Who does the Lions represent for you?

First topic message reminder :

For you personally, are the Lions representing the British isles, or are they representing your nation whilst playing for the Lions?

This is not a question of which is more important to you. For example, I support England and if I had to choose would rather England won a world cup than the Lions win a Test series. But this does not mean that my enjoyment of or interest in the Lions is related to England's representation in the Lions. As I've said a few times, If I felt the best lions XV was all Irish, then I'd be happy with seeing that named because they are representing the British Isles. I'm not supporting England through the medium of the Lions so it makes no difference.

It's been put to me that it's easy for me to say that, because as an England fan, England have always been well represented, but I still find it curious that some fans are not bothered about the Lions unless a lot of their players are selected.

It's GB and Northern Ireland, what it's abbreviated to has little relevance.

cascough wrote:I think that's a different discussion entirely.

I just want to know how many people only support the lions as an extension of their own country, rather than in it's own right. And that question can be asked regardless of whatever label you want to apply to the Lions.

It was surprising for me to learn that this is as widespread as it is, and quite disappointing to be honest.

I don't think it a different discussion, I think it's always one of the factors (albeit often disguised) in any discussion of The Lions.

And why should different attitudes to the Lions be disappointing to you? You love the Lions for your reasons and what others think of them is hardly going to impact on that enjoyment or at least shouldn't. You enjoy them for your reasons.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It's GB and Northern Ireland, what it's abbreviated to has little relevance.

It has. 'Team GB' is the chant. That's the marketing. The abbreviation has meaning.

It has meaning if you wish to be an awkward git but aside from that it really doesn't.

It's sport anyway, who gives a toss.

Hammersmith harrier wrote: It has meaning if you wish to be an awkward git but aside from that it really doesn't.

It's sport anyway, who gives a toss.

Well there were three distinct positions put out there ... and I added a 4th. It has meaning. It means nothing to me, but it has meaning or else 'Team UK' would have been the title marketed instead. It uses as few letters.

It literally means nothing but do carry on with your usual inane whatever it is you do.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:It literally means nothing but do carry on with your usual inane whatever it is you do.

Oh I'll carry on, Hammersmith. Don't fret about that.

3 intense test matches!

SecretFly wrote:

cascough wrote:I think that's a different discussion entirely.

I just want to know how many people only support the lions as an extension of their own country, rather than in it's own right. And that question can be asked regardless of whatever label you want to apply to the Lions.

It was surprising for me to learn that this is as widespread as it is, and quite disappointing to be honest.

I don't think it a different discussion, I think it's always one of the factors (albeit often disguised) in any discussion of The Lions.

And why should different attitudes to the Lions be disappointing to you?  You love the Lions for your reasons and what others think of them is hardly going to impact on that enjoyment or at least shouldn't.  You enjoy them for your reasons.  

I'm not saying it isn't a discussion worth having, I'm saying it's not what I'm asking.

I spoke to a Scotland fan and the sentiment was that their level of support for the Lions was dependent on how many Scots were playing in the tests. Many other Scotland fans then echoed this sentiment.

For me, I support the Lions as the Lions. The nationality of the players is not a factor. For some others it seems this is not the case. What others think of the Lions absolutely does impact on my enjoyment of the Lions and I'm unsure as to how you could possibly be in a position to tell me what I should and shouldn't enjoy about the Lions. One of the things I enjoyed most about previous tours is coming together with a set of supporters that I wouldn't normally and rooting for the same team. The same players.

This is seemingly on the wane (certainly in my experience) as the Lions are becoming more and more tribal. When I have discussions like the one that sparked this thread it makes me understand perhaps why that is the case.

Its understandable that some Scots are less interested in it if there are no Scots involved. Its meant to be a team made up of four teams not three teams.

Thought it was supposed to be the best of four teams. Which could all be from one team.

It's understandable if you view the Lions as an extension of your own team. Which I don't and I thought most others didn't. As Scottrf says, the best players could all be from one team. As a lions supporter I want the best players selected, because I want to win. It's that simple for me.

Scottrf wrote:Thought it was supposed to be the best of four teams. Which could all be from one team.

Not sure thats what it set out to achieve. The first ever tour included players from all four unions.

cascough wrote:It's understandable if you view the Lions as an extension of your own team. Which I don't and I thought most others didn't. As Scottrf says, the best players could all be from one team. As a lions supporter I want the best players selected, because I want to win. It's that simple for me.

No I view the Lions as representing 4 teams which is different.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Thought it was supposed to be the best of four teams. Which could all be from one team.

Not sure thats what it set out to achieve. The first ever tour included players from all four unions.

