**** The B+I Lions! (+ 2 Scots)

First topic message reminder :

Please use this thread to vent your anger at the Lions tour selections and lack of ambition shown from the coaching staff.

For me this could have been a tour we could win in NZ, but with an out of form, out of date coach at the helm we have no chance.

Thoughts?

Full squad

Forwards: Rory Best (Ireland), Dan Cole (England), Taulupe Faletau (Wales), Tadhg Furlong (Ireland), Jamie George (England), Iain Henderson (Ireland), Maro Itoje (England), Alun Wyn Jones (Wales), George Kruis (England), Courtney Lawes (England), Joe Marler (England), Jack McGrath (Ireland), Ross Moriarty (Wales), Sean O'Brien (Ireland), Peter O'Mahony (Ireland), Ken Owens (Wales), Kyle Sinckler (England), CJ Stander (Ireland), Justin Tipuric (Wales), Billy Vunipola (England), Mako Vunipola (England), Sam Warburton (Wales)

Backs: Dan Biggar (Wales), Elliot Daly (England), Jonathan Davies (Wales), Owen Farrell (England), Leigh Halfpenny (Wales), Robbie Henshaw (Ireland), Stuart Hogg (Scotland), Jonathan Joseph (England), Conor Murray (Ireland), George North (Wales), Jack Nowell (England), Jared Payne (Ireland), Jonathan Sexton (Ireland), Tommy Seymour (Scotland), Ben Te'o (England), Anthony Watson (England), Rhys Webb (Wales), Liam Williams (Wales), Ben Youngs (England)

nganboy wrote:I've seen plenty of games between the ABs and NH teams over the last 40 years so I've got a fair idea of what they're capable of.

I'm an old fashioned fan and support my team regardless. ABs, Hurricanes, Wellington. I get to every home game even when I know we're going to lose.

I will support the team and hope all return home safely without being dump tackled off the ball, but I can not and will not support Gatland.

Fair enough don't see why you'd support a kiwi anyway

nganboy wrote:Fair enough don't see why you'd support a kiwi anyway

I'm happy to support a Aussie as his tactics and views on rugby I agree with.

Gatland will deploy his same old Warrenball plan A and keep his fingers crossed it works for 60 mins, then blame the players for not being fit enough when they lose.
He is still working on Plan B and has been for 10 years.

I
Could
Not
Cope
With
An
Aussie
Coaching
The
ABS

Aussies and Kiwis are pretty much the same. Aussies just have a better sense of humour.

Mate there's a big bit of water between us. The Brits all live on the same island. Even go to the Olympics as one. I understand it's just that the Welsh are better at singing and the Scots a bit better a poetry. English usually better at soccer and cricket mind.

TightHEAD wrote:

nganboy wrote:Fair enough don't see why you'd support a kiwi anyway

I'm happy to support a Aussie as his tactics and views on rugby I agree with.

Gatland will deploy his same old Warrenball plan A and keep his fingers crossed it works for 60 mins, then blame the players for not being fit enough when they lose.
He is still working on Plan B and has been for 10 years.

Oh I think they'll have more bite than old Warrenball stuff.  

See the problem with Wales is that they have some very gifted backs, that can play a sharp, loose offloading game with the best of them...but they don't get not enough go-forward or possession ball - as their forwards aren't as shiny a unit as they sometimes get credit for.  So an old/and young belligerent smattering of Irish and English grabbing and spoiling tanks will unleash Gat's masterful, exuberant Welsh fliers into clean space and see them dance to the tryline...over and over and over again.

Will they swallow dive across the line in enough numbers over three games to win two of them?   Well.................  the ABs will I'm sure be busy down the other end too so ...... it's a coin toss.

nganboy wrote:Mate there's a big bit of water between us. The Brits all live on the same island. Even go to the Olympics as one. I understand it's just that the Welsh are better at singing and the Scots a bit better a poetry. English usually better at soccer and cricket mind.

And the non-Brit Irish have a better sense of humour because most of the Aussies with humour are chicken stealing relatives - and there's a bit of water separating them from the Brit's island.

Geography and history. 606 keeps on proving itself a better resource on both topics than The National Geographic.

nganboy wrote:I
Could
Not
Cope
With
An
Aussie
Coaching
The
ABS

Tolerance is a British trait, one which has lead to Britain being dragged down the swanny.

SecretFly wrote:

nganboy wrote:Mate there's a big bit of water between us. The Brits all live on the same island. Even go to the Olympics as one. I understand it's just that the Welsh are better at singing and the Scots a bit better a poetry. English usually better at soccer and cricket mind.

