Lions 2017

First topic message reminder :

Looking at the recent internationals and to beat allblack you need pace and vision so this is my team so far! 1.m.vunipola 2.hartley 3.furlong 4.itoje 5.kruis 6.faletau 7.stander 8. B.vunipola 9. Youngs 10.ford 11.watson 12.farrell 13.joseph 14.l.williams 15. Hogg 16.best 17.mcgrath 18.lee 19 .henderson 20.o'brien 21.murray 22.henshaw 23.north

Examples of thugs brought in specifically?

eirebilly wrote:I really pay no heed to what Woodward say's. He was the worst Lions coach ever and I would argue that he was a lucky coach to have had so many onfield leaders in 2003 to win the RWC.

He simply spends too much of his time trying to wind up the Celtic nations.

He does deserve credit for England's RWC win. I think his talents were a perfect match for the England squad at the time whereas he would not be as effective now. He came from a business (and rugby) background having worked his way up to management in Xerox.

Rugby had not been professional that long when he took the job and as a result he was quite influential in making the England squad uber professional and I think that this gave them the edge against other teams. Ireland for example at the time were still really disorganised.

He presided over the worst Lions tour ever and probably wasn't a great Lions coach because he was quite inflexible and put too much faith in the players he knew well.

However, for me he has earned his place in history as one of the best ever England coaches.

nlpnlp wrote:Sorry but I think there is a bit of sour grapes there.  Woodward was a great 'coach' - but a great English coach not a great Irish, Welsh or Scottish coach.  To say England were so good in 2003 because of the players is true, but it takes a good coach to pick them and get them to play the way they did.
I don't think he wastes his time trying to wind up anyone, he is what he is a very tunnelled visioned individual who thinks his way is right.  I think the same attributes could be said to apply to Gatland and plenty of other top coaches.
By all means you are welcome to your views, but it does smack of 'anti English' chip on the shoulder.  I am just waiting to see what abuse is levelled at Eddie Jones when England continue to dominate the 6 Nations - can he be accused of being arrogant, a wind up merchant, anti celt as an Australian?

Agree with this.

He's a one hit wonder that has done nothing of value since 2003 and still living off the glory. Hes the Bob Geldof of the rugby world, still dining out on 'I don't like Mondays'

munkian wrote:He's a one hit wonder that has done nothing of value since 2003 and still living off the glory. Hes the Bob Geldof of the rugby world, still dining out on 'I don't like Mondays'

That's not true. He hasn't done much of value in rugby but he took on challenges in other areas such as football and the Olympics.

I don't like Mondays is a dreadful song. I hope Brexit doesn't stop us from continuing to export our biggest knobs to the UK.

Winning the world cup is a pretty good 1 hit....plus the 6N titles and a grand slam. You could throw in beating the AB's in NZ too.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
However, for me he has earned his place in history as one of the best ever England coaches.

Don't agree as he wasn't actually a coach. What he did do was seek out the best specialist coaches from other more professional sports at the time like Ellis, Aldred etc. and was given basically a blank cheque by the IRFU to do it, plus something many of his successors weren't i.e. time.

The game had already moved on by 2005 with other sides having adopted similarly professional set ups.

He's a complete bluffer,at the right place at the right time, as was proved by the Lions and Southampton debacles he had post England, he wasn't the guru he thought he was.

rodders wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
However, for me he has earned his place in history as one of the best ever England coaches.

Don't agree as he wasn't actually a coach. What he did do was seek out the best specialist coaches from other more professional sports at the time like Ellis, Aldred etc. and was given basically a blank cheque by the IRFU to do it, plus something many of his successors weren't i.e. time.

The game had already moved on by 2005 with other sides having adopted similarly professional set ups.

He's a complete bluffer,at the right place at the right time, as was proved by the Lions and Southampton debacles he had post England, he wasn't the guru he thought he was.

Maybe, best manager then but that is ok. He was ultimately responsible.

As I said I dont think he would be as effective now but he was ahead of the curve in many ways due to his business background.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

rodders wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
However, for me he has earned his place in history as one of the best ever England coaches.

Don't agree as he wasn't actually a coach. What he did do was seek out the best specialist coaches from other more professional sports at the time like Ellis, Aldred etc. and was given basically a blank cheque by the IRFU to do it, plus something many of his successors weren't i.e. time.

The game had already moved on by 2005 with other sides having adopted similarly professional set ups.

He's a complete bluffer,at the right place at the right time, as was proved by the Lions and Southampton debacles he had post England, he wasn't the guru he thought he was.

Maybe, best manager then but that is ok. He was ultimately responsible.

As I said I dont think he would be as effective now but he was ahead of the curve in many ways due to his business background.

Don't think he was ahead at all, the likes of Brian Ashton and Ian McGeechan had already identified how poaching players and coaches from RL could fast track the professional process.

