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.

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:

Edit:  I also see what you did there Guns.  Deliberately said the sea was between ENGLAND and Ireland, while deliberately missing out Wales.  An attempt to be provocative and imply that Wales is not in itself distinct from England.  Naughty.

You'd be surprised (and maybe you wouldn't) by the number of people around the world who think you're all English if you're in the UK.  But there's no harm done.  They have a point, the English can represent the rest of you as the Queen comes from there and Big Ben is in London.

Getting a gist of the sensitivity of name dropping now?

Yeah it's a traditional one from Americans.

"Where are you from?"
"Dunfermline, its a nice town in Scotland"
"you said wee? ain't that cute! Scotland eh? As in north England?"

I wouldn't say I find this sort of conversation "offensive" or think that the said American is trying to be provocative. Colloquialism is tough to be knowledgeable though. Americans see the whole of the UK as "England".

One immeasurably ignorant Texan (who obviously had Scottish ancestors) I met had and "England out of Scotland" badge, with Mel Gibson's face as William Wallace all over it . Wearing a badge like that it's hard to know where to begin.

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:

Edit:  I also see what you did there Guns.  Deliberately said the sea was between ENGLAND and Ireland, while deliberately missing out Wales.  An attempt to be provocative and imply that Wales is not in itself distinct from England.  Naughty.

You'd be surprised (and maybe you wouldn't) by the number of people around the world who think you're all English if you're in the UK.  But there's no harm done.  They have a point, the English can represent the rest of you as the Queen comes from there and Big Ben is in London.

Getting a gist of the sensitivity of name dropping now?

I was being sarcastic to Guns because he's been quick to pick casgough up on 'deliberately proactive' language, which I don't personally believe he was doing.  I know Guns wasn't being provocative on purpose!  

Lets talk about the 'Irish' Sea!

"you said wee? ain't that cute! Scotland eh? As in north England?"

that's nowt man - there's still southern English who think Hadrian's Wall is the Anglo-Scottish Border.

Ignorance abounds.

As for the Lion motif - the English have Leopards - it's the Scots that have a Lion.

As an aside - the Pumas actually have a Jaguar - it's a confusing world out there.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:

Edit:  I also see what you did there Guns.  Deliberately said the sea was between ENGLAND and Ireland, while deliberately missing out Wales.  An attempt to be provocative and imply that Wales is not in itself distinct from England.  Naughty.

You'd be surprised (and maybe you wouldn't) by the number of people around the world who think you're all English if you're in the UK.  But there's no harm done.  They have a point, the English can represent the rest of you as the Queen comes from there and Big Ben is in London.

Getting a gist of the sensitivity of name dropping now?

Yeah it's a traditional one from Americans.

"Where are you from?"
"Dunfermline, its a nice town in Scotland"
"you said wee? ain't that cute! Scotland eh? As in north England?"

I wouldn't say I find this sort of conversation "offensive" or think that the said American is trying to be provocative. Colloquialism is tough to be knowledgeable though. Americans see the whole of the UK as "England".

One immeasurably ignorant Texan (who obviously had Scottish ancestors) I met had and "England out of Scotland" badge, with Mel Gibson's face as William Wallace all over it . Wearing a badge like that it's hard to know where to begin.

probably half of the French population think that too. And it's even worst when it comes to Wales which his usually viewed as another England region like midlands. to be honest I would go as far as saying that hardly anyone knows the actual difference between UK, GB and England on the continent (let alone the difference between Ulster and NI!)... and if it wasn't for rugby (or leaving in UK) I would probably fall in that category...

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: One immeasurably ignorant Texan (who obviously had Scottish ancestors) I met had and "England out of Scotland" badge, with Mel Gibson's face as William Wallace all over it . Wearing a badge like that it's hard to know where to begin.

I usually start by sitting them in front of Stewart Lee's excellent stand up on Braveheart:

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:

Edit:  I also see what you did there Guns.  Deliberately said the sea was between ENGLAND and Ireland, while deliberately missing out Wales.  An attempt to be provocative and imply that Wales is not in itself distinct from England.  Naughty.

You'd be surprised (and maybe you wouldn't) by the number of people around the world who think you're all English if you're in the UK.  But there's no harm done.  They have a point, the English can represent the rest of you as the Queen comes from there and Big Ben is in London.

