NEW ZEALAND v BRITISH & IRISH LIONS, 24 June

First topic message reminder :

                   
NEW ZEALAND v BRITISH & IRISH LIONS  
24 June 2017
KO: 19:35 NZST (8.35am BST)
Eden Park, Auckland

Live on [Sky Sports HD]

Referee: Jaco Peyper (South Africa)
ARs: [tbc]
TMO: [tbc]

A. Head to Head

38 Played 38
29 Won 6
3 Drawn 3
6 Lost 29
634 Points 345

B. Recent Form

9 July 2005
Eden Park, Auckland
38 – 19 to New Zealand

2 July 2005
Westpac Stadium, Wellington
48 – 18 to New Zealand

25 June 2005
Lancaster Park, Christchurch
21 – 3 to New Zealand

3 July 1993
Eden Park, Auckland
30 – 13 to New Zealand

26 June 1993
Athletic Park, Wellington
7 – 20 to British & Irish Lions

12 June 1993
Lancaster Park, Christchurch
20 – 18 to New Zealand

16 July 1983
Eden Park, Auckland
38 – 6 to New Zealand

2 July 1983
Carisbrook, Dunedin
15 – 8 to New Zealand

18 June 1983
Athletic Park (Wellington), Wellington
9 – 0 to New Zealand

4 June 1983
Lancaster Park, Christchurch
16 – 12 to New Zealand

C. TEAMS:

NEW ZEALAND

01. Joe Moody (25)
02. Codie Taylor (16)
03. Owen Franks (91)
04. Brodie Retallick (61)
05. Samuel Whitelock (85)
06. Jerome Kaino (78)
07. Sam Cane (41)
08. Kieran Read (97)

09. Aaron Smith (59)
10. Beauden Barrett (50)
11. Rieko Ioane (2)
12. Sonny Bill Williams (34)
13. Ryan Crotty (26)
14. Israel Dagg (62)
15. Ben Smith (61)

16. Nathan Harris (5)
17. Wyatt Crockett (59)
18. Charlie Faumuina (47)
19. Scott Barrett (5)
20. Ardie Savea (13)
21. TJ Perenara (30)
22. Aaron Cruden (47) / Lima Sopoaga (7)
23. Anton Lienert-Brown (10)

BRITISH & IRISH LIONS  

15. Liam Williams – Scarlets, Wales, #833
14. Anthony Watson – Bath Rugby, England, #816
13. Jonathan Davies – Scarlets, Wales, #778
12. Ben Te’o – Worcester Warriors, England, #815
11. Elliot Daly – Wasps, England, #822
10. Owen Farrell – Saracens, England, #780
09. Conor Murray – Munster, Ireland, #790

01. Mako Vunipola – Saracens, England, #787
02. Jamie George – Saracens, England, #819
03. Tadhg Furlong – Leinster, Ireland, #818
04. Alun Wyn Jones – Ospreys, Wales, #761
05. George Kruis – Saracens, England, #817
06. Peter O’Mahony (capt) – Munster, Ireland, #832
07. Sean O’Brien – Leinster, Ireland, #796
08. Taulupe Faletau – Bath Rugby, Wales, #779

16. Ken Owens – Scarlets, Wales, #829
17. Jack McGrath – Leinster, Ireland, #827
18. Kyle Sinckler – Harlequins, England, #814
19. Maro Itoje – Saracens, England, #825
20. Sam Warburton – Cardiff Blues, Wales, #800
21. Rhys Webb – Ospreys, Wales, #820
22. Johnny Sexton – Leinster, Ireland, #791
23. Leigh Halfpenny – Toulon, Wales, #775

Yes LT, that's pretty much it - great post.

We potetnially could have had 2 starters, in Nel and Hogg, but injuiry has not been kind to us. You also have a situation whereby tight, 50/50 calls for the original squad did not go our way (See Watson, Gray, Barclay, Russell, Maitland, Taylor etc ect). This is then compounded by one of our very best players, Finn Russell, being called up as cannon fodder and then not even getting 10 mins off the bench.

So yes, you can go through the whole team and justify why there isn't a Scottish involvment - but there are a lot of factors which are working against Scottish fans getting behind this Lions team.

That being said, I will still be supporting them and actually believe they might just be able to pull of a win in the first test.

BigGee wrote:

cascough wrote:

I know people are throwing out blanket statements about Scotland's lack of involvement, but I just can't see where they think it should be different. There are some marginal calls perhaps, but thats just what they are. Marginal. Why the furore?

It can't be entirely a co-incidence that every marginal call involving a Scottish player at the time of selection went against them. That is why most Scottish fans feel cynical and aggrieved at the process. It was widely commented on at the time by many pundits and not just the Scots.

No-one every expected many Scottish players to be on the tour, as already stated, for a few of them, this tour may have come a year or so to soon. There were a few though, who were certainly up to it and would not have disgraced the jersey in any way. They did not get their chance though. Calling Finn Russell up, who by any standards, was very deserving of being there and then leaving him on the bench for 80 mins just about sums it all up.

It is not that we don't want to support the Lions. Gatland is just making it very very difficult for us to do so!

So it's a conspiracy?

Why is Gatland making it hard for you to support the Lions? I understand that you may feel aggrieved at Gatland if you don't agree with him, but surely you can still get behind the players? They are still going out there to do their best for Great Britain and Ireland, are they not?

I agree with casgough.  Over the years very few if any of Gwent Dragons or Newport players would be in the Welsh squad.  At no point has that affected my support for the team.  Don't even think I've thought about it (my commitment to support them, not the lacks of Dragons selections).  It's always been fully passionate 100% support.  Even when it has been mainly Ospreys players.

Similarly, in the Olympics I did not feel anything but full support for the GB 7s team.  I loved watching it.  But I could not tell you now how many Welsh were in the team.  James Davies I think was 1?  Not sure if he played all games?  If he was injured and missed out I can't say that I would have supported the team any less.

cascough wrote:

BigGee wrote:

cascough wrote:

I know people are throwing out blanket statements about Scotland's lack of involvement, but I just can't see where they think it should be different. There are some marginal calls perhaps, but thats just what they are. Marginal. Why the furore?

It can't be entirely a co-incidence that every marginal call involving a Scottish player at the time of selection went against them. That is why most Scottish fans feel cynical and aggrieved at the process. It was widely commented on at the time by many pundits and not just the Scots.

No-one every expected many Scottish players to be on the tour, as already stated, for a few of them, this tour may have come a year or so to soon. There were a few though, who were certainly up to it and would not have disgraced the jersey in any way. They did not get their chance though. Calling Finn Russell up, who by any standards, was very deserving of being there and then leaving him on the bench for 80 mins just about sums it all up.

It is not that we don't want to support the Lions. Gatland is just making it very very difficult for us to do so!

So it's a conspiracy?

Why is Gatland making it hard for you to support the Lions? I understand that you may feel aggrieved at Gatland if you don't agree with him, but surely you can still get behind the players? They are still going out there to do their best for Great Britain and Ireland, are they not?

I do support them and hope that they win. I won't however lose any sleep if they don't and will get a lot more pleasure from Scotland beating Fiji than Lions beating NZ if both those results come to pass.

