Ryan Grant spills the beans on his exclusion from 2013 Lions 2nd Test Match

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/40437419

"Grant, a member of Glasgow's Pro12-winning squad of 2015, was called up by Gatland to join the victorious 2013 tour of Australia, after rivals Cian Healy and Gethin Jenkins suffered injuries.

The Scot was named as a substitute for the second Test - which the Lions lost - but with starting loose-head Mako Vunipola tiring, he was not introduced, and left out of the squad for the series-deciding third international.

"It's a tough pill to swallow even now, to be so close and to really feel like the team could have benefited from me coming on," Grant added. "Mako was clearly wrecked and we were under the pump, and a bit of fresh legs would have benefited the team. It kind of made it a bit worse that the scrum wasn't going particularly well.

"I kind of avoided [forwards coach] Graham Rowntree for a few days after that because I was bitterly disappointed and if we spoke sooner, I would probably say something stupid.

"So I let it cool down for a couple of days, went and spoke to him, and he just kind of said to me that he hadn't seen enough of me and he wasn't sure he could trust me in a Test match like that, and it was the one they lost.

"I just had to say, 'listen, I totally disagree with you, and if you'd watched any of the Six Nations games you'd know I could handle myself, so we'll agree to disagree' - I don't think we've said a single word to each other since.

"Mako was cramping up and he was down every two minutes, so it was kind of an extra kick in the face. But it is what it is - it was four years ago now."

From the BBC

Very intriguing and quite frankly shocking to hear!

The Lions head coach role is the ultimate Poison Chalice. Should someone like Gregor Townsed accept the role in 4 years then he will pick who he wants, as is his right, but will be slated from all directions for not choosing who people (general public) want. We have trial by social media now and it's just not possible to please everyone. I don't think it's good for anyone's career to be honest. Coaches need to give it a wide berth.

I've said before that the 2009 lions tour is one of my favourites, and given there were bugger all Scots in that either it isn't just s Scottish thing for me (although that plays it's part).

Despite losing I still loved it - the way they played, the ethos, the bond within the squad and the shear intensity and brutality of the tests with real standout performances from several players (picked on form) that you could really get behind.

I loved it but once again like 2013 my enthusiasm has diminished as this tour goes on - it is just missing the magic that makes the lions special. And that's a purely personal feeling - it's not something that can be debated or or my opinion discredited for being 'wrong'.

I'll still be cheering them on come Saturday but I probably won't have the same level of depths of despair after the O'Gsra incident or the shear elation of running rampant in the 3rd test (although it could happen still...!)

Well you guys might have to make the most of this tour, the other day on New Zealand radio Stephen Jones (from the Times) said that he thought this would be the last Lions tour to New Zealand.

aucklandlaurie wrote:Well you guys might have to make the most of this tour, the other day on New Zealand radio Stephen Jones (from the Times) said that he thought this would be the last Lions tour to New Zealand.

I wouldn't be surprised if it is (not that I would ever want to agree with Jones!).

I'd be surprised. Who kills a cash cow?

Griff wrote:The Lions head coach role is the ultimate Poison Chalice. Should someone like Gregor Townsed accept the role in 4 years then he will pick who he wants, as is his right, but will be slated from all directions for not choosing who people (general public) want. We have trial by social media now and it's just not possible to please everyone. I don't think it's good for anyone's career to be honest. Coaches need to give it a wide berth.

Yes and no to this in all honesty Griff. The major part of the criticism comes from the perception that Gatland is favouring the Welsh lads as he is the national coach. I have said it before and I stand by it, none of the 4 current home union head coaches should be allowed to be the Lions head coach.

If that were to be the case, whilst of course there would still be criticism from those who disagree with the coaches decisions, it would not be at the same level as it currently is.

Eddie Jones will do it just to prove he is better than Gatland and SCW.

Probably not a coincidence that the more controversial (as far as playing matters go) Lions tours seem to be to NZ

Griff wrote:The Lions head coach role is the ultimate Poison Chalice. Should someone like Gregor Townsed accept the role in 4 years then he will pick who he wants, as is his right, but will be slated from all directions for not choosing who people (general public) want. We have trial by social media now and it's just not possible to please everyone. I don't think it's good for anyone's career to be honest. Coaches need to give it a wide berth.

If Townsend selects as Gatland does, yes he will get a load of Poopie for it. However, if Townsend selectes like Geech, there won't be a problem.

TightHEAD wrote:Eddie Jones will do it just to prove he is better than Gatland and SCW.