And the non-Brit Irish have a better sense of humour because most of the Aussies with humour are chicken stealing relatives - and there's a bit of water separating them from the Brit's island.

Geography and history.  606 keeps on proving itself a better resource on both topics than The National Geographic.

All I know about the Welsh comes from watching Zulu about 10 times.

Great film but lets be honest it would never get made these days as its a little bit un-PC.

and its true they luvs a good sing song.

TightHEAD wrote:Great film but lets be honest it would never get made these days as its a little bit un-PC.

and its true they luvs a good sing song.

un-PC???

Oh yes.  The Zulus would have to have a smattering of white Anglo-Saxons and LGBT actresses playing the Chiefs so as not to emphasise the racial overtones of the conflict.  Oh and of course Idris Elba would have to be Gonville Bromhead.  

"Moi Nyme is Gonville Brom'ead"

Gatlands quote of the day!

Lets be the best at everything that doesn't require Talent. like getting off the floor quicker, chasing a kick, getting back in a defensive line.

Has he just given away our game plan?

All I know about the Welsh comes from watching Zulu about 10 times.

And like a lot of things the actual event was not as Welsh as the media output. B Company, 2nd Battalion, 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot was as Welsh as Colin Charvis.

TightHEAD wrote:

nganboy wrote:I've seen plenty of games between the ABs and NH teams over the last 40 years so I've got a fair idea of what they're capable of.

I'm an old fashioned fan and support my team regardless. ABs, Hurricanes, Wellington. I get to every home game even when I know we're going to lose.

I will support the team and hope all return home safely without being dump tackled off the ball, but I can not and will not support Gatland.

Glad you have finally admitted your myopic bias, its the first step.

By 'team' I mean the English players, who I'd rather be watching take on Argentina btw.

TightHEAD wrote:By 'team' I mean the English players, who I'd rather be watching take on Argentina btw.

We feel the same, have fun. Argies clean sweep.

I fear the Argies won't take it seriously as its not a world cup year.

But seeing as they are ranked 9th in the world and we destroyed the team in 8th I'm confident our 3rd/4th/development team can do the job.

TightHEAD wrote:I fear the Argies won't take it seriously as its not a world cup year.

But seeing as they are ranked 9th in the world and we destroyed the team in 8th I'm confident our 3rd/4th/development  team can do the job.

Destroyed, you mean like 30-3 destroyed, or when we knocked you out of your own World Cup?

I'm confident you'll lose at least 1 and probably both.

That result is now meaningless just like the out of date Lions concept where by the smaller UK nations have a small chance of turning over a SH Giant, with a little help from their Friends in White.

TightHEAD wrote:That result is now meaningless just like the out of date Lions concept where by the smaller UK nations have a small chance of turning over a SH Giant, with a little help from their Friends in White.

You need help

Enjoy Argentina.

TightHEAD wrote:That result is now meaningless just like the out of date Lions concept where by the smaller UK nations have a small chance of turning over a SH Giant, with a little help from their Friends in White.

Yeah, I agree. It's too much of a crutch for UK sides.

The Lions 'need help' from the English, otherwise the poor Irish (+ 2x Scots) will not be able to do it all on their own over a three game series.

TightHEAD wrote:The Lions 'need help' from the English, otherwise the poor Irish (+ 2x Scots) will not be able to do it all on their own over a three game series.

No you need help to change that nappy, its starting to fill up and overflow.

16 English is plenty. There is no one except Launchbury who can feel hard done by and even he was knocked off his perch by Lawes and then Kruis who hasn't played rugby for 15 years.

The Lions is the Welsh, Scots and England wanting to be Team UK but resisting all the way - and the Irish tagging along as International observers to keep the UN Peace.

The RFU should prioritize its players welfare, as a Tour to NZ with Gatlands 'tactic' of bish bash bosh rugby is going to end up damaging Eddie's plans to win the RWC in 2019.

Gwlad wrote:Yes because peace is the first thing you think of when you consider Ireland.

Not if you're Welsh, no.

Anyway, get on with the Team UK Rugby thing. Yis would beat everyone in sight if yis would just shake hands and say you love each other. Then the Lions could be given a good send off into retirement.

TightHEAD wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Lions tour 2017; Don't watch it or think about it. Log off. Return to your safe space.

Sorted.

I wish I could but unfortunately some of our (ENG) players will take part in this doomed, negative rugby (GatlandBall) tour of NZ.

borderline nationalistic?

Its ridiculous that 4 of the top 8 teams in the world come together to play club teams in AUS, NZ and SA.