That is a shame, I have followed all the Lions tours closely since 1977 and loved doing so. Scotland have always been one of the smaller representatives on pretty much all tours, but that did not matter to me. However the goalposts seem to have moved now. We never got a fair crack of the whip and you can only put that down to the bias of the head coach and his selectors.

A lot of Scottish fans feel much stronger than I do about this and will be actively supporting NZ on Saturday. That is what this has come to.

cascough wrote:I fundamentally disagree.

Likewise the Lions represents me because I am British. It is not an extension of England for me.

Even if there were no English players selected, and even if I felt those English players ignored were better than those that had been selected, I would still support the Lions. I would feel contempt for the coach (because I think he is wrong) but that contempt doesn't extend to the guys that are selected. They are still going out there trying to do their best for Great Britain and Ireland, so they still represent me.

Point 1. Perhaps he feels more Scottish than British? That's not really something you can control and not something that is right or wrong.

Point 2. You feel it represents you. He doesn't feel it represents him. What's the problem with that? Support isn't a rational thing you can break down to the same factors for every fan.

cascough wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

cascough wrote:I know people are throwing out blanket statements about Scotland's lack of involvement, but I just can't see where they think it should be different. There are some marginal calls perhaps, but thats just what they are. Marginal. Why the furore?

While this has been done to death in the past, I guess internet forums would be very quiet places if we did not rehash things forever.

The problem really comes down to what the Lions means in this day and age, and how people choose to identify with it. Following sports teams can be quite a tribal thing often with fierce rivalries. These rivalries can be seen every spring when 6Ns comes around. Then every four years we are asked to get behind the concept of the British and Irish Lions and put all those rivalries aside. If you feel a connection to the team that can happen, but such a connection is an emotional and personal one and cannot (nor should not) be dictated by anyone else.

Usually supporting a national side will be linked to your own national identity. The Lions is a whole different thing though. If you identify as British then it may be a lot easier to feel a connection with the team than if you identify as English,Scottish or Welsh (ignoring the "I" part as that is a whole new set of issues). It is very easy for Welsh or English fans to denigrate and patronise Scottish fans as with the representation we have in the touring party it is easy to feel that it represents us. As we have seen, there will still be bickering about whether the right players are in the Test team, but overall we can feel that the tour is representative of us.

If the Lions are meant to represent British and Irish rugby, then ideally so should the squad. I am not talking about equal contributions, but that the fans of any specific country need to feel that their players are getting a fair crack of the whip, and not losing out on all the 50/50 calls.  

If the Lions is about winning test matches - well the concept is probably doomed as the pragmatic way to try and achieve that would alienate many and thus put at risk what seems to be the real current purpose of the Lions - to serve as a cash cow.

I fully understand why Scottish fans can feel alienated as despite being a fan of the Lions, I am sure I would struggle to maintain my interest if English representation in the entire initial touring party amounted to two parts of diddly squat. I certainly know that my interest in the England team waned in the mid 80s when the selectors too often ignored whole swathes of the country, and would wane again if Eddie Jones brought in too many time-servers or gotta-grannies.


Thus in short, if a representative group, fails to be representative it is to be expected that people will be alienated.

I fundamentally disagree.

The England team does not have any players in it from the team I support but it doesn't pose me any problems supporting it. It represents me because I'm English. It's not, and never will be an extension of my club team.

Likewise the Lions represents me because I am British. It is not an extension of England for me.

Even if there were no English players selected, and even if I felt those English players ignored were better than those that had been selected, I would still support the Lions. I would feel contempt for the coach (because I think he is wrong) but that contempt doesn't extend to the guys that are selected. They are still going out there trying to do their best for Great Britain and Ireland, so they still represent me.

Where I really struggle to understand it, is lets say No England players were selected, and lets say that they were all marginal calls, what grounds would I have to even feel contempt for the coach? He's done what he thinks his best, and the players selected are going to do their best for Britain and Ireland.

At the end of the day, it appears people support for the Lions is conditional. As long as their favourite players get picked, then they class themselves as Lions supporters. To them the Lions is merely an extension of their national teams rather than a holistic representation of Great Britain and Ireland. I won't just be cheering the English guys on on Saturday, I'll be cheering them all on (even the ones I don't like, same as I do for the England players I don't like when England are playing). Why would I stop cheering the rest on if no English players were picked?

How can it be a holistic representation, if one of the countries isn't represented?

Scottrf wrote:

cascough wrote:I fundamentally disagree.

Likewise the Lions represents me because I am British. It is not an extension of England for me.

Even if there were no English players selected, and even if I felt those English players ignored were better than those that had been selected, I would still support the Lions. I would feel contempt for the coach (because I think he is wrong) but that contempt doesn't extend to the guys that are selected. They are still going out there trying to do their best for Great Britain and Ireland, so they still represent me.

Point 1. Perhaps he feels more Scottish than British? That's not really something you can control and not something that is right or wrong.

Point 2. You feel it represents you. He doesn't feel it represents him. What's the problem with that? Support isn't a rational thing you can break down to the same factors for every fan.

Then it's wrong for those people to be blaming the selectors for making them feel that way. They need to look inside themselves, man!

cascough wrote:

BigGee wrote:

cascough wrote:

I know people are throwing out blanket statements about Scotland's lack of involvement, but I just can't see where they think it should be different. There are some marginal calls perhaps, but thats just what they are. Marginal. Why the furore?

It can't be entirely a co-incidence that every marginal call involving a Scottish player at the time of selection went against them. That is why most Scottish fans feel cynical and aggrieved at the process. It was widely commented on at the time by many pundits and not just the Scots.

No-one every expected many Scottish players to be on the tour, as already stated, for a few of them, this tour may have come a year or so to soon. There were a few though, who were certainly up to it and would not have disgraced the jersey in any way. They did not get their chance though. Calling Finn Russell up, who by any standards, was very deserving of being there and then leaving him on the bench for 80 mins just about sums it all up.

It is not that we don't want to support the Lions. Gatland is just making it very very difficult for us to do so!

So it's a conspiracy?

Why is Gatland making it hard for you to support the Lions? I understand that you may feel aggrieved at Gatland if you don't agree with him, but surely you can still get behind the players? They are still going out there to do their best for Great Britain and Ireland, are they not?

Im not even sure about the marginal calls.

Seymour was an edge case for selection for the tour. To get in the side he was comepting with Watson whos been the best try scoring wing in Europe for a couple of years and has better all round game. The bench spot was outside at best.

Laidlaw ahead of Care was 50/50

Russell ahead of Ford 50/50

Hogg getting injured wasnt down to Gatland.

The only margin calls were Gray not going (but then neither did Launchberry) and the backrow.

What I dont see is a mass conspiracy against Scotland players.

EST wrote:

cascough wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

cascough wrote:I know people are throwing out blanket statements about Scotland's lack of involvement, but I just can't see where they think it should be different. There are some marginal calls perhaps, but thats just what they are. Marginal. Why the furore?

While this has been done to death in the past, I guess internet forums would be very quiet places if we did not rehash things forever.

The problem really comes down to what the Lions means in this day and age, and how people choose to identify with it. Following sports teams can be quite a tribal thing often with fierce rivalries. These rivalries can be seen every spring when 6Ns comes around. Then every four years we are asked to get behind the concept of the British and Irish Lions and put all those rivalries aside. If you feel a connection to the team that can happen, but such a connection is an emotional and personal one and cannot (nor should not) be dictated by anyone else.