Woodward just had a budget to do it on a bigger scale. Without the Lions winning in 97 and the Bath v Wigan cross code challenge then we wouldn't even be talking about Woodward.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I don't like Mondays is a dreadful song. I hope Brexit doesn't stop us from continuing to export our biggest knobs to the UK.

'Rat Trap' was number one the day I was born. Talk about getting off to a bad start.

when is the squad announced?

rodders wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
However, for me he has earned his place in history as one of the best ever England coaches.

Don't agree as he wasn't actually a coach. What he did do was seek out the best specialist coaches from other more professional sports at the time like Ellis, Aldred etc. and was given basically a blank cheque by the IRFU to do it, plus something many of his successors weren't i.e. time.

The game had already moved on by 2005 with other sides having adopted similarly professional set ups.

He's a complete bluffer,at the right place at the right time, as was proved by the Lions and Southampton debacles he had post England, he wasn't the guru he thought he was.

Very generous of the IRFU, that.

Woodward did bring some genuine innovations to the game. He introduced the concept of marginal gains to rugby - before it was popular elsewhere - and trained much more specifically for scenarios that might happen (e.g. training to play for 90 minutes, Dallaglio claims they would also train to play 11 against 15)

munkian wrote:He's a one hit wonder that has done nothing of value since 2003 and still living off the glory. Hes the Bob Geldof of the rugby world, still dining out on 'I don't like Mondays'

He clearly is not a one hit wonder as evidenced by wins against all the SH teams including NZ away. Even if he was a one hit wonder it is a far bigger hit than any achieved by any other NH manager. I cannot think of another NH manager who could claim to have managed a team that were for a couple of years at least clearly the world's best.

This idea that the results are just down to having good people below him is quite frankly fatuous. You could say the same of any good leader in any sphere. The most common trait of great leaders is that they identify, recruit and develop great people.

Poorfour wrote:

rodders wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
However, for me he has earned his place in history as one of the best ever England coaches.

Don't agree as he wasn't actually a coach. What he did do was seek out the best specialist coaches from other more professional sports at the time like Ellis, Aldred etc. and was given basically a blank cheque by the IRFU to do it, plus something many of his successors weren't i.e. time.

The game had already moved on by 2005 with other sides having adopted similarly professional set ups.

He's a complete bluffer,at the right place at the right time, as was proved by the Lions and Southampton debacles he had post England, he wasn't the guru he thought he was.

Very generous of the IRFU, that.

Woodward did bring some genuine innovations to the game. He introduced the concept of marginal gains to rugby - before it was popular elsewhere - and trained much more specifically for scenarios that might happen (e.g. training to play for 90 minutes, Dallaglio claims they would also train to play 11 against 15)

Are you having a laugh - Taoist monks practiced the concept of marginal gains in the 6th century, Woodward was a bit behind the curve when it comes to innovation.

SCW was responsible for leading England when they had their most successful period in beating SH opposition, securing a GS and then winning a RWC. He put together a superb team and ensured the players wanted for nothing - no excuses. Of course he had great players, but he enabled them to achieve their goals.

He was also human and made many mistakes especially around selection for the Lions. But to denigrate his achievements is unfair. Rodders....you don't like him and nothing will change that, but claiming he was not innovative is ridiculous. Eye coaches? The senior players all talk about how they had to often tell him "no" when he made a made a suggestion that was a bit too left field.

rodders wrote:
Are you having a laugh - Taoist monks practiced the concept of marginal gains in the 6th century, Woodward was a bit behind the curve when it comes to innovation.

That's as may be, but they forgot to invent rugby first. How many RWCs have taoist monks won?

No 7&1/2 wrote:But its a great money making event so perfect for the professional era. Maybe you should campaign for teams like Scotland to be disbanded as you don't think they're good enough. Or just don't watch the Lions.

I agree the Lions is now all about money making because of the professional era, rather than the original amateur concept. The SANZAR unions say they need that massive NH cash injection every 12 years or their development would be stunted. It's ironic that they still point the finger at the NH unions for not being competitive at RWCs due to lack of development, when it is the Lions that removes a whole year from their development programme.

Of the four nations Scotland may be the least receptive to professional rugby, so distancing themselves from reminders of the amateur era may help their professional Test team. BTW Murrayfield and Edinburgh are my favourite Test rugby destination so what benefit could it possibly be to disband Scotland?

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:But its a great money making event so perfect for the professional era. Maybe you should campaign for teams like Scotland to be disbanded as you don't think they're good enough. Or just don't watch the Lions.

I agree the Lions is now all about money making because of the professional era, rather than the original amateur concept. The SANZAR unions say they need that massive NH cash injection every 12 years or their development would be stunted. It's ironic that they still point the finger at the NH unions for not being competitive at RWCs due to lack of development, when it is the Lions that removes a whole year from their development programme.