They also played Aussie rules. I wasn't saying they had to be from one team, not sure if you understood my point.

Do you want quotas, Guns?

Cyril wrote:Do you want quotas, Guns?

I think all four teams should be represented in the squad because that's what it means to me.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:Do you want quotas, Guns?

I think all four teams should be represented in the squad because that's what it means to me.

Even if players are taken that aren't the best available?

As it stands all four teams will be represented, they just might not have any representatives.

Scottrf wrote:Thought it was supposed to be the best of four teams. Which could all be from one team.

Then what is the point though? Just might as well tour as Individual Nations?
'Best of' or 'Representative of'?

Cyril wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:Do you want quotas, Guns?

I think all four teams should be represented in the squad because that's what it means to me.

Even if players are taken that aren't the best available?

As it stands all four teams will be represented, they just might not have any representatives.

All people are equal but some are more equal than others.

SecretFly wrote:

Cyril wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:Do you want quotas, Guns?

I think all four teams should be represented in the squad because that's what it means to me.

Even if players are taken that aren't the best available?

As it stands all four teams will be represented, they just might not have any representatives.

  All people are equal but some are more equal than others.

I only want the 'more equal' to tour. The 'utterly equals' can go in the Test team leaving the 'very equals' to dirt track.

Cyril wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:Do you want quotas, Guns?

I think all four teams should be represented in the squad because that's what it means to me.

Even if players are taken that aren't the best available?

As it stands all four teams will be represented, they just might not have any representatives.

Yes even if the "best players" aren't taken. Best players being a very subjective term. All unions pretty much have a bias towards their own players. I dont think you dilute the overall quality much at all if you include players from all four sides.

I think the concept is fairly pointless if you don't.

Winning in sport is important but it isnt nor should it be the only consideration. If it was you breed a culture that creates incidents like the Dean Richards' blood gate debacle.

I think you may have persuaded me, Guns.

Best shouldn't tour.

Used to be that the Lions represented the single most important element of the rugby calendar to me.

In the first place, back in the pre-pro days, it was the absolute summit for a British or Irish player. The Lions didn't really bother with touring Australia (or it was regarded as nothing more than a way of shaking off the rust), so there were just two tours that really mattered - NZ and SA, which would alternate every three years. It was a rare thing to see the Boks or the All Blacks back then; again, they might tour Britain and Ireland every four or five years, so the idea of taking them on in faraway lands was both fresh and exciting. As a kid, listening on a crackly transistor to what happened to be the best sides in Lions history overcoming the weight of history was unbelievably inspiring. Yes, the tours were long and arduous but this was one of the best things about them - by the time that the Tests began, what we had here was a real team, the cream of NH rugby, with the ability and the time together to put the fear of God into the opposition. There was something slightly marvellous about having people like Gareth, Barry John, David Duckham and Mighty Mouse on our side as part of a common cause and my understanding is that the players themselves felt much the same way.

Now? Meh, not so much. It's totally understandable that the tours should be so much shorter, but it doesn't help the tourists to be competitive, that's for sure. Almost impossible to build the team ethos in such a short time. As for, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia, well they're hardly unfamiliar these days, are they? We see them and play them two or three times a year so the magic of taking them on has long gone. The Lions are also no longer the peak of the game, sadly. The World Cup has taken that mantle and the international calendar is too crowded to allow anything else to take its place. The Lions are now a bit of an anachronism - a welcome diversion in a way but no longer of the same relevance as they were as far as the global game is concerned.

I'll still enjoy the tour this summer, but if I miss a Test or two because I'm doing other things, that will be too bad. Time was that I simply wouldn't have missed a Lions Test for all the tea in China. It was one of the great sporting events; it's still fun but it doesn't stir the blood the way that it did.

Cyril wrote:I think you may have persuaded me, Guns.

Best shouldn't tour.

Spot on. Exactly what Gats is after saying in that rushed Press-conference this morning

Cyril wrote:I think you may have persuaded me, Guns.

Best shouldn't tour.

I would be fine with that. I would even be happy if George toured despite being the most over rated hooker in contention. It would be the lesser of two evils because no one likes Hartley. I wouldnt be surprised if his mum didnt even really like him.

For Ireland Id like to see some of the younger guys tour like Henshaw, VdF or maybe Ringrose.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:I think you may have persuaded me, Guns.

Best shouldn't tour.

I would be fine with that. I would even be happy if George toured despite being the most over rated hooker in contention. It would be the lesser of two evils because no one likes Hartley.

For Ireland Id like to see some of the younger guys tour like Henshaw, VdF or maybe Ringrose.