Usually supporting a national side will be linked to your own national identity. The Lions is a whole different thing though. If you identify as British then it may be a lot easier to feel a connection with the team than if you identify as English,Scottish or Welsh (ignoring the "I" part as that is a whole new set of issues). It is very easy for Welsh or English fans to denigrate and patronise Scottish fans as with the representation we have in the touring party it is easy to feel that it represents us. As we have seen, there will still be bickering about whether the right players are in the Test team, but overall we can feel that the tour is representative of us.

If the Lions are meant to represent British and Irish rugby, then ideally so should the squad. I am not talking about equal contributions, but that the fans of any specific country need to feel that their players are getting a fair crack of the whip, and not losing out on all the 50/50 calls.  

If the Lions is about winning test matches - well the concept is probably doomed as the pragmatic way to try and achieve that would alienate many and thus put at risk what seems to be the real current purpose of the Lions - to serve as a cash cow.

I fully understand why Scottish fans can feel alienated as despite being a fan of the Lions, I am sure I would struggle to maintain my interest if English representation in the entire initial touring party amounted to two parts of diddly squat. I certainly know that my interest in the England team waned in the mid 80s when the selectors too often ignored whole swathes of the country, and would wane again if Eddie Jones brought in too many time-servers or gotta-grannies.


Thus in short, if a representative group, fails to be representative it is to be expected that people will be alienated.

I fundamentally disagree.

The England team does not have any players in it from the team I support but it doesn't pose me any problems supporting it. It represents me because I'm English. It's not, and never will be an extension of my club team.

Likewise the Lions represents me because I am British. It is not an extension of England for me.

Even if there were no English players selected, and even if I felt those English players ignored were better than those that had been selected, I would still support the Lions. I would feel contempt for the coach (because I think he is wrong) but that contempt doesn't extend to the guys that are selected. They are still going out there trying to do their best for Great Britain and Ireland, so they still represent me.

Where I really struggle to understand it, is lets say No England players were selected, and lets say that they were all marginal calls, what grounds would I have to even feel contempt for the coach? He's done what he thinks his best, and the players selected are going to do their best for Britain and Ireland.

At the end of the day, it appears people support for the Lions is conditional. As long as their favourite players get picked, then they class themselves as Lions supporters. To them the Lions is merely an extension of their national teams rather than a holistic representation of Great Britain and Ireland. I won't just be cheering the English guys on on Saturday, I'll be cheering them all on (even the ones I don't like, same as I do for the England players I don't like when England are playing). Why would I stop cheering the rest on if no English players were picked?

How can it be a holistic representation, if one of the countries isn't represented?

Both countries are represented?

So it is now the UK&I Lions?

Scotland fans are certainly entitled to a degree of angst about the original selection for the tour. I do think that it's worth digging a little deeper, however, before gloom gives way to total apathy about how the Lions fare in the Tests.

In the first place, I'm as sure as I can be that were it not for injury, Nel and Huw Jones would have toured NZ; Nel would have been a live threat to Furlong for the Test jersey at his best; Jones would also have had every chance of a starting berth in a position that was, and arguably still is, wide open.

We then come to those Scots who might have been considered unlucky - let's say Jonny Gray, Brown, Watson, Russell, Barclay and maybe Dunbar. Hand up, I'd have taken Watson - not sure at whose expense, but he has consistently impressed me over the past years or so. About Barclay, I'm less sure - you could say that he might have/should have got the nod when Billy V withdrew, but it was a fine margin between Haskell and him, I'm sure. Jonny (and his brother, who isn't quite as good) has suffered because lock is the position in which the Lions have the greatest strength in depth. In all conscience, I don't see how he could claim to have been treated unfairly, bearing in mind that Launchbury, who also didn't go, played a significant part in rendering the two brothers a non-factor at Twickenham.

Ah, yes, Twickenham. There were threads on this board at the time about whether it would cost Scotland Lions places and how fair that was. The general consensus was that it would but also that it shouldn't in every case. In the case of Dunbar, I would say harsh but fair. You can't spend an afternoon missing tackles and looking clueless against a direct Lions rival without that having an effect, particularly when your co-centre is shining amid the murk. Fraser Brown's hot-headedness that day also probably counted against him but it would be a stretch in any case to suggest that he absolutely should have gone ahead of the three hookers who did make the plane.

Finally to Russell - I still reckon that if it had only been Twickenham on the debit side of his 2017 ledger, he might well have gone with the Lions. It wasn't, though - he had a poor one against France as well, appearing to forget how to run the game that day. That's both the games in an away cauldron, where pressure is at its greatest, in which he didn't cover himself with glory during the 6N, and it is likely that told against him for a trip where cool heads and imperviousness to pressure were going to be essential. Think Russell is a proper player but as someone else has said, this tour is a year or so too early for him.

Conclusion? I reckon that Scotland would have received 5 berths on the tour barring injury; if they had merely lost with honour at Twickenham, it would perhaps have been seven or eight. Add a couple of marginal calls and we might have been looking at nine or ten but then we're probably going too far in redressing the balance for me. Yes, Scotland have not had the rub of the green in selection terms this trip; no, not all of that has been blatantly unfair or indefensible.

As a belated edit, I should add that these days, in direct contrast to much of the professional era, the Scotland team is much greater than the sum of its parts, which is what makes them such formidable opposition, particularly at home. I would expect that to continue but would also expect that their players will improve as individuals as well and force their way into greater and wider recognition. If that's so, the Lions tour to SA in 2021 could well feature up to a dozen Scots without anyone batting an eyelid.

Griff wrote:I agree with casgough.  Over the years very few if any of Gwent Dragons or Newport players would be in the Welsh squad.  At no point has that affected my support for the team.  Don't even think I've thought about it (my commitment to support them, not the lacks of Dragons selections).  It's always been fully passionate 100% support.  Even when it has been mainly Ospreys players.

Similarly, in the Olympics I did not feel anything but full support for the GB 7s team.  I loved watching it.  But I could not tell you now how many Welsh were in the team.  James Davies I think was 1?  Not sure if he played all games?  If he was injured and missed out I can't say that I would have supported the team any less.

As a supporter of Edinburgh I can relate. Scotland is Glasgow dominated as it should be, they are a terrific team. Very Few however is completely different from ZERO.

I have no problem getting behind Scotland because Vern Cotter and even those before could never be accused of nepotism. AWJ and Warburton for the reasons I have already mentioned toured because of this fact, and no other.

I'm done with this now. As I said I'm miserable about it and do not want to detract others from what is an exciting time.

Gooseberry wrote:

EST wrote:

cascough wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

cascough wrote:I know people are throwing out blanket statements about Scotland's lack of involvement, but I just can't see where they think it should be different. There are some marginal calls perhaps, but thats just what they are. Marginal. Why the furore?

While this has been done to death in the past, I guess internet forums would be very quiet places if we did not rehash things forever.

The problem really comes down to what the Lions means in this day and age, and how people choose to identify with it. Following sports teams can be quite a tribal thing often with fierce rivalries. These rivalries can be seen every spring when 6Ns comes around. Then every four years we are asked to get behind the concept of the British and Irish Lions and put all those rivalries aside. If you feel a connection to the team that can happen, but such a connection is an emotional and personal one and cannot (nor should not) be dictated by anyone else.