Getting a gist of the sensitivity of name dropping now?

The cricket team only exists to troll the Welsh.

whocares wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:

Edit:  I also see what you did there Guns.  Deliberately said the sea was between ENGLAND and Ireland, while deliberately missing out Wales.  An attempt to be provocative and imply that Wales is not in itself distinct from England.  Naughty.

You'd be surprised (and maybe you wouldn't) by the number of people around the world who think you're all English if you're in the UK.  But there's no harm done.  They have a point, the English can represent the rest of you as the Queen comes from there and Big Ben is in London.

Getting a gist of the sensitivity of name dropping now?

Yeah it's a traditional one from Americans.

"Where are you from?"
"Dunfermline, its a nice town in Scotland"
"you said wee? ain't that cute! Scotland eh? As in north England?"

I wouldn't say I find this sort of conversation "offensive" or think that the said American is trying to be provocative. Colloquialism is tough to be knowledgeable though. Americans see the whole of the UK as "England".

One immeasurably ignorant Texan (who obviously had Scottish ancestors) I met had and "England out of Scotland" badge, with Mel Gibson's face as William Wallace all over it . Wearing a badge like that it's hard to know where to begin.

probably half of the French population think that too.  And it's even worst when it comes to Wales which his usually viewed as another England region like midlands. to be honest I would go as far as saying that hardly anyone knows the actual difference between UK, GB and England on the continent (let alone the difference between Ulster and NI!)... and if it wasn't for rugby (or leaving in UK) I would probably fall in that category...

It is isn't it?

Gooseberry wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:

Edit:  I also see what you did there Guns.  Deliberately said the sea was between ENGLAND and Ireland, while deliberately missing out Wales.  An attempt to be provocative and imply that Wales is not in itself distinct from England.  Naughty.

You'd be surprised (and maybe you wouldn't) by the number of people around the world who think you're all English if you're in the UK.  But there's no harm done.  They have a point, the English can represent the rest of you as the Queen comes from there and Big Ben is in London.

Getting a gist of the sensitivity of name dropping now?

The cricket team only exists to troll the Welsh.

Looking at the results of the English test team I'm pretty sure it's only trolling the English

Griff wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:

Edit:  I also see what you did there Guns.  Deliberately said the sea was between ENGLAND and Ireland, while deliberately missing out Wales.  An attempt to be provocative and imply that Wales is not in itself distinct from England.  Naughty.

You'd be surprised (and maybe you wouldn't) by the number of people around the world who think you're all English if you're in the UK.  But there's no harm done.  They have a point, the English can represent the rest of you as the Queen comes from there and Big Ben is in London.

Getting a gist of the sensitivity of name dropping now?

The cricket team only exists to troll the Welsh.

Looking at the results of the English test team I'm pretty sure it's only trolling the English  

Irishcaptain in limited overs..... something we wont be seeing for the Lions.

Griff wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:

Edit:  I also see what you did there Guns.  Deliberately said the sea was between ENGLAND and Ireland, while deliberately missing out Wales.  An attempt to be provocative and imply that Wales is not in itself distinct from England.  Naughty.

You'd be surprised (and maybe you wouldn't) by the number of people around the world who think you're all English if you're in the UK.  But there's no harm done.  They have a point, the English can represent the rest of you as the Queen comes from there and Big Ben is in London.

Getting a gist of the sensitivity of name dropping now?

The cricket team only exists to troll the Welsh.

Looking at the results of the English test team I'm pretty sure it's only trolling the English  

Thus why so many of us don't watch it. It's very confusing watching an Irish Captain talk about England and say things about innings and overs and 6,586 for 3 and other weird stuff that few of us can understand. It would put you off your breakfast.

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:

Edit:  I also see what you did there Guns.  Deliberately said the sea was between ENGLAND and Ireland, while deliberately missing out Wales.  An attempt to be provocative and imply that Wales is not in itself distinct from England.  Naughty.

You'd be surprised (and maybe you wouldn't) by the number of people around the world who think you're all English if you're in the UK.  But there's no harm done.  They have a point, the English can represent the rest of you as the Queen comes from there and Big Ben is in London.

Getting a gist of the sensitivity of name dropping now?

The cricket team only exists to troll the Welsh.