Gatland likes Hartley!

George gets a lot of hype but I'd say Best seems to be pretty overrated. His darts are wonky and he doesn't seem to offer too much. An honest, hard-working player that makes the most of his ability though.

Cyril wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:I think you may have persuaded me, Guns.

Best shouldn't tour.

I would be fine with that. I would even be happy if George toured despite being the most over rated hooker in contention. It would be the lesser of two evils because no one likes Hartley.

For Ireland Id like to see some of the younger guys tour like Henshaw, VdF or maybe Ringrose.

Gatland likes Hartley!

George gets a lot of hype but I'd say Best seems to be pretty overrated. His darts are wonky and he doesn't seem to offer too much. An honest, hard-working player that makes the most of his ability though.

That's hardly surprising because they are similar in that both are really annoying, tubby New Zealanders.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:I think you may have persuaded me, Guns.

Best shouldn't tour.

I would be fine with that. I would even be happy if George toured despite being the most over rated hooker in contention. It would be the lesser of two evils because no one likes Hartley.

For Ireland Id like to see some of the younger guys tour like Henshaw, VdF or maybe Ringrose.

Gatland likes Hartley!

George gets a lot of hype but I'd say Best seems to be pretty overrated. His darts are wonky and he doesn't seem to offer too much. An honest, hard-working player that makes the most of his ability though.

That's hardly surprising because they are similar in that both are really annoying, tubby New Zealanders.

An ideal combination to take on some slightly less tubby (but equally annoying) New Zealanders. When in Rome...

Look.  Here's the compromise.

If most players selected are English, then it should be the English Lions.
Most players come from Wales and it should be the Welsh Lions.
Most of them come from Ireland and it should be the Irish Lions.
And if most of them come from Scotland it's most probable that there has been a serious typographical error and a Lions tour for that year should be considered null and void.

If most players are from the SH, then.... well, The Usurper Lions?

The Lions are now a bit of an anachronism - a welcome diversion

With the Captain on this one, not what it used to be, it's better than watching the cricket or footy but since I don't have sky I don't often see the games anyway and certainly wouldn't be getting up at daft o'clock to watch them.

If somebody went mad and gave me tickets, booked hotels, cleared annual leave with my workplace and gave me a wadge of beer tokens I probably would go, but even then it would be a bit like going to a 3 day Reading Rock Festival - there for the beer and only interested in a few of the acts.

SecretFly wrote:
Most of them come from Ireland and it should be the Irish Lions.

What if most of them are from the Unionist community, but pro Brexit?

Gooseberry wrote:

SecretFly wrote:
Most of them come from Ireland and it should be the Irish Lions.

What if most of them are from the Unionist community, but pro Brexit?

Oh Jesus....never thought of that one............em.................. eh..............................

Just give me a few years to think that one through.

Irish is a fine catch all for everyone from the Island isn't it?

Scottrf wrote:Irish is a fine catch all for everyone from the Island isn't it?

This seems like a trap?

Scottrf wrote:Irish is a fine catch all for everyone from the Island isn't it?

Well no, the Polish still think themselves Polish...and never vote for us in the Eurovision. So there's gratitude for you.

Scottrf wrote:Irish is a fine catch all for everyone from the Island isn't it?

Doesn't 'Irish' exclude those in the North?

So we have 'British and Irish Lions'. Where are NI represented in that title? They're not British, or at least not from Great Britain (i.e. the big island, which I take to mean British). And they're not Irish. Or does the 'Irish' bit mean ROI and NI? Isn't that politically naughty? As bad as saying 'British Lions' and including ROI in there as well?!

Are our friends in the North excluded and discriminated against by the term British and Irish Lions? Possibly so.

Griff wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Irish is a fine catch all for everyone from the Island isn't it?

Doesn't 'Irish' exclude those in the North?  

So we have 'British and Irish Lions'.  Where are NI represented in that title?  They're not British, or at least not from Great Britain (i.e. the big island, which I take to mean British).  And they're not Irish.  Or does the 'Irish' bit mean ROI and NI?  Isn't that politically naughty?  As bad as saying 'British Lions' and including ROI in there as well?!

Are our friends in the North excluded and discriminated against by the term British and Irish Lions?  Possibly so.

No, British includes people from Northern Ireland, and other British territories not part of Great Britain e.g. Falkland Islanders.

Scottrf wrote:

Griff wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Irish is a fine catch all for everyone from the Island isn't it?

Doesn't 'Irish' exclude those in the North?  