Usually supporting a national side will be linked to your own national identity. The Lions is a whole different thing though. If you identify as British then it may be a lot easier to feel a connection with the team than if you identify as English,Scottish or Welsh (ignoring the "I" part as that is a whole new set of issues). It is very easy for Welsh or English fans to denigrate and patronise Scottish fans as with the representation we have in the touring party it is easy to feel that it represents us. As we have seen, there will still be bickering about whether the right players are in the Test team, but overall we can feel that the tour is representative of us.

If the Lions are meant to represent British and Irish rugby, then ideally so should the squad. I am not talking about equal contributions, but that the fans of any specific country need to feel that their players are getting a fair crack of the whip, and not losing out on all the 50/50 calls.  

If the Lions is about winning test matches - well the concept is probably doomed as the pragmatic way to try and achieve that would alienate many and thus put at risk what seems to be the real current purpose of the Lions - to serve as a cash cow.

I fully understand why Scottish fans can feel alienated as despite being a fan of the Lions, I am sure I would struggle to maintain my interest if English representation in the entire initial touring party amounted to two parts of diddly squat. I certainly know that my interest in the England team waned in the mid 80s when the selectors too often ignored whole swathes of the country, and would wane again if Eddie Jones brought in too many time-servers or gotta-grannies.


Thus in short, if a representative group, fails to be representative it is to be expected that people will be alienated.

I fundamentally disagree.

The England team does not have any players in it from the team I support but it doesn't pose me any problems supporting it. It represents me because I'm English. It's not, and never will be an extension of my club team.

Likewise the Lions represents me because I am British. It is not an extension of England for me.

Even if there were no English players selected, and even if I felt those English players ignored were better than those that had been selected, I would still support the Lions. I would feel contempt for the coach (because I think he is wrong) but that contempt doesn't extend to the guys that are selected. They are still going out there trying to do their best for Great Britain and Ireland, so they still represent me.

Where I really struggle to understand it, is lets say No England players were selected, and lets say that they were all marginal calls, what grounds would I have to even feel contempt for the coach? He's done what he thinks his best, and the players selected are going to do their best for Britain and Ireland.

At the end of the day, it appears people support for the Lions is conditional. As long as their favourite players get picked, then they class themselves as Lions supporters. To them the Lions is merely an extension of their national teams rather than a holistic representation of Great Britain and Ireland. I won't just be cheering the English guys on on Saturday, I'll be cheering them all on (even the ones I don't like, same as I do for the England players I don't like when England are playing). Why would I stop cheering the rest on if no English players were picked?

How can it be a holistic representation, if one of the countries isn't represented?

Both countries are represented?

Both Islands.

EST, I chose the word holistic very purposefully. It suggests we are intrinsically linked. In fact it means the opposite of what you're suggesting. If this were a Northern hemisphere side, I'd be more inclined to agree that representation from the nations making it up was important. But personally I can identify with being British quite comfortably, so I feel that Liam Williams will be giving his all and representing me just as much as Anthony Watson will be. Similarly for anyone that's from the ROI, I can identify with them quite comfortably. In fact I spent my first football world cup supporting Ireland in 1990. What a fabulous tournament that was!

Griff wrote:

Similarly, in the Olympics I did not feel anything but full support for the GB 7s team.  I loved watching it.  But I could not tell you now how many Welsh were in the team.  James Davies I think was 1?  Not sure if he played all games?  If he was injured and missed out I can't say that I would have supported the team any less.

There were a couple of Welsh players in the GB squad and two Scots. A few others had their chances at the selection process.

This kind of makes the point though, it was a representative team of all the countries and we were all happy to get behind it. I am sure that the coach Simon Amor, if he was honest with his preferences, he would just have picked the entire England squad rather than try and bring a scratch squad together. He would also have known that this would not be acceptable and so did not do it.

Maybe Amor got the concept a bit more than Gatland.

cascough wrote:I fundamentally disagree.

Which you are entitled to do.

cascough wrote:The England team does not have any players in it from the team I support but it doesn't pose me any problems supporting it. It represents me because I'm English. It's not, and never will be an extension of my club team.

I am largely in agreement. Next season there may be no Leicester players in the starting XV but I will still support England. However my support for an England team is not unconditional - if we had a team full of players born and raised in SA & NZ I would probably be much less interested.

cascough wrote:Likewise the Lions represents me because I am British. It is not an extension of England for me.

Which is fine, but not everyone feels especially British. People who feel disenfranchised will soon lose interest - not just in sport.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Griff wrote:I agree with casgough.  Over the years very few if any of Gwent Dragons or Newport players would be in the Welsh squad.  At no point has that affected my support for the team.  Don't even think I've thought about it (my commitment to support them, not the lacks of Dragons selections).  It's always been fully passionate 100% support.  Even when it has been mainly Ospreys players.

Similarly, in the Olympics I did not feel anything but full support for the GB 7s team.  I loved watching it.  But I could not tell you now how many Welsh were in the team.  James Davies I think was 1?  Not sure if he played all games?  If he was injured and missed out I can't say that I would have supported the team any less.

As a supporter of Edinburgh I can relate. Scotland is Glasgow dominated as it should be, they are a terrific team. Very Few however is completely different from ZERO.

I have no problem getting behind Scotland because Vern Cotter and even those before could never be accused of nepotism. AWJ and Warburton for the reasons I have already mentioned toured because of this fact, and no other.

I'm done with this now. As I said I'm miserable about it and do not want to detract others from what is an exciting time.

Only when Lydiate and Charteris came into the Wales set up did we have consistent representation (Dragons). Many many times we had zero. But like I said, it was still Wales so it was still my team and my players and didn't affect my support. Just as the Lions are still my team and my players and I'll support them regardless. Ironically, I think my favourite tours were the ones with the least Welsh players (1997 and 2001)!

I completely get why Scottish fans would find it difficult to feel represented by this Lions team. I don't buy the argument that winning the series is so important that it justifies anything, but even that argument would only hold water if the Scottish players would involve weakening the squad, which they wouldn't. I wish they had made a more representative selection originally. Of the players they've got on tour, however, you can understand why Seymour and Laidlaw aren't in the 23.

On Wales finishing 5th in the 6N, that is a poor representation of the calibre of their individual players who are on tour, and is partly attributable to having a numpty in charge. A lot of the Welsh players have shown up well on tour despite the negative comments on this forum beforehand (about the likes of Owens, Biggar, JD2, Halfpenny, even Faletau, and including from me in the case of Biggar).

I still don't see how AWJ gets into the Test XV, though.

LondonTiger wrote:

cascough wrote:Likewise the Lions represents me because I am British. It is not an extension of England for me.

Which is fine, but not everyone feels especially British. People who feel disenfranchised will soon lose interest - not just in sport.

But the majority of Scotts do, they voted for it.

Griff wrote:  Ironically, I think my favourite tours were the ones with the least Welsh players (1997 and 2001)!

11 welsh players went on the 2001 tour.

Gooseberry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

cascough wrote:Likewise the Lions represents me because I am British. It is not an extension of England for me.

Which is fine, but not everyone feels especially British. People who feel disenfranchised will soon lose interest - not just in sport.

But the majority of Scotts do, they voted for it.