Of the four nations Scotland may be the least receptive to professional rugby, so distancing themselves from reminders of the amateur era may help their professional Test team. BTW Murrayfield and Edinburgh are my favourite Test rugby destination so what benefit could it possibly be to disband Scotland?

It would bring my stress levels down quite a lot.

Scotland isn't a Team...it's a Rugby Nation. The Lions is a Team. I feel like I'm in a Father Ted script here.

They're not very good. Your argument was that the Lions don't compete enough. Wasn't it? You remain a fan of course but you want to see them win above all else and I'd they don't they should be disbanded. So I presume you make the same demands across all teams.

SecretFly wrote:Scotland isn't a Team...it's a Rugby Nation.  The Lions is a Team.  I feel like I'm in a Father Ted script here.

yea but Scotland is really small...the Lions are just far away.

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Scotland isn't a Team...it's a Rugby Nation.  The Lions is a Team.  I feel like I'm in a Father Ted script here.

yea but Scotland is really small...the Lions are just far away.

"Yeah, but... how come all the countries are different sizes?"

"Countries are... generally different sizes."

SecretFly wrote:Scotland isn't a Team...it's a Rugby Nation.  The Lions is a Team.  I feel like I'm in a Father Ted script here.

Its is ?

I learned that from the Russian Hacking, so don't blame me if it isn't true

SecretFly wrote:I learned that from the Russian Hacking, so don't blame me if it isn't true  

Its less likely than Trump enjoying a golden shower.

No 7&1/2 wrote:They're not very good. Your argument was that the Lions don't compete enough. Wasn't it? You remain a fan of course but you want to see them win above all else and I'd they don't they should be disbanded.  So I presume you make the same demands across all teams.

Why Scotland, and not England? - wasn't it an England captain who said:
"Well we might not be any good but at least we turned up."

After all this time I obviously still haven't been clear, so apologies for that. It's not about the Lions winning or losing but rather having a fair contest without players threatening their careers in an attempt to even up the odds. Much is made of Telfer's speech but how many mountaineers climb Everest three times in as many weeks?

Now come on 7.5, what would you say to a nice cup of tea?

Threatening their careers how. I'm still waiting for the list of thugs brought in by clubs especially to play the Lions. Could it.be it all comes.down to you prefer to watch your own nation play by themselves and don't really follow the lions. Just say that instead of the make believe.

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:They're not very good. Your argument was that the Lions don't compete enough. Wasn't it? You remain a fan of course but you want to see them win above all else and I'd they don't they should be disbanded.  So I presume you make the same demands across all teams.

Why Scotland, and not England? - wasn't it an England captain who said:
"Well we might not be any good but at least we turned up."

After all this time I obviously still haven't been clear, so apologies for that. It's not about the Lions winning or losing but rather having a fair contest without players threatening their careers in an attempt to even up the odds. Much is made of Telfer's speech but how many mountaineers climb Everest three times in as many weeks?

Now come on 7.5, what would you say to a nice cup of tea?

I wouldn't bother with 7.5, he won't actually debate your points, just create strawmen arguments, just the Scotland thing. Surprised he hasn't called you racist yet...

I've taken each point and argued it. Why the comment like that goon? No point.

Goon, shut up! You're a silly and foolish person who is also a bully and a thug.

At least that's what the Google Definition says.....

No 7&1/2 wrote:They're not very good. Your argument was that the Lions don't compete enough. Wasn't it? You remain a fan of course but you want to see them win above all else and I'd they don't they should be disbanded.  So I presume you make the same demands across all teams.

Better than France, Argentina and Italy so perhaps you should talk sh!te about them instead no?

Can do. I wouldn't want to see any team disbanded just following through the argument. The point being he's not really bothered how good the lions are or aren't. Not so sure Scotland are better than Argentina though.

Scotland have won 5 of the last 6 tests (incl. the last three) so I would say that yes....Scotland are better than Argentina.

Fair enough to you. I don't. You seem upset I picked Scotland out to make the point. The general point still stands though. If someone calls for the lions to be got rid of as they don't compete to a sufficient standard surely you call for all teams who don't compete to be wound up?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Fair enough to you. I don't.  You seem upset I picked Scotland out to make the point. The general point still stands though. If someone calls for the lions to be got rid of as they don't compete to a sufficient standard surely you call for all teams who don't compete to be wound up?

Mmmmmmmm, what's that saying about never arguing with an idiot......?

So for that fact.....I'm out.

Upsetting people left right and centre today. Sorry I picked Scotland but even though improving they're not a great side yet.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Fair enough to you. I don't.  You seem upset I picked Scotland out to make the point. The general point still stands though. If someone calls for the lions to be got rid of as they don't compete to a sufficient standard surely you call for all teams who don't compete to be wound up?