He'd have to win the World Cup to beat SCW - winning a Lions tour is not better.
Beating Gatland ? - I think he has already done that and by some distance

geoff999rugby wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Eddie Jones will do it just to prove he is better than Gatland and SCW.

He'd have to win the World Cup to beat SCW - winning a Lions tour is not better.
Beating Gatland ? - I think he has already done that and by some distance

Gatland is still ahead in terms of achievement for the time being...as much as I hate Gatland, he did get Wales to a semi-final, win a Lions tour and won the 6 Nations several times with a small playing pool.

Jones needs to win a World Cup with England before we start talking about passing either even if I think he is a better coach. Shame Japan did not get to the knockout stages to begin the conversation.

Hazel Sapling wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Eddie Jones will do it just to prove he is better than Gatland and SCW.

He'd have to win the World Cup to beat SCW - winning a Lions tour is not better.
Beating Gatland ? - I think he has already done that and by some distance

Gatland is still ahead in terms of achievement for the time being...as much as I hate Gatland, he did get Wales to a semi-final, win a Lions tour and won the 6 Nations several times with a small playing pool.

Jones needs to win a World Cup with England before we start talking about passing either even if I think he is a better coach. Shame Japan did not get to the knockout stages to begin the conversation.

Jones made an RWC final with Australia mind. And beat NZ along the way
1 Tri Nations, 2 Bledisloe Cups, 2 6N

SCW was good back in the day, but the game has moved on and Clive has not, Jones is a better coach IMHO.

TightHEAD wrote:SCW was good back in the day, but the game has moved on and Clive has not, Jones is a better coach IMHO.

Not that relevant when SCW isn't still coaching? Doesn't affect his CV.

RDW_Scotland wrote:I've said before that the 2009 lions tour is one of my favourites, and given there were bugger all Scots in that either it isn't just s Scottish thing for me (although that plays it's part).

Despite losing I still loved it - the way they played, the ethos, the bond within the squad and the shear intensity and brutality of the tests with real standout performances from several players (picked on form) that you could really get behind.

I loved it but once again like 2013 my enthusiasm has diminished as this tour goes on - it is just missing the magic that makes the lions special. And that's a purely personal feeling - it's not something that can be debated or or my opinion discredited for being 'wrong'.

I'll still be cheering them on come Saturday but I probably won't have the same level of depths of despair after the O'Gsra incident or the shear elation of running rampant in the 3rd test (although it could happen still...!)

yeah I loved that tour too. I think Scotland were particularly bad back then though. 2013 was drab.

Scottrf wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:SCW was good back in the day, but the game has moved on and Clive has not, Jones is a better coach IMHO.

Not that relevant when SCW isn't still coaching? Doesn't affect his CV.

Totally relevant, Clive couldn't change, Gatland won't change yet Eddie does time and time again.

Eddie is the Greatest of them all.

Not until he wins a WC he isn't

Says who?

World cups only start in the QF's so you only have to win three games on the bounce.

You only have to win 2 games to win a Lions tour.

You will find NOBODY in the professional game who will claim a Lions series victory tops winning the WC

geoff999rugby wrote:You only have to win 2 games to win a Lions tour.

You will find NOBODY in the professional game who will claim a Lions series victory tops winning the WC

You will never have to beat the ABs twice to win a WC. You can actually win one without playing them at all. Just saying.

The World Cup is the number one achievement in rugby, whether it takes 2, 5 or 20 games.

geoff999rugby wrote:You only have to win 2 games to win a Lions tour.

You will find NOBODY in the professional game who will claim a Lions series victory tops winning the WC

 True, and most players who have won a World Cup have also won  a Lions series.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:You only have to win 2 games to win a Lions tour.

You will find NOBODY in the professional game who will claim a Lions series victory tops winning the WC

You will never have to beat the ABs twice to win a WC. You can actually win one without playing them at all. Just saying.

Whilst true it doesn't alter the point made.

You can win a Lions tour without ever playing the AB.
In fact they are the only ones the Lions have won, in the professional era, including the one won by
Gatland which was being used as an example of a better record than SCW above.

TightHEAD wrote:Says who?

World cups only start in the QF's so you only have to win three games on the bounce.

World Cups clearly do not start in the QFs as England discovered last time!

As for the general point, World Cups are the pinnacle as all teams base their development on trying to win the next world cup. Teams might sacrifice Six Nations success at the start of the RWC cycle in order to develop a team to win the next RWC. I cannot imagine a team sacrificing RWC success to win a future Six Nations.

RWC is ahead of any other competition especially moving forward with 9 good teams and the next 6 teams are competitive in most circumstances. We are getting close to the point of having 20 nations who can at least compete for an hour.