Nope, they voted to remain in the Union. Different question

LondonTiger wrote:

cascough wrote:I fundamentally disagree.

Which you are entitled to do.

cascough wrote:The England team does not have any players in it from the team I support but it doesn't pose me any problems supporting it. It represents me because I'm English. It's not, and never will be an extension of my club team.

I am largely in agreement. Next season there may be no Leicester players in the starting XV but I will still support England. However my support for an England team is not unconditional - if we had a team full of players born and raised in SA & NZ I would probably be much less interested.

cascough wrote:Likewise the Lions represents me because I am British. It is not an extension of England for me.

Which is fine, but not everyone feels especially British. People who feel disenfranchised will soon lose interest - not just in sport.

And that last bit is probably the crux of it. But I wish people would come out and say it. They don't really support the Lions, until they have a vested interest in it. If that's your thing, it's your thing. I just think it's a shame.

BigGee wrote:

Griff wrote:

Similarly, in the Olympics I did not feel anything but full support for the GB 7s team.  I loved watching it.  But I could not tell you now how many Welsh were in the team.  James Davies I think was 1?  Not sure if he played all games?  If he was injured and missed out I can't say that I would have supported the team any less.

There were a couple of Welsh players in the GB squad and two Scots. A few others had their chances at the selection process.

This kind of makes the point though, it was a representative team of all the countries and we were all happy to get behind it. I am sure that the coach Simon Amor, if he was honest with his preferences, he would just have picked the entire England squad rather than try and bring a scratch squad together. He would also have known that this would not be acceptable and so did not do it.

Maybe Amor got the concept a bit more than Gatland.

Really? The squad was much like the Lions over the years: i.e. mainly English with the others represented - in the Olympics I think it was 8 English, 2 welsh and 2 scots (I believe NI played for ROI in the rugby didn't they?). The match day team, much like the Lions match day test team, didn't always feature all 3 nations.

Griff wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Griff wrote:I agree with casgough.  Over the years very few if any of Gwent Dragons or Newport players would be in the Welsh squad.  At no point has that affected my support for the team.  Don't even think I've thought about it (my commitment to support them, not the lacks of Dragons selections).  It's always been fully passionate 100% support.  Even when it has been mainly Ospreys players.

Similarly, in the Olympics I did not feel anything but full support for the GB 7s team.  I loved watching it.  But I could not tell you now how many Welsh were in the team.  James Davies I think was 1?  Not sure if he played all games?  If he was injured and missed out I can't say that I would have supported the team any less.

As a supporter of Edinburgh I can relate. Scotland is Glasgow dominated as it should be, they are a terrific team. Very Few however is completely different from ZERO.

I have no problem getting behind Scotland because Vern Cotter and even those before could never be accused of nepotism. AWJ and Warburton for the reasons I have already mentioned toured because of this fact, and no other.

I'm done with this now. As I said I'm miserable about it and do not want to detract others from what is an exciting time.

Only when Lydiate and Charteris came into the Wales set up did we have consistent representation (Dragons).  Many many times we had zero.  But like I said, it was still Wales so it was still my team and my players and didn't affect my support.  Just as the Lions are still my team and my players and I'll support them regardless.  Ironically, I think my favourite tours were the ones with the least Welsh players (1997 and 2001)!

2009 is one of my favourites, and we only had one test player in the form of Ross Ford as a substitute to replace Matt Rees, still enjoyed every minute of that tour.

As an Irish supporter, I got used to barracking for a Lions Test team that for a few years seemed to feature basically Englishmen, Scotsmen, Ieuan Evans and Nick Popplewell. I could have wished for more Irishmen to cheer but I still really wanted the Lions to kick SH backsides.

This may be a by-product of my age, growing up in the greatest of all Lions eras, revelling in NH dominance and loving the unusual madness of the whole concept. It should, however, also be said that the 71 and 74 Lions Test sides only ever had about two Englishmen in them, but it didn't stop the English folk of my acquaintance from yelling themselves hoarse for the men in red.

LondonTiger wrote:

Griff wrote:  Ironically, I think my favourite tours were the ones with the least Welsh players (1997 and 2001)!

11 welsh players went on the 2001 tour.

I know. One of our lowest attended tours, along with 1997. Of course I'm only talking about the tours I've watched (so since 1997) as I'm talking about my own enjoyment.

As an aside, according to the Times Warburton is the first Lions' tour captain to not start the 1st test of a series since Doug Prentice omitted himself in Dunedin in 1930. The Lions won that test 6-3

I'd take 6-3.

Gooseberry wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

cascough wrote:Likewise the Lions represents me because I am British. It is not an extension of England for me.

Which is fine, but not everyone feels especially British. People who feel disenfranchised will soon lose interest - not just in sport.

But the majority of Scotts do, they voted for it.

The Scottish rugby community, especially ones like me who live in England, are more likely to be pro Union and against independence. In rugby terms though they are still going to be very much Scottish first.

I think a lot of English people don't get how interchangeable the terms English and British can be. That is almost inevitable given the numbers of English compared to the other nations and so it becomes the dominant culture, but not everyone likes that, even Scots like me, who detest the idea of independence.

The Andy Murray situation illustrates this very well. In the mainstream (English) press, he is British when he wins, Scottish when he loses and for years was having his Brutishness questioned because of a joke he made about the English football team, despite representing GB with distinction in the Davies Cup and the Olympics.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:As an aside, according to the Times Warburton is the first Lions' tour captain to not start the 1st test of a series since Doug Prentice omitted himself in Dunedin in 1930. The Lions won that test 6-3

From Prentice's wikipedia page:

At the age of 34 and past his prime playing days

Different tour same old...

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:As an aside, according to the Times Warburton is the first Lions' tour captain to not start the 1st test of a series since Doug Prentice omitted himself in Dunedin in 1930. The Lions won that test 6-3

Ah, those were the days, when you could score in 3s without making any kicks.

I love how people are telling us how to feel when they are not in the same boat, and havn't been for years

I also find it ironic that everyone thinks they would act differently in our position, yet 2005 would be evidence that others acted very similar

I support the lions, but have less passion that I would if there was a better (Fairer) representation

However, I think Gatland actually picked a good squad based for the first test (based on who is on tour)

cascough wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

EST wrote:

cascough wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

cascough wrote:I know people are throwing out blanket statements about Scotland's lack of involvement, but I just can't see where they think it should be different. There are some marginal calls perhaps, but thats just what they are. Marginal. Why the furore?

While this has been done to death in the past, I guess internet forums would be very quiet places if we did not rehash things forever.

The problem really comes down to what the Lions means in this day and age, and how people choose to identify with it. Following sports teams can be quite a tribal thing often with fierce rivalries. These rivalries can be seen every spring when 6Ns comes around. Then every four years we are asked to get behind the concept of the British and Irish Lions and put all those rivalries aside. If you feel a connection to the team that can happen, but such a connection is an emotional and personal one and cannot (nor should not) be dictated by anyone else.

Usually supporting a national side will be linked to your own national identity. The Lions is a whole different thing though. If you identify as British then it may be a lot easier to feel a connection with the team than if you identify as English,Scottish or Welsh (ignoring the "I" part as that is a whole new set of issues). It is very easy for Welsh or English fans to denigrate and patronise Scottish fans as with the representation we have in the touring party it is easy to feel that it represents us. As we have seen, there will still be bickering about whether the right players are in the Test team, but overall we can feel that the tour is representative of us.