I understand your point, but surely it's important where that call comes from? I don't see a problem with fans from nations which contribute to the Lions having a debate about whether it is worth continuing. Similarly, Scots can debate amongst ourselves whether we should continue playing. I do absolutely see a problem with a fan of one nation's rugby team suggesting that another nation should not play anymore. It's positively insulting, in fact.

On the Argentina point, I wonder what logical argument you could put together to show why they are somehow better than Scotland. Scotland are above Argentina in the world rankings, have a 5-from-6 winning record against them, and have won four-straight games in Argentina, stretching back nine years. Scotland are, by all worthwhile metrics, demonstrably better than Argentina.

It was a point on the flaw in the argument.

I just feel Argentina are the better side. You could have made a similar argument regarding south Africa and England until last year. A long run of defeats sa sitting above us until after the 6ns I think but could be wrong but I've felt we were better for a while previous. Take Scotland out of my point and replace it with France if you want. The point is valid arguing that the lions aren't good enough to exist surely then extends to others.

Just remove all mentions of Scotland and replace them with Georgia, that should get to the point sufficiently

So you didn't actually read what I said? Replace Scotland with any country you want, and it still boils down to you telling another country it's not good enough to bother with rugby. Not remotely the same as people from Britain and Ireland discussing whether the British & Irish Lions tours are worth carrying on with.

I did read it. Just to make it obvious I'm not actually calling for any team to be disbanded and I don't think whether anyone is Scottish Georgia etc matters to the argument made. If an argument is that the lions aren't good enough and people think they should be gotten rid of due to that then surely they think the same for any team worse than them. The point is that he doesn't believe that he's more bothered that the lions gt in the way of his preferred team to follow.

I tried.

Horses, water, drinking.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I did read it. Just to make it obvious I'm not actually calling for any team to be disbanded and I don't think whether anyone is Scottish Georgia etc matters to the argument made. If an argument is that the lions aren't good enough and people think they should be gotten rid of due to that then surely they think the same for any team worse than them.  The point is that he doesn't believe that he's more bothered that the lions gt in the way of his preferred team to follow.

You are incapable of reading Ausk's actual arguement. it is not the fact that the lions aren't "good", it's that the deck is massively stacked against them (Long season, lack of prep time, new systems to learn etc) not to mention the negative effect it has on developement of the Home nations' RWC preparations. They will lose more players to injury, play less games together, and have 1 less proper tour to the SH.

Do you not see that Scotland/Georgia and the Lions aren't remotely similar? How can that possiblely be a valid equivalence?

Like vs me, you didn't listen to my arguments vs Ideas, instead mis-read it to be vs people becuase then you could slander me. Beats requiring a real argument.

He has made that argument goon and following the logic of the lions not being good enough you can apply to other teams. I'll leave your argument on the other thread.

No 7&1/2 wrote:He has made that argument goon and following the logic of the lions not being good enough you can apply to other teams. I'll leave your argument on the other thread.

This is what Ausk said. I have highlighted the relevant bit for you.
You are wrong.


After all this time I obviously still haven't been clear, so apologies for that. It's not about the Lions winning or losing but rather having a fair contest without players threatening their careers in an attempt to even up the odds. Much is made of Telfer's speech but how many mountaineers climb Everest three times in as many weeks?

Here is he original point:
I have highlighted the relevant bit for you. You are wrong. It has nothing to do with being "good enough". Read the words on the screen, not what you think they are. As vs me, you can't read minds.


The Lions were an incredibly special aspect of rugby - in the amateur era. They used to fill stadia against full strength sides for months before the Tests even started. They popularised the game at both ends of the radio broadcast and provided much needed funds for those SH sides that couldn't rely on the 5N to support grass roots rugby. They were the closest thing to a professional team in the sport because they played, partied, slept and ate together under the rugby banner until they knew each other inside out, on and off the pitch. That advantage evened up some of the disadvantages and made the tours competitive.

Professionalism changed everything. The RWC is now rightly the biggest rugby event in the world and the Lions has become little more than a money making exercise. The Lions tours have also become far too biased in favour of the home nations, because the schedule is too short to gel and too punishing to be at peak performance against settled professional units. Competition is fine but when it becomes unfair that is an entirely different matter.

The Rugby World Cup has taken over the mantle of being the incredibly special aspect of rugby, and something every rugby nation can aspire to, not just the historical few. The old king should be allowed to die before it is too late - sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

Feel very free to look back earlier and see his full argument goon. He's dodged around a few including the player safety argument arguing that clubs specifically bring in thugs to play the Lions. Going back over a period of a lot more than a few months his issue is that the Lions impacts his international teams prospects but in that contradicts himself in relation to cutting the amount of games, the fact the lions are stuck in the past or that they are too money orientated depending on his want for the day.

he jumps around arguments with no consistency.