Looking at the results of the English test team I'm pretty sure it's only trolling the English  

Thus why so many of us don't watch it.  It's very confusing watching an Irish Captain talk about England and say things about innings and overs and 6,586 for 3 and other weird stuff that few of us can understand.  It would put you off your breakfast.

Even more so when England means EnglandandWales.
Of course the poor Scotts are crying into their porridge because they dont get a look in team (unlike new zealand, south africa, Yorkshire and a host of other foriegn nations) ...just like the Lions.

Gooseberry wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:

Edit:  I also see what you did there Guns.  Deliberately said the sea was between ENGLAND and Ireland, while deliberately missing out Wales.  An attempt to be provocative and imply that Wales is not in itself distinct from England.  Naughty.

You'd be surprised (and maybe you wouldn't) by the number of people around the world who think you're all English if you're in the UK.  But there's no harm done.  They have a point, the English can represent the rest of you as the Queen comes from there and Big Ben is in London.

Getting a gist of the sensitivity of name dropping now?

The cricket team only exists to troll the Welsh.

Looking at the results of the English test team I'm pretty sure it's only trolling the English  

Thus why so many of us don't watch it.  It's very confusing watching an Irish Captain talk about England and say things about innings and overs and 6,586 for 3 and other weird stuff that few of us can understand.  It would put you off your breakfast.

Even more so when England means EnglandandWales.
Of course the poor Scotts are crying into their porridge because they dont get a look in team (unlike new zealand, south africa, Yorkshire and a host of other foriegn nations) ...just like the Lions.

I would rather burn my nipples of than watch test match cricket, even if Scotland had a team. As for the Lions Scotland often provides the most important member of the team!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/36616253

Young doctor there and good for him that he got that gig, it'll be good on the CV with still a long career ahead of him.

Not so sure about that full-back - a little long in the tooth for my liking but if Gats thinks he's capable then who am I to question it?

And another piece of useless trivia to add this entertaining thread about what the Lions means to us all

The Brits built two ships during the war named SS Ivernia and SS Saxonia. Guess which one got torpedoed by the Germans and sunk with the same captain on board who steered the ill-fated Lusitania when it was torpedoed off the south coast of Ireland by German subs?

Em.................... the dumbo was given Ivernia?

SecretFly wrote:Em....................  the dumbo was given Ivernia?

Yep.

Sack Howley before tis too late

Love the lions of yesteryear, in the era of amateur rugby. Am not sure how much i love the modern, commercial professional version which is, after all, significantly about money for the NZRU and ARU.

In the modern professional era it is far less likely that a squad which only has 4 weeks to train together can do themselves justice against centrally-contracted SH teams. The whole idea is a wonderful legacy of magical games and moments from the amateur era. Which is being milked in the professional era.

Hard to see anything other than a kiwi 3-0 unfortunately. Even though Ireland beat NZ, and England could possibly. In the professional era its much more likely that the Lions whole is much less than the sum of the Lions parts. Hoping i'm wrong though.

quinsforever wrote:Love the lions of yesteryear, in the era of amateur rugby. Am not sure how much i love the modern, commercial professional version which is, after all, significantly about money for the NZRU and ARU.

In the modern professional era it is far less likely that a squad which only has 4 weeks to train together can do themselves justice against centrally-contracted SH teams. The whole idea is a wonderful legacy of magical games and moments from the amateur era. Which is being milked in the professional era.

Hard to see anything other than a kiwi 3-0 unfortunately. Even though Ireland beat NZ, and England could possibly. In the professional era its much more likely that the Lions whole is much less than the sum of the Lions parts. Hoping i'm wrong though.

Everyone on here and everyone in New Zealand agrees with you.

Lions have stopped becoming about who wins or loses any more. We could get stuffed every time and I wouldn't care. Winning a test series against a professional national side which has the benefit of knowing who their likely players will be and how to counteract their opposition is practically impossible given the ridiculous schedules that some bean counter has coughed up to maximise revenue. 

But the Lions isn't about that. It's about the experience of being able to cheer with your mates for one side and to see some bravery and invention. How incredible it must be to go on a happy tour (not a Woodward Clusterf#ck) - it must be the time of your life. 

Gordon Brown is from my home town. I met him and I know his son. At the benefit shortly before he succumbed to cancer, I saw footage of him and Willie John McBride roaring and laughing at stories they had about their time with the Lions. I think as you get older (and I'm 40 next year), you realise that the process of touring and the experience of that sort of collegiality is almost more important than the result. The fact that series victories are so rare is what makes them special. We aren't meant to win all the time. 