Surely the Lions would be better off warming up for a TEST series by playing other nations like Fiji, Japan, Samoa, Tonga or Argentina?

It would raise the profile of the Lions in these Countries and help develop the game worldwide by creating new rivalries.

The club teams are better than Fiji, Japan, Samoa, Tonga and Argentina.

TrailApe wrote:

All I know about the Welsh comes from watching Zulu about 10 times.

And like a lot of things the actual event was not as Welsh as the media output. B Company, 2nd Battalion, 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot was as Welsh as Colin Charvis.

The actual national makeup of those fighting at Rourke's Drift that day is strangely reminiscent of the current Lions squad as it happens although obviously for the Lions under Warren we'd swap the Welsh and English numbers.

"Of the 122 soldiers of the 24th Regiment present at the Battle of Rorke's Drift, 49 are known to have been of English nationality, 32 were Welsh, 16 were Irish, one was a Scot, and three were born overseas. The nationalities of the remaining 21 are unknown."

I did actually LOL

Scottrf wrote:The club teams are better than Fiji, Japan, Samoa, Tonga and Argentina.

Maybe, maybe not, but we need the game to grow. Also why should these teams have a free shot at the Lions players to soften them up before the main event.

The only reason the Lions played these teams was because back when the idea was thought up in the 19th Century it took over a month to get to these places by steam ship and they had nothing else to do, Time has moved on and so should the Lions.

Lets be honest how many English fans would rather see NZ v England this Summer instead of this out of date 19th Century Tour concept?

You can say that again (apparently).

I'd rather the lions.

Pete330v2 wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

All I know about the Welsh comes from watching Zulu about 10 times.

And like a lot of things the actual event was not as Welsh as the media output. B Company, 2nd Battalion, 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot was as Welsh as Colin Charvis.

The actual national makeup of those fighting at Rourke's Drift that day is strangely reminiscent of the current Lions squad as it happens although obviously for the Lions under Warren we'd swap the Welsh and English numbers.

"Of the 122 soldiers of the 24th Regiment present at the Battle of Rorke's Drift, 49 are known to have been of English nationality, 32 were Welsh, 16 were Irish, one was a Scot, and three were born overseas. The nationalities of the remaining 21 are unknown."

I did actually LOL

Actually you're right it does reflect Welsh performance in the Lions. If you read Saul David's brilliant account you'll find out there were only 10 Welshmen yet there were 2 Welsh VC's awarded to them and within two years the 1/24 - who were based in Brecon - became the South Wales Borderers, no doubt as a tribute to performance in the battle.

Pete330v2 wrote:

TrailApe wrote:

All I know about the Welsh comes from watching Zulu about 10 times.

And like a lot of things the actual event was not as Welsh as the media output. B Company, 2nd Battalion, 24th (2nd Warwickshire) Regiment of Foot was as Welsh as Colin Charvis.

The actual national makeup of those fighting at Rourke's Drift that day is strangely reminiscent of the current Lions squad as it happens although obviously for the Lions under Warren we'd swap the Welsh and English numbers.

"Of the 122 soldiers of the 24th Regiment present at the Battle of Rorke's Drift, 49 are known to have been of English nationality, 32 were Welsh, 16 were Irish, one was a Scot, and three were born overseas. The nationalities of the remaining 21 are unknown."

I did actually LOL

Actually you're right it does reflect Welsh performance in the Lions. If you read Saul David's brilliant account you'll find out there were only 10 Welshmen yet there were 2 Welsh VC's awarded to them and within two years the 1/24 - who were based in Brecon - became the South Wales Borderers, no doubt as a tribute to performance in the battle.

Probably did none of the hard work but took the final kill.

Scottrf wrote:Probably did none of the hard work but took the final kill.

Like i said, since you are clearly ignorant of the facts you should read the book and educate yourself.

TightHEAD wrote:Lets be honest how many English fans would rather see NZ v England this Summer instead of this out of date 19th Century Tour concept?

One of my acid test's about whether a tradition is a good idea is to consider if we weren't doing it, would we start doing it?

So if there were no Lions tour and one of the unions suggested we band together every 4 years to take on NZ, would they be taken seriously, or laughed out the building?

The main positive is the money, which predominantly goes to the host nation and tour companies. It's something different up here, but I do question how much I'd miss it if it was gone.

robbo

it's not just the money

the lions often gets dismissed these days and i just don't know why. Its totally unique amongst almost every sport, I advise everyone who hasn't been on one to go and you'll get a totally different perspective on it.