If the Lions are meant to represent British and Irish rugby, then ideally so should the squad. I am not talking about equal contributions, but that the fans of any specific country need to feel that their players are getting a fair crack of the whip, and not losing out on all the 50/50 calls.  

If the Lions is about winning test matches - well the concept is probably doomed as the pragmatic way to try and achieve that would alienate many and thus put at risk what seems to be the real current purpose of the Lions - to serve as a cash cow.

I fully understand why Scottish fans can feel alienated as despite being a fan of the Lions, I am sure I would struggle to maintain my interest if English representation in the entire initial touring party amounted to two parts of diddly squat. I certainly know that my interest in the England team waned in the mid 80s when the selectors too often ignored whole swathes of the country, and would wane again if Eddie Jones brought in too many time-servers or gotta-grannies.


Thus in short, if a representative group, fails to be representative it is to be expected that people will be alienated.

I fundamentally disagree.

The England team does not have any players in it from the team I support but it doesn't pose me any problems supporting it. It represents me because I'm English. It's not, and never will be an extension of my club team.

Likewise the Lions represents me because I am British. It is not an extension of England for me.

Even if there were no English players selected, and even if I felt those English players ignored were better than those that had been selected, I would still support the Lions. I would feel contempt for the coach (because I think he is wrong) but that contempt doesn't extend to the guys that are selected. They are still going out there trying to do their best for Great Britain and Ireland, so they still represent me.

Where I really struggle to understand it, is lets say No England players were selected, and lets say that they were all marginal calls, what grounds would I have to even feel contempt for the coach? He's done what he thinks his best, and the players selected are going to do their best for Britain and Ireland.

At the end of the day, it appears people support for the Lions is conditional. As long as their favourite players get picked, then they class themselves as Lions supporters. To them the Lions is merely an extension of their national teams rather than a holistic representation of Great Britain and Ireland. I won't just be cheering the English guys on on Saturday, I'll be cheering them all on (even the ones I don't like, same as I do for the England players I don't like when England are playing). Why would I stop cheering the rest on if no English players were picked?

How can it be a holistic representation, if one of the countries isn't represented?

Both countries are represented?

Both Islands.

EST, I chose the word holistic very purposefully. It suggests we are intrinsically linked. In fact it means the opposite of what you're suggesting. If this were a Northern hemisphere side, I'd be more inclined to agree that representation from the nations making it up was important. But personally I can identify with being British quite comfortably, so I feel that Liam Williams will be giving his all and representing me just as much as Anthony Watson will be. Similarly for anyone that's from the ROI, I can identify with them quite comfortably. In fact I spent my first football world cup supporting Ireland in 1990. What a fabulous tournament that was!

I do understand what Holistic means, and the context with which you were using it. However, taking your point to the extreme - you could use your argument to support the Lions coaches simply picking the England team, and saying that they present a holistic representation of great Britain and Northern Ireland. Now of course this would never happen, but I do feel that the selection process needs to be more equitable. It's not the fact that there are no Scotland players in the team, it's the fact that I really don't think selection was a level playing field. If I thought the lack of Scottish representation was fair, which I have done in all of the previous tours I have properly followed (we have been rubbish for a long time), then I have no problem throwing my weight behind the team, no matter where they come from.

Cyril wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:As an aside, according to the Times Warburton is the first Lions' tour captain to not start the 1st test of a series since Doug Prentice omitted himself in Dunedin in 1930. The Lions won that test 6-3

From Prentice's wikipedia page:

At the age of 34 and past his prime playing days

Different tour same old...

Warburton is 28.

Pete, think it also happened on the 66 Lions tour, although Mike Campbell-Lamerton's withdrawal was dressed up as a injury of some description. MC-L was widely considered to have been lucky to tour NZ and to have been given the captaincy as a fine, upstanding chap, rather than because of rugby credentials. Alun Pask was robbed of the tour captaincy as a result and it is sometimes thought that Campbell-Lamerton did the decent thing and used the service revolver that any number of people were offering him before the Tests that he missed.

Griff wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:As an aside, according to the Times Warburton is the first Lions' tour captain to not start the 1st test of a series since Doug Prentice omitted himself in Dunedin in 1930. The Lions won that test 6-3

From Prentice's wikipedia page:

At the age of 34 and past his prime playing days

Different tour same old...

Warburton is 28.

28 is the new 34. Bread doesn't keep as well as it used to

captain carrantuohil wrote:Pete, think it also happened on the 66 Lions tour, although Mike Campbell-Lamerton's withdrawal was dressed up as a injury of some description. MC-L was widely considered to have been lucky to tour NZ and to have been given the captaincy as a fine, upstanding chap, rather than because of rugby credentials. Alun Pask was robbed of the tour captaincy as a result and it is sometimes thought that Campbell-Lamerton did the decent thing and used the service revolver that any number of people were offering him before the Tests that he missed.

Apparently MC-L missed the 2nd and 4th tests in NZ (according to his Wiki page). Played both tests in Aus, the 1st & 3rd in NZ.

Griff wrote:

BigGee wrote:

Griff wrote:

Similarly, in the Olympics I did not feel anything but full support for the GB 7s team.  I loved watching it.  But I could not tell you now how many Welsh were in the team.  James Davies I think was 1?  Not sure if he played all games?  If he was injured and missed out I can't say that I would have supported the team any less.

There were a couple of Welsh players in the GB squad and two Scots. A few others had their chances at the selection process.

This kind of makes the point though, it was a representative team of all the countries and we were all happy to get behind it. I am sure that the coach Simon Amor, if he was honest with his preferences, he would just have picked the entire England squad rather than try and bring a scratch squad together. He would also have known that this would not be acceptable and so did not do it.

Maybe Amor got the concept a bit more than Gatland.

Really?  The squad was much like the Lions over the years: i.e. mainly English with the others represented - in the Olympics I think it was 8 English, 2 welsh and 2 scots (I believe NI played for ROI in the rugby didn't they?).  The match day team, much like the Lions match day test team, didn't always feature all 3 nations.

As England have been the dominant UK team at sevens in the years running up to the Olympics and they achieved the team GB qualification, that is hardly surprising. Nevertheless it was a representative team and all the players in the squad played a part even if they did not all start. Sevens is very much a squad game, hence why they all got medals.

I don't think anyone is suggesting quotas in these teams representing GB from the 4 (or 3) countries. They do need to be representative though. With the political shenanigans going on about Olympic sevens at the moment and the possibility of England, Scotland and Wales losing their places in world sevens to create a GB team our whole involvement in Olympic sevens may come back to bite us in any case.

EST wrote:

cascough wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

EST wrote:

cascough wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

cascough wrote:I know people are throwing out blanket statements about Scotland's lack of involvement, but I just can't see where they think it should be different. There are some marginal calls perhaps, but thats just what they are. Marginal. Why the furore?

While this has been done to death in the past, I guess internet forums would be very quiet places if we did not rehash things forever.