And it's commercialised? So what? The game is professional now. That's life. There is a very strange viewpoint knocking around that because it doesn't have the romantisicm of yesterday that it's all suddenly worthless. That's the very strange opinion from the age where we live now where everything is apparently disposable and can be discarded if it's not our bestest thing everest. It doesn't work for you right now, so it should be canned? My favourite people didn't win the Oscars last year. Let's ban that as well. 

What's the alternative to the Lions exactly? A couple more of the tests that we play year in, year out? What in the name of almighty f#ck is the point of that? You guys can watch that and I'll turn the lights out when you've fallen asleep half way through the final quarter.

I suppose that a rant like this is what happens when you're old...

Gooseberry wrote:Personally I'd prefer to get away from the national identities which are now more divide than a banner of cohesion and just call it the Lions.
The English don't feel the need to brand their union of English, and since its really their Lions it makes sense to drop the troublesome British and Irish.

Thats because the English invented the first football and rugby football Unions. Why would they need to call themselves anything different when they started both sports?

Now it represents a chance to LOL at Gatlands dilemma in having to select no players from his own team and more than one token Scott.

Gatland did not look very impressed yesterday....In fact he looked a little pi***ed off.

Even though Wales lost yesterday, i still think he will select quite a few Welsh players for the Lions. I would be very surprised if he didn't.

The thing is, 3 months is a long time in rugby. Some of England's players who looked hot in the Autumn don't look so great now. Thinking about Youngs and Joseph in particular, who have both been dropped from the starting line-up this week. They were certain Lions tourists and possibly worth spots in the 23 for me. Now there's a question mark.

At some point though, you have to say Six Nations form isn't the be all and end all, of selection. Some players will be selected on ability and faith that they can pull through.

I think Warburton and Liam Williams deserve to go on form, but Alun-Wyn Jones, Faleatu, North and Halfpenny will probably go having proved their worth on the last tour and be given a chance at playing their way into form. Possibly Tipuric too, although back row is fiercely competitive. There may be a couple of others too, e.g. Rob Evans, Webb and Biggar, who haven't toured before, depending on how they end their seasons and how their rivals fair.

robbo.

I do not agree with you on this. I know what you mean when you say some will go on faith and ability.

But in my mind when it comes to the "LIONS" you cannot have an old boys club, places for the boys, my boys.

The players should be selected on the form now and not from 4 years ago.

I do also agree that some of the English boys have not shown the same form this year as they did last year....all this should be taken into account when making the selection for the tour a head.

Woodward selected in 2005 based on 2003 form.

I am going to venture a controversial opinion that this approach did not turn out very well for us.

Pot Hale wrote:

Everyone on here and everyone in New Zealand agrees with you.  

No they don't.

George Carlin wrote:Lions have stopped becoming about who wins or loses any more. We could get stuffed every time and I wouldn't care. Winning a test series against a professional national side which has the benefit of knowing who their likely players will be and how to counteract their opposition is practically impossible given the ridiculous schedules that some bean counter has coughed up to maximise revenue. 

But the Lions isn't about that. It's about the experience of being able to cheer with your mates for one side and to see some bravery and invention. How incredible it must be to go on a happy tour (not a Woodward Clusterf#ck) - it must be the time of your life. 

Gordon Brown is from my home town. I met him and I know his son. At the benefit shortly before he succumbed to cancer, I saw footage of him and Willie John McBride roaring and laughing at stories they had about their time with the Lions. I think as you get older (and I'm 40 next year), you realise that the process of touring and the experience of that sort of collegiality is almost more important than the result. The fact that series victories are so rare is what makes them special. We aren't meant to win all the time. 

And it's commercialised? So what? The game is professional now. That's life. There is a very strange viewpoint knocking around that because it doesn't have the romantisicm of yesterday that it's all suddenly worthless. That's the very strange opinion from the age where we live now where everything is apparently disposable and can be discarded if it's not our bestest thing everest. It doesn't work for you right now, so it should be canned? My favourite people didn't win the Oscars last year. Let's ban that as well. 