Gwlad wrote:robbo

it's not just the money

the lions often gets dismissed these days and i just don't know why. Its totally unique amongst almost every sport, I advise everyone who hasn't been on one to go and you'll get a totally different perspective on it.

Well they're the best side of the home unions to tour here bar SA, where separately three have never won here and England have had a few one off, close wins. Lions 71 were dominant, so they're probably more popular outside the home unions than within it.

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:robbo

it's not just the money

the lions often gets dismissed these days and i just don't know why. Its totally unique amongst almost every sport, I advise everyone who hasn't been on one to go and you'll get a totally different perspective on it.

Well they're the best side of the home unions to tour here bar SA, where separately three have never won here and England have had a few one off, close wins. Lions 71 were dominant, so they're probably more popular outside the home unions than within it.

The 71 Lions would get hammered by the top 10 professional sides of today. Comparing a modern side to one from nearly 50 years ago is as fatuous and illogical as it gets. There is a myth that New Zealand is about 20 years behind the rest of the world, but comments like this suggest otherwise.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:robbo

it's not just the money

the lions often gets dismissed these days and i just don't know why. Its totally unique amongst almost every sport, I advise everyone who hasn't been on one to go and you'll get a totally different perspective on it.

Well they're the best side of the home unions to tour here bar SA, where separately three have never won here and England have had a few one off, close wins. Lions 71 were dominant, so they're probably more popular outside the home unions than within it.

The 71 Lions would get hammered by the top 10 professional sides of today. Comparing a modern side to one from nearly 50 years ago is as fatuous and illogical as it gets. There is a myth that New Zealand is about 20 years behind the rest of the world, but comments like this suggest otherwise.

Sorry, but that has to be one of the d**mbest comments I've read for a while. Who on earth mentioned a time machine?

My comments were based on the historical fact that Lions tour more successfully in general...1971, 74, 2013 etc. None of the four home unions had anywhere near their successes until probably England in Oz last year, a 3-0 win over an of the SH a very rare thing, if aver.

Taylorman wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:robbo

it's not just the money

the lions often gets dismissed these days and i just don't know why. Its totally unique amongst almost every sport, I advise everyone who hasn't been on one to go and you'll get a totally different perspective on it.

Well they're the best side of the home unions to tour here bar SA, where separately three have never won here and England have had a few one off, close wins. Lions 71 were dominant, so they're probably more popular outside the home unions than within it.

The 71 Lions would get hammered by the top 10 professional sides of today. Comparing a modern side to one from nearly 50 years ago is as fatuous and illogical as it gets. There is a myth that New Zealand is about 20 years behind the rest of the world, but comments like this suggest otherwise.

Sorry, but that has to be one of the d**mbest comments I've read for a while. Who on earth mentioned a time machine?

My comments were based on the historical fact that Lions tour more successfully in general...1971, 74, 2013 etc. None of the four home unions had anywhere near their successes until probably England in Oz last year, a 3-0 win over an of the SH a very rare thing, if aver.

Seriously, do you ever read your own stuff?

Gwlad wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:robbo

it's not just the money

the lions often gets dismissed these days and i just don't know why. Its totally unique amongst almost every sport, I advise everyone who hasn't been on one to go and you'll get a totally different perspective on it.

Well they're the best side of the home unions to tour here bar SA, where separately three have never won here and England have had a few one off, close wins. Lions 71 were dominant, so they're probably more popular outside the home unions than within it.

The 71 Lions would get hammered by the top 10 professional sides of today. Comparing a modern side to one from nearly 50 years ago is as fatuous and illogical as it gets. There is a myth that New Zealand is about 20 years behind the rest of the world, but comments like this suggest otherwise.

Sorry, but that has to be one of the d**mbest comments I've read for a while. Who on earth mentioned a time machine?

My comments were based on the historical fact that Lions tour more successfully in general...1971, 74, 2013 etc. None of the four home unions had anywhere near their successes until probably England in Oz last year, a 3-0 win over an of the SH a very rare thing, if aver.

Seriously, do you ever read your own stuff?

Which part do you not understand Gwlad?. Is a great team of the past no longer any good because they wouldnt beat todays sides? I was referring to historical facts and Aukster thinks I meant the 71 lions would win today...I mean really?

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:robbo

it's not just the money

the lions often gets dismissed these days and i just don't know why. Its totally unique amongst almost every sport, I advise everyone who hasn't been on one to go and you'll get a totally different perspective on it.

Well they're the best side of the home unions to tour here bar SA, where separately three have never won here and England have had a few one off, close wins. Lions 71 were dominant, so they're probably more popular outside the home unions than within it.