The problem really comes down to what the Lions means in this day and age, and how people choose to identify with it. Following sports teams can be quite a tribal thing often with fierce rivalries. These rivalries can be seen every spring when 6Ns comes around. Then every four years we are asked to get behind the concept of the British and Irish Lions and put all those rivalries aside. If you feel a connection to the team that can happen, but such a connection is an emotional and personal one and cannot (nor should not) be dictated by anyone else.

Usually supporting a national side will be linked to your own national identity. The Lions is a whole different thing though. If you identify as British then it may be a lot easier to feel a connection with the team than if you identify as English,Scottish or Welsh (ignoring the "I" part as that is a whole new set of issues). It is very easy for Welsh or English fans to denigrate and patronise Scottish fans as with the representation we have in the touring party it is easy to feel that it represents us. As we have seen, there will still be bickering about whether the right players are in the Test team, but overall we can feel that the tour is representative of us.

If the Lions are meant to represent British and Irish rugby, then ideally so should the squad. I am not talking about equal contributions, but that the fans of any specific country need to feel that their players are getting a fair crack of the whip, and not losing out on all the 50/50 calls.  

If the Lions is about winning test matches - well the concept is probably doomed as the pragmatic way to try and achieve that would alienate many and thus put at risk what seems to be the real current purpose of the Lions - to serve as a cash cow.

I fully understand why Scottish fans can feel alienated as despite being a fan of the Lions, I am sure I would struggle to maintain my interest if English representation in the entire initial touring party amounted to two parts of diddly squat. I certainly know that my interest in the England team waned in the mid 80s when the selectors too often ignored whole swathes of the country, and would wane again if Eddie Jones brought in too many time-servers or gotta-grannies.


Thus in short, if a representative group, fails to be representative it is to be expected that people will be alienated.

I fundamentally disagree.

The England team does not have any players in it from the team I support but it doesn't pose me any problems supporting it. It represents me because I'm English. It's not, and never will be an extension of my club team.

Likewise the Lions represents me because I am British. It is not an extension of England for me.

Even if there were no English players selected, and even if I felt those English players ignored were better than those that had been selected, I would still support the Lions. I would feel contempt for the coach (because I think he is wrong) but that contempt doesn't extend to the guys that are selected. They are still going out there trying to do their best for Great Britain and Ireland, so they still represent me.

Where I really struggle to understand it, is lets say No England players were selected, and lets say that they were all marginal calls, what grounds would I have to even feel contempt for the coach? He's done what he thinks his best, and the players selected are going to do their best for Britain and Ireland.

At the end of the day, it appears people support for the Lions is conditional. As long as their favourite players get picked, then they class themselves as Lions supporters. To them the Lions is merely an extension of their national teams rather than a holistic representation of Great Britain and Ireland. I won't just be cheering the English guys on on Saturday, I'll be cheering them all on (even the ones I don't like, same as I do for the England players I don't like when England are playing). Why would I stop cheering the rest on if no English players were picked?

How can it be a holistic representation, if one of the countries isn't represented?

Both countries are represented?

Both Islands.

EST, I chose the word holistic very purposefully. It suggests we are intrinsically linked. In fact it means the opposite of what you're suggesting. If this were a Northern hemisphere side, I'd be more inclined to agree that representation from the nations making it up was important. But personally I can identify with being British quite comfortably, so I feel that Liam Williams will be giving his all and representing me just as much as Anthony Watson will be. Similarly for anyone that's from the ROI, I can identify with them quite comfortably. In fact I spent my first football world cup supporting Ireland in 1990. What a fabulous tournament that was!

I do understand what Holistic means, and the context with which you were using it.  However, taking your point to the extreme - you could use your argument to support the Lions coaches simply picking the England team, and saying that they present a holistic representation of great Britain and Northern Ireland.  Now of course this would never happen, but I do feel that the selection process needs to be more equitable. It's not the fact that there are no Scotland players in the team, it's the fact that I really don't think selection was a level playing field.  If I thought the lack of Scottish representation was fair, which I have done in all of the previous tours I have properly followed (we have been rubbish for a long time), then I have no problem throwing my weight behind the team, no matter where they come from.

In previous posts I have used my argument to pick the entire English team, or indeed the entire Irish team. I'd be fine with that because they still represent Britain and Ireland, which is something I can identify with.

I don't believe the lack of Scottish representation is unfair. Unlucky, but not unfair. And as I've said before, even if you do feel the lack of Scots is unfair, then I DO understand your acrimony to those selecting the team. But, I still don't understand why you can't get behind the players, who when all said and done are going out to represent GB&I.

Ah, got you, Pete - wasn't sure which Tests MC-L had missed. It's a funny thing with Lions captaincy. Sometimes, they pick exactly the right person to lead the tour ('71, 74, 89 and 97 spring to mind). Sometimes they make a decision that beggars belief ('66, '83) or pick a guy who doesn't totally want the job and would rather be one of the troops (Phil Bennett in '77). Spot the successful tours from that lot.

Big question is just how many players will stay for T2?

2013 - 4 changes to the starting lineup
2009 - 5 changes
2005 - 8 changes (in personnel plus 4 positional)

cascough wrote:

In previous posts I have used my argument to pick the entire English team, or indeed the entire Irish team. I'd be fine with that because they still represent Britain and Ireland, which is something I can identify with.

It would be very interesting to see what the reaction was if only 2 English players had been selected in the original squad, despite a good few more having a decent chance of selection.

It would not, I would imagine, be quite as magnanimous as you are suggesting!

BigGee wrote:

cascough wrote:

In previous posts I have used my argument to pick the entire English team, or indeed the entire Irish team. I'd be fine with that because they still represent Britain and Ireland, which is something I can identify with.

It would be very interesting to see what the reaction was if only 2 English players had been selected in the original squad, despite a good few more having a decent chance of selection.

It would not, I would imagine, be quite as magnanimous as you are suggesting!

Exactly Big Gee

Great name by the way, though I wonder are you aware of the meaning in Ireland?

I've suggested nothing of the sort. I'd be magnanimous.

Nowhere have I suggested that England fans en masse would be. I'm sure there would be plenty of carping, in which case I'd be making the same points to them as I am to people now.

cascough wrote:

EST wrote:

cascough wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

EST wrote:

cascough wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

cascough wrote:I know people are throwing out blanket statements about Scotland's lack of involvement, but I just can't see where they think it should be different. There are some marginal calls perhaps, but thats just what they are. Marginal. Why the furore?

While this has been done to death in the past, I guess internet forums would be very quiet places if we did not rehash things forever.

The problem really comes down to what the Lions means in this day and age, and how people choose to identify with it. Following sports teams can be quite a tribal thing often with fierce rivalries. These rivalries can be seen every spring when 6Ns comes around. Then every four years we are asked to get behind the concept of the British and Irish Lions and put all those rivalries aside. If you feel a connection to the team that can happen, but such a connection is an emotional and personal one and cannot (nor should not) be dictated by anyone else.

Usually supporting a national side will be linked to your own national identity. The Lions is a whole different thing though. If you identify as British then it may be a lot easier to feel a connection with the team than if you identify as English,Scottish or Welsh (ignoring the "I" part as that is a whole new set of issues). It is very easy for Welsh or English fans to denigrate and patronise Scottish fans as with the representation we have in the touring party it is easy to feel that it represents us. As we have seen, there will still be bickering about whether the right players are in the Test team, but overall we can feel that the tour is representative of us.