What's the alternative to the Lions exactly? A couple more of the tests that we play year in, year out? What in the name of almighty f#ck is the point of that? You guys can watch that and I'll turn the lights out when you've fallen asleep half way through the final quarter.

I suppose that a rant like this is what happens when you're old...

The Lions always was about maximising revenues to ensure the survival of rugby in the SH - that raison d'être no longer exists in the modern professional era. The morality of the team's existence is now questionable as players who are paid for by Unions and clubs are effectively threatening those career investments by playing for a team that offers no benefit and plenty of harm to their normal paymasters.

The alternative to the Lions is what every other nation does who aren't involved in the quadrennial profiteering - they build for the next RWC. If you're falling asleep watching Scotland, then perhaps age is indeed starting to catch up.

I don't think he will pick the whole squad based on previous form, but I'd be surprised if he didn't pick at least the six Welsh players named for the touring squad.

The touring squad will need a blend of proven class, experience, form and raw ability. If your form stinks you might not have much hope. But if your form is just indifferent, you can pull yourself through if you have all the other things.

There was much more wrong with the 2005 tour than just the selection of too many 2003 World Cup winners. Woodward split the group into test and midweek and completely ignored form on tour.

The Lions will not be short on talent.

But against NZ, i fear Gatland will be short of ideas. And the team short of familiarity.

IMO a win against NZ today would be at least as epic as any of the the Lions series victories in the 70s in the SH

A couple of points.

I've always thought that the Lion's has been detrimental for the Celtic psychology, by cementing the belief that as individual nations they are incapable of beating the southern hemisphere sides and only in combination can they challenge. Thankfully Ireland have put this to bed though the AB's still appear beyond Scotland and Wales.

In the modern game (global season/s) the Lions is superfluous and career ending - to much rugby is bad for player welfare.

England should bite the bullet and leave the Lions to the Celtic nations. The game needs to transcend the global market place and this would be another progression to a brave new world where the likes of Georgia, ROmania, Italy, Somoa, Fiji, Tonga, USA & Canada are genuinely taken seriously.

Oh now, don't be humble kingelder.  Don't let us put you boys out.   Two and a quarter of the 'Celtic' Nations are hooked up with you in a bond of common identity.  

So we Celtic outsiders will ask our Celtic and non-Celtic brothers in the North if they want to hook up with us and leave the Lions party to your island so that we can concentrate on International - where the true business end of rugby lies.  I think this solution would also allow us to work on our Celtic psychology frailties.

SecretFly wrote:Oh now, don't be humble kingelder.  Don't let us put you boys out.     Two and a quarter of the 'Celtic' Nations are hooked up with you in a bond of common identity.  

So we Celtic outsiders will ask our Celtic and non-Celtic brothers in the North if they want to hook up with us and leave the Lions party to your island so that we can concentrate on International - where the true business end of rugby lies.  I think this solution would also allow us to work on our Celtic psychology frailties.

The Lions are an anachronism and a hang over from the amateur game.

Move on, focus on developing a global game - just imagine if the USA could in any serious way develop a functioning league in the next 10/20 years?

Real global development is the goal not just a 'see ya later' every 4 years from the pigs in the trough brigade.

kingelderfield wrote:A couple of points.

I've always thought that the Lion's has been detrimental for the Celtic psychology, by cementing the belief that as individual nations they are incapable of beating the southern hemisphere sides and only in combination can they challenge. Thankfully Ireland have put this to bed though the AB's still appear beyond Scotland and Wales.

In the modern game (global season/s) the Lions is superfluous and career ending - to much rugby is bad for player welfare.

England should bite the bullet and leave the Lions to the Celtic nations. The game needs to transcend the global market place and this would be another progression to a brave new world where the likes of Georgia, ROmania, Italy, Somoa, Fiji, Tonga, USA & Canada are genuinely taken seriously.

Ha ha without the Celts the Lions would have fallen apart years ago, Martin Johnson aside England have never done much for the Lions at all.

Gwlad wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:A couple of points.

I've always thought that the Lion's has been detrimental for the Celtic psychology, by cementing the belief that as individual nations they are incapable of beating the southern hemisphere sides and only in combination can they challenge. Thankfully Ireland have put this to bed though the AB's still appear beyond Scotland and Wales.

In the modern game (global season/s) the Lions is superfluous and career ending - to much rugby is bad for player welfare.