The 71 Lions would get hammered by the top 10 professional sides of today. Comparing a modern side to one from nearly 50 years ago is as fatuous and illogical as it gets. There is a myth that New Zealand is about 20 years behind the rest of the world, but comments like this suggest otherwise.

Sorry, but that has to be one of the d**mbest comments I've read for a while. Who on earth mentioned a time machine?

My comments were based on the historical fact that Lions tour more successfully in general...1971, 74, 2013 etc. None of the four home unions had anywhere near their successes until probably England in Oz last year, a 3-0 win over an of the SH a very rare thing, if aver.

Seriously, do you ever read your own stuff?

Which part do you not understand Gwlad?. Is a great team of the past no longer any good because they wouldnt beat todays sides? I was referring to historical facts and Aukster thinks I meant the 71 lions would win today...I mean really?

I understood very clearly the irrelevant point you were making

My highlight referred to your posts generally.

Gwlad wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:robbo

it's not just the money

the lions often gets dismissed these days and i just don't know why. Its totally unique amongst almost every sport, I advise everyone who hasn't been on one to go and you'll get a totally different perspective on it.

Well they're the best side of the home unions to tour here bar SA, where separately three have never won here and England have had a few one off, close wins. Lions 71 were dominant, so they're probably more popular outside the home unions than within it.

The 71 Lions would get hammered by the top 10 professional sides of today. Comparing a modern side to one from nearly 50 years ago is as fatuous and illogical as it gets. There is a myth that New Zealand is about 20 years behind the rest of the world, but comments like this suggest otherwise.

Sorry, but that has to be one of the d**mbest comments I've read for a while. Who on earth mentioned a time machine?

My comments were based on the historical fact that Lions tour more successfully in general...1971, 74, 2013 etc. None of the four home unions had anywhere near their successes until probably England in Oz last year, a 3-0 win over an of the SH a very rare thing, if aver.

Seriously, do you ever read your own stuff?

Which part do you not understand Gwlad?. Is a great team of the past no longer any good because they wouldnt beat todays sides? I was referring to historical facts and Aukster thinks I meant the 71 lions would win today...I mean really?

I understood very clearly the irrelevant point you were making

My highlight referred to your posts generally.

Really? I think your highlight closer reflects many of your own actually. I've never actually said that before, thats how odd I found it, that someone can interpret something so poorly.

And it wasnt an irrelevant point. One of your points was:
"the lions often gets dismissed these days and i just don't know why"

and my point was to point out that the Lions tours arent dismissed here, and was agreeing with your point that they are unique, and in fact the most successful.
How that is not relevant now makes me wonder about comprehension levels in general.

Anyway, all good. Maybe I'll put explanatory notes next time.

You're correct that you do have to interpret your posts, there is invariably a passive aggressive jibe of some kind in them. Smashed em bro

The 1971 lions are a distant memory. Their dominance has no bearing whatsoever on why the Lions are oft dismissed these days.

Believe it or not the Lions have won two tours in recent years and are about to challenge for a third. What happened in NZ 45 years ago may be important to you but it has no bearing on anything regards the Lions brand now. The brand is suffering because it is increasingly regarded as superfluous to the demands of the business that is pro rugby. To some concerned only with the pro rugby annual cycle, it is an annoying rash that crops up every four years and lasts for a few weeks but has a long term affect for months afterwards.

Gwlad wrote:You're correct that you do have to interpret your posts, there is invariably a passive aggressive jibe of some kind in them. Smashed em bro

The 1971 lions are a distant memory. Their dominance has no bearing whatsoever on why the Lions are oft dismissed these days.

Believe it or not the Lions have won two tours in recent years and are about to challenge for a third. What happened in NZ 45 years ago may be important to you but it has no bearing on anything regards the Lions brand now. The brand is suffering because it is increasingly regarded as superfluous to the demands of the business that is pro rugby. To some concerned only with the pro rugby annual cycle, it is an annoying rash that crops up every four years and lasts for a few weeks but has a long term affect for months afterwards.

Understand your view but absolutely disagree that the Lions tour of 1971, 74 etc have no bearing on the Lions brand now. It is that built up history that built the brand as it is now in the first place and to discount it as part of any analysis of its place in todays game is ridiculous.

It stands on its own as an outstanding not only rugby but sporting icon as well. And to suggest its no longer relevant, even in the UK, something I know you didnt say, is contradictory to the 35,000 fans that will be coming here. Obviously a few still love the concept, and here they're always popular. My bet is that its that great history that will be the predominant factor in keeping this icon alive.