So we have 'British and Irish Lions'.  Where are NI represented in that title?  They're not British, or at least not from Great Britain (i.e. the big island, which I take to mean British).  And they're not Irish.  Or does the 'Irish' bit mean ROI and NI?  Isn't that politically naughty?  As bad as saying 'British Lions' and including ROI in there as well?!

Are our friends in the North excluded and discriminated against by the term British and Irish Lions?  Possibly so.

No, British includes people from Northern Ireland, and other British territories not part of Great Britain e.g. Falkland Islanders.

Really? 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. I'd say that the British referred to those in Great Britain and the Northern Irish being referred to separately meant they were indeed separate from 'British'/Britain. Happy to learn otherwise though

Griff wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Irish is a fine catch all for everyone from the Island isn't it?

Doesn't 'Irish' exclude those in the North?  

No, just Arlene Foster.

Griff wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Griff wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Irish is a fine catch all for everyone from the Island isn't it?

Doesn't 'Irish' exclude those in the North?  

So we have 'British and Irish Lions'.  Where are NI represented in that title?  They're not British, or at least not from Great Britain (i.e. the big island, which I take to mean British).  And they're not Irish.  Or does the 'Irish' bit mean ROI and NI?  Isn't that politically naughty?  As bad as saying 'British Lions' and including ROI in there as well?!

Are our friends in the North excluded and discriminated against by the term British and Irish Lions?  Possibly so.

No, British includes people from Northern Ireland, and other British territories not part of Great Britain e.g. Falkland Islanders.

Really?  'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.  I'd say that the British referred to those in Great Britain and the Northern Irish being referred to separately meant they were indeed separate from 'British'/Britain.  Happy to learn otherwise though

I think Scott is right however a large proportion of the population of NI technically aren't British as they hold only Irish passports. Im pretty sure you can choose which passport you hold under the good Friday agreement.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Im pretty sure you can choose which passport you hold under the good Friday agreement.

If you are born in NI you can opt for either (or both) passport as part of the GFA but can't qualify for an Irish passport under residency, just a UK one.

rodders wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Im pretty sure you can choose which passport you hold under the good Friday agreement.

If you are born in NI you can opt for either (or both) passport as part of the GFA but can't qualify for an Irish passport under residency, just a UK one.

Do you have a British or Irish passport or both?

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

rodders wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Im pretty sure you can choose which passport you hold under the good Friday agreement.

If you are born in NI you can opt for either (or both) passport as part of the GFA but can't qualify for an Irish passport under residency, just a UK one.

Do you have a British or Irish passport or both?

Guns I have had a UK one my whole adult life but will certainly opt for an Irish one soon but that is more to do with the brexit situation - for practical reasons obviously but also pretty I'm embarrassed about the behavior of many British politicians attitude to Europe in recent times.

Other than that it's not something I've thought much about, I don't think people are defined by the color of their passport... that's sort of gone beyond the scope of your question but you did ask...

Cool. Welcome to the party.

I assume to some people that might be considered a cheeky question but it is more out of curiosity than anything.

Yeah you put the on the spot alright, I'll probably be shot now.... hopefully I'll make it to the end of the 6N....

Here's one that will make you laugh. Or cry, as it did with me

My mother is from Northern Ireland, voted Brexit in the U.K.,, but now intends to pursue an Irish passport to give her easier/better access to Europe for holidays, etc. So voted to leave but wants to retain the advantages that being in the union entitles you to. FFS. You couldn't make it up!

rodders wrote:Yeah you put the on the spot alright, I'll probably be shot now.... hopefully I'll make it to the end of the 6N....

Just pretend you're Polish and you'll be fine.

Griff wrote:Here's one that will make you laugh. Or cry, as it did with me

My mother is from Northern Ireland, voted Brexit in the U.K.,, but now intends to pursue an Irish passport to give her easier/better access to Europe for holidays, etc. So voted to leave but wants to retain the advantages that being in the union entitles you to. FFS. You couldn't make it up!

Nothing wrong with that at all. Pro-Europe - anti-EU. Perfectly logical. The EU don't own Europe. - they just think they do.

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:Here's one that will make you laugh. Or cry, as it did with me

My mother is from Northern Ireland, voted Brexit in the U.K.,, but now intends to pursue an Irish passport to give her easier/better access to Europe for holidays, etc. So voted to leave but wants to retain the advantages that being in the union entitles you to. FFS. You couldn't make it up!

Nothing wrong with that at all.  Pro-Europe - anti-EU.  Perfectly logical.  The EU don't own Europe. - they just think they do.

I would agree with you were it not for the fact that she seems anti-Europe too in terms of immigration, free movement of people (except when it's her going on holiday), etc!