If the Lions are meant to represent British and Irish rugby, then ideally so should the squad. I am not talking about equal contributions, but that the fans of any specific country need to feel that their players are getting a fair crack of the whip, and not losing out on all the 50/50 calls.  

If the Lions is about winning test matches - well the concept is probably doomed as the pragmatic way to try and achieve that would alienate many and thus put at risk what seems to be the real current purpose of the Lions - to serve as a cash cow.

I fully understand why Scottish fans can feel alienated as despite being a fan of the Lions, I am sure I would struggle to maintain my interest if English representation in the entire initial touring party amounted to two parts of diddly squat. I certainly know that my interest in the England team waned in the mid 80s when the selectors too often ignored whole swathes of the country, and would wane again if Eddie Jones brought in too many time-servers or gotta-grannies.


Thus in short, if a representative group, fails to be representative it is to be expected that people will be alienated.

I fundamentally disagree.

The England team does not have any players in it from the team I support but it doesn't pose me any problems supporting it. It represents me because I'm English. It's not, and never will be an extension of my club team.

Likewise the Lions represents me because I am British. It is not an extension of England for me.

Even if there were no English players selected, and even if I felt those English players ignored were better than those that had been selected, I would still support the Lions. I would feel contempt for the coach (because I think he is wrong) but that contempt doesn't extend to the guys that are selected. They are still going out there trying to do their best for Great Britain and Ireland, so they still represent me.

Where I really struggle to understand it, is lets say No England players were selected, and lets say that they were all marginal calls, what grounds would I have to even feel contempt for the coach? He's done what he thinks his best, and the players selected are going to do their best for Britain and Ireland.

At the end of the day, it appears people support for the Lions is conditional. As long as their favourite players get picked, then they class themselves as Lions supporters. To them the Lions is merely an extension of their national teams rather than a holistic representation of Great Britain and Ireland. I won't just be cheering the English guys on on Saturday, I'll be cheering them all on (even the ones I don't like, same as I do for the England players I don't like when England are playing). Why would I stop cheering the rest on if no English players were picked?

How can it be a holistic representation, if one of the countries isn't represented?

Both countries are represented?

Both Islands.

EST, I chose the word holistic very purposefully. It suggests we are intrinsically linked. In fact it means the opposite of what you're suggesting. If this were a Northern hemisphere side, I'd be more inclined to agree that representation from the nations making it up was important. But personally I can identify with being British quite comfortably, so I feel that Liam Williams will be giving his all and representing me just as much as Anthony Watson will be. Similarly for anyone that's from the ROI, I can identify with them quite comfortably. In fact I spent my first football world cup supporting Ireland in 1990. What a fabulous tournament that was!

I do understand what Holistic means, and the context with which you were using it.  However, taking your point to the extreme - you could use your argument to support the Lions coaches simply picking the England team, and saying that they present a holistic representation of great Britain and Northern Ireland.  Now of course this would never happen, but I do feel that the selection process needs to be more equitable. It's not the fact that there are no Scotland players in the team, it's the fact that I really don't think selection was a level playing field.  If I thought the lack of Scottish representation was fair, which I have done in all of the previous tours I have properly followed (we have been rubbish for a long time), then I have no problem throwing my weight behind the team, no matter where they come from.

In previous posts I have used my argument to pick the entire English team, or indeed the entire Irish team. I'd be fine with that because they still represent Britain and Ireland, which is something I can identify with.

I don't believe the lack of Scottish representation is unfair. Unlucky, but not unfair. And as I've said before, even if you do feel the lack of Scots is unfair, then I DO understand your acrimony to those selecting the team. But, I still don't understand why you can't get behind the players, who when all said and done are going out to represent GB&I.

I'm not wishing the team ill, Cascough. I hope the actual players go out and perform as best they can - and I will be supporting them. But the management are inherently part of the lions team, I fundamentally believe that some of our players were held to different standards than some others by those individuals. I don't recall Gatland so obviously applying such significance to other teams away performances, as he did for Scotland and Glasgow away to England and Sarries (Munster losing to Sarries at home the week after didnt appear to affect any of their players chances, for instance - and Gatland had conveniently forgot that Glasgow had to beat Racing and Leicester away to reach the QF in the first place).

The manner in which Finn Russell, a man who has just put in two exemplary performances against international opposition, was not even granted 10 mins off the bench sums it up for me. If Gatland had made that small concession, I think Scotland fans would feel less aggreived. But he just doesn't get it, nor does he rate us.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

BigGee wrote:

cascough wrote:

In previous posts I have used my argument to pick the entire English team, or indeed the entire Irish team. I'd be fine with that because they still represent Britain and Ireland, which is something I can identify with.

It would be very interesting to see what the reaction was if only 2 English players had been selected in the original squad, despite a good few more having a decent chance of selection.

It would not, I would imagine, be quite as magnanimous as you are suggesting!

Exactly Big Gee

Great name by the way, though I wonder are you aware of the meaning in Ireland?

Yes, it was politely pointed out to me by an Irish poster a few years back!

It was actually a work nickname when I started my first job at 18 years old. Almost unbelievably these days, 12.5 stone and 6ft 1 was considered quite big back then. I would be lucky to play on the wing these days.

Interestingly when the Commonwealth games was in Glasgow in 2014, the games emblem, of which there was a large model in George Sq, was also known locally as the Big G. I am sure they did not realise the connection as well!

BigGee wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

BigGee wrote:

cascough wrote:

In previous posts I have used my argument to pick the entire English team, or indeed the entire Irish team. I'd be fine with that because they still represent Britain and Ireland, which is something I can identify with.

It would be very interesting to see what the reaction was if only 2 English players had been selected in the original squad, despite a good few more having a decent chance of selection.

It would not, I would imagine, be quite as magnanimous as you are suggesting!

Exactly Big Gee

Great name by the way, though I wonder are you aware of the meaning in Ireland?

Yes, it was politely pointed out to me by an Irish poster a few years back!

It was actually a work nickname when I started my first job at 18 years old. Almost unbelievably these days, 12.5 stone and 6ft 1 was considered quite big back then. I would be lucky to play on the wing these days.

Interestingly when the Commonwealth games was in Glasgow in 2014, the games emblem, of which there was a large model in George Sq, was also known locally as the Big G. I am sure they did not realise the connection as well!

You're gonna have to tell us what it means in Ireland now...

It describes a bodily cavity unique to females. It is actually considered by some to be probably the most repugnant word for this orifice, even worse than the C word.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:It describes a bodily cavity unique to females. It is actually considered by some to be probably the most repugnant word for this orifice, even worse than the C word.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:It describes a bodily cavity unique to females. It is actually considered by some to be probably the most repugnant word for this orifice, even worse than the C word.

Who Knew?!!

cascough wrote:I've suggested nothing of the sort. I'd be magnanimous.

Nowhere have I suggested that England fans en masse would be. I'm sure there would be plenty of carping, in which case I'd be making the same points to them as I am to people now.

I don't know how I'd react. I'd react much worse if England got 2 reps after 18 wins in 19 games, I know that much, because of the sense of injustice.

In 2009, I think the England representation reflected our status at the time, so the depressing thing about being third in representation stakes was that it was an indicator that we just weren't as good as others.

Not saying that Scotland's representation reflects their status now, just talking about my personal experience.