England should bite the bullet and leave the Lions to the Celtic nations. The game needs to transcend the global market place and this would be another progression to a brave new world where the likes of Georgia, ROmania, Italy, Somoa, Fiji, Tonga, USA & Canada are genuinely taken seriously.

Ha ha without the Celts the Lions would have fallen apart years ago, Martin Johnson aside England have never done much for the Lions at all.

I wholeheartedly agree.

The Celic Lions should stride on. They don't need the English now they're all growed up.

Cast those shackles of the oppressors and advance!

And let the English free to do a bit more practicing.

Never did need the English, they've hardly ever contributed a point to a Lions test (usually about 1 try per tour and often nothing at all!!) and presided over the tour that nearly ended the lions in 2005. But its the usual with England who are poor tourists and think they're the centre of the NH rugby universe and that Lions tours should therefore revolve around them when in reality it has and has always been Celts that form the heart of the tour and score the points.

Gwlad wrote:Never did need the English, they've hardly ever contributed a point to a Lions test (usually about 1 try per tour and often nothing at all!!) and presided over the tour that nearly ended the lions in 2005. But its the usual with England who think they're the centre of the NH rugby universe and that Lions tours should therefore revolve around them when in reality it has and has always been Celts that form the heart of the tour and score the points.

Great!
Agreed.

Now bugger off and give the antipodeans a bit of fun and money.

And just let the English to sort out their own development.
We'll cope.

Yeah, I know England are World Class and would beat NZ tomorrow, but i'd say after nearly losing to the Italians you probably need to

Gwlad wrote:Yeah, I know England are World Class and would beat NZ tomorrow, but i'd say after nearly losing to the Italians you probably need to

Could be worse, we could have failed to get a bonus point and lost our other two games.

The Great Aukster wrote:

George Carlin wrote:Lions have stopped becoming about who wins or loses any more. We could get stuffed every time and I wouldn't care. Winning a test series against a professional national side which has the benefit of knowing who their likely players will be and how to counteract their opposition is practically impossible given the ridiculous schedules that some bean counter has coughed up to maximise revenue. 

But the Lions isn't about that. It's about the experience of being able to cheer with your mates for one side and to see some bravery and invention. How incredible it must be to go on a happy tour (not a Woodward Clusterf#ck) - it must be the time of your life. 

Gordon Brown is from my home town. I met him and I know his son. At the benefit shortly before he succumbed to cancer, I saw footage of him and Willie John McBride roaring and laughing at stories they had about their time with the Lions. I think as you get older (and I'm 40 next year), you realise that the process of touring and the experience of that sort of collegiality is almost more important than the result. The fact that series victories are so rare is what makes them special. We aren't meant to win all the time. 

And it's commercialised? So what? The game is professional now. That's life. There is a very strange viewpoint knocking around that because it doesn't have the romantisicm of yesterday that it's all suddenly worthless. That's the very strange opinion from the age where we live now where everything is apparently disposable and can be discarded if it's not our bestest thing everest. It doesn't work for you right now, so it should be canned? My favourite people didn't win the Oscars last year. Let's ban that as well. 

What's the alternative to the Lions exactly? A couple more of the tests that we play year in, year out? What in the name of almighty f#ck is the point of that? You guys can watch that and I'll turn the lights out when you've fallen asleep half way through the final quarter.

I suppose that a rant like this is what happens when you're old...

The Lions always was about maximising revenues to ensure the survival of rugby in the SH - that raison d'être no longer exists in the modern professional era. The morality of the team's existence is now questionable as players who are paid for by Unions and clubs are effectively threatening those career investments by playing for a team that offers no benefit and plenty of harm to their normal paymasters.

The alternative to the Lions is what every other nation does who aren't involved in the quadrennial profiteering - they build for the next RWC. If you're falling asleep watching Scotland, then perhaps age is indeed starting to catch up.

Not this current Scotland side, Aukster. 5th in the world now, you know.

Gwlad wrote:Yeah, I know England are World Class and would beat NZ tomorrow, but i'd say after nearly losing to the Italians you probably need to

Atleast England have beaten NZ before. When was the last time Wales beat NZ, erm, erm, No cannot think. you tell me Gwlad.

majesticimperialman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Yeah, I know England are World Class and would beat NZ tomorrow, but i'd say after nearly losing to the Italians you probably need to

Atleast England have beaten NZ before. When was the last time Wales beat NZ, erm, erm, No cannot think. you tell me Gwlad.

