of 3, and sending the first team for the June tests (granted that last one is about more games for the top players rather than necessarily more games total, but it's the top players who are feeling the pressure so I think it's relevant).

I support the RFU in the above - as while they may take players from the pro-game for the internationals, the RFU is about the grassroots as well and the clubs are dependent on that. The clubs would not exist without a grassroots game to pick their players from, to develop the refs, and additionally they benefit financially from both grass roots and international as a means to bring new fans to the game. But it's still entirely reasonable to consult with the clubs (and more importantly players) on decisions that will affect them, and try and come up with a solution that works for everyone.

Big wrote:

ebop wrote:

beshocked wrote:Sadly I think the Lions has to go. The rugby calendar is becoming more demanding as it is and with pressure to cut games somewhere, The Lions tours seem the obvious place to start.

The Lions never used to be an imposition

What a shame club rugby has made it that way

Never mind, I'm sure those club games are great spectacles

I don't think club rugby has made it that way - the increasing physicality of the game has done it really.  Back in the late 90s the Lions was manageable - there were still 12 teams in the premiership, and European cup rugby.  The only difference was that instead of a 2 game playoff we had a national cup competition - so more games for the teams that did well in the cups.

It's international rugby that has increased the number of games played in that time - 5 nations increasing to 6, periodically doing 4 autumn tests instead of 3, and sending the first team for the June tests (granted that last one is about more games for the top players rather than necessarily more games total, but it's the top players who are feeling the pressure so I think it's relevant).

I support the RFU in the above - as while they may take players from the pro-game for the internationals, the RFU is about the grassroots as well and the clubs are dependent on that.  The clubs would not exist without a grassroots game to pick their players from, to develop the refs, and additionally they benefit financially from both grass roots and international as a means to bring new fans to the game.  But it's still entirely reasonable to consult with the clubs (and more importantly players) on decisions that will affect them, and try and come up with a solution that works for everyone.

You are absolutely right it is the number of internationals that have grown rather than club games. Both have of course grown in physicality.

There are so many international now that they are ceasing to be special. The All Blacks have played thirteen games in under a year. This is up from seven in the eighties. At this rate there is a danger of rugby going the way of cricket where international players play nothing else.