1953. You're welcome.

Griff wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Yeah, I know England are World Class and would beat NZ tomorrow, but i'd say after nearly losing to the Italians you probably need to

Atleast England have beaten NZ before. When was the last time Wales beat NZ, erm, erm, No cannot think. you tell me Gwlad.

1953.  You're welcome.

That is way before i was born.

majesticimperialman wrote:

Griff wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Yeah, I know England are World Class and would beat NZ tomorrow, but i'd say after nearly losing to the Italians you probably need to

Atleast England have beaten NZ before. When was the last time Wales beat NZ, erm, erm, No cannot think. you tell me Gwlad.

1953.  You're welcome.

That is way before i was born.

Were you born yesterday?

George Carlin wrote:Lions have stopped becoming about who wins or loses any more. We could get stuffed every time and I wouldn't care. Winning a test series against a professional national side which has the benefit of knowing who their likely players will be and how to counteract their opposition is practically impossible given the ridiculous schedules that some bean counter has coughed up to maximise revenue. 

But the Lions isn't about that. It's about the experience of being able to cheer with your mates for one side and to see some bravery and invention. How incredible it must be to go on a happy tour (not a Woodward Clusterf#ck) - it must be the time of your life. 

Gordon Brown is from my home town. I met him and I know his son. At the benefit shortly before he succumbed to cancer, I saw footage of him and Willie John McBride roaring and laughing at stories they had about their time with the Lions. I think as you get older (and I'm 40 next year), you realise that the process of touring and the experience of that sort of collegiality is almost more important than the result. The fact that series victories are so rare is what makes them special. We aren't meant to win all the time. 

And it's commercialised? So what? The game is professional now. That's life. There is a very strange viewpoint knocking around that because it doesn't have the romantisicm of yesterday that it's all suddenly worthless. That's the very strange opinion from the age where we live now where everything is apparently disposable and can be discarded if it's not our bestest thing everest. It doesn't work for you right now, so it should be canned? My favourite people didn't win the Oscars last year. Let's ban that as well. 

What's the alternative to the Lions exactly? A couple more of the tests that we play year in, year out? What in the name of almighty f#ck is the point of that? You guys can watch that and I'll turn the lights out when you've fallen asleep half way through the final quarter.

I suppose that a rant like this is what happens when you're old...

Agree with large parts of that. Would you still support them if no Scotland players were selected?

cascough wrote:

George Carlin wrote:Lions have stopped becoming about who wins or loses any more. We could get stuffed every time and I wouldn't care. Winning a test series against a professional national side which has the benefit of knowing who their likely players will be and how to counteract their opposition is practically impossible given the ridiculous schedules that some bean counter has coughed up to maximise revenue. 

But the Lions isn't about that. It's about the experience of being able to cheer with your mates for one side and to see some bravery and invention. How incredible it must be to go on a happy tour (not a Woodward Clusterf#ck) - it must be the time of your life. 

Gordon Brown is from my home town. I met him and I know his son. At the benefit shortly before he succumbed to cancer, I saw footage of him and Willie John McBride roaring and laughing at stories they had about their time with the Lions. I think as you get older (and I'm 40 next year), you realise that the process of touring and the experience of that sort of collegiality is almost more important than the result. The fact that series victories are so rare is what makes them special. We aren't meant to win all the time. 

And it's commercialised? So what? The game is professional now. That's life. There is a very strange viewpoint knocking around that because it doesn't have the romantisicm of yesterday that it's all suddenly worthless. That's the very strange opinion from the age where we live now where everything is apparently disposable and can be discarded if it's not our bestest thing everest. It doesn't work for you right now, so it should be canned? My favourite people didn't win the Oscars last year. Let's ban that as well. 

What's the alternative to the Lions exactly? A couple more of the tests that we play year in, year out? What in the name of almighty f#ck is the point of that? You guys can watch that and I'll turn the lights out when you've fallen asleep half way through the final quarter.

I suppose that a rant like this is what happens when you're old...

Agree with large parts of that. Would you still support them if no Scotland players were selected?

Yes, and I've essentially proven that by supporting the last 3 tours.

Excellent news. Yet more of my faith restored!