Jones is the better coach in my mind, but still think what Gatland has managed with Wales is presently ahead. Jones will likely pass him after the 2019 RWC (even if France/Argentina are no gimmes).

Exiledinborders wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Says who?

World cups only start in the QF's so you only have to win three games on the bounce.

World Cups clearly do not start in the QFs as England discovered last time!

As for the general point, World Cups are the pinnacle as all teams base their development on trying to win the next world cup. Teams might sacrifice Six Nations success at the start of the RWC cycle in order to develop a team to win the next RWC. I cannot imagine a team sacrificing RWC success to win a future Six Nations.

TEAMS!


Lol

Don't your nation play as a team - are they just a collection of individuals !

Only one 'team' capable of winning a World Cup in the NH.

In terms of rugby prestige for home nations players would be the following

Series win in NZ
World Cup
Series win in SA
Series win in AUS
Grand Slam
Six Nations

In history SA have 1 series win in NZ. They have 2 world cups. It was just like that for NZ in 1996. Ask Sean Fitzpatrick what was more important to him... his world cup winners medal or captaining NZ to NZ's sole series win in SA I wonder what he would say.

How many world cup winners out there are there? How many guys alive today can say they won a test series in NZ? Perhaps 40 (France 94, Lions 71).

Hazel Sapling wrote:RWC is ahead of any other competition especially moving forward with 9 good teams and the next 6 teams are competitive in most circumstances. We are getting close to the point of having 20 nations who can at least compete for an hour.  

Jones is the better coach in my mind, but still think what Gatland has managed with Wales is presently ahead. Jones will likely pass him after the 2019 RWC (even if France/Argentina are no gimmes).

You think Gatland with Wales has achieved more than Jones?

Jones

Tri-nations 2001
RWC runner up 2003 (head coach)
RWC winner 2007 (assistant coach)
3 wins in RWC pool stages with Japan (inc SA) 2015
3-0 series win vs. AUS with England 2016
2 6N titles, 1 GS.
19 wins in 20 matches with ENG inc. 5 in a row vs. AUS and SA thus far
5 wins in 11 vs NZ with AUS (this is probably close to the best record (of say >5 matches) of any coach in pro era)

Gatland

3 6N titles, 2 GS
2-1 series win for Lions vs. AUS 2013

So with his short tenure with England Jones has only 1 less 6N title, 1 less GS and both have a series win vs AUS (a superior 3-0) too. Gatland has taken Wales to 4th at the RWC11 and the QF in 2015 mind.

Even with England I'd have to say In Jones' short time he's probably done things only SCW and Geechs could claim to be superior. If he wins the RWC in 2019 on his own he'll probably be seen as the greatest coach in the pro era as he literally would have won everything in the game.

I would say right now can we see anyone else winning the 6N in 2018 also? As long as he takes a full strength side down to SA next year... he'll bag a series win in SA too (forget their win vs FRA, SA are pretty average and I'd say Ireland would beat them now in SA, and Scotland and Wales would win a test in a 3 match series).

fa0019 wrote:In terms of rugby prestige for home nations players would be the following

Series win in NZ
World Cup
Series win in SA
Series win in AUS
Grand Slam
Six Nations

In history SA have 1 series win in NZ. They have 2 world cups. It was just like that for NZ in 1996. Ask Sean Fitzpatrick what was more important to him... his world cup winners medal or captaining NZ to NZ's sole series win in SA I wonder what he would say.

How many world cup winners out there are there? How many guys alive today can say they won a test series in NZ? Perhaps 40 (France 94, Lions 71).

 Heres you answer fa:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/72400265/sean-fitzpatrick-historic-south-africa-series-win-bigger-than-world-cup-triumph

 Even though he did say that not winning the World Cup in 1995 was a mind changing experience, which is another way of saying thats what motivated them in 1996. never repeat failure.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

fa0019 wrote:In terms of rugby prestige for home nations players would be the following

Series win in NZ
World Cup
Series win in SA
Series win in AUS
Grand Slam
Six Nations

In history SA have 1 series win in NZ. They have 2 world cups. It was just like that for NZ in 1996. Ask Sean Fitzpatrick what was more important to him... his world cup winners medal or captaining NZ to NZ's sole series win in SA I wonder what he would say.

How many world cup winners out there are there? How many guys alive today can say they won a test series in NZ? Perhaps 40 (France 94, Lions 71).

 Heres you answer fa:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/72400265/sean-fitzpatrick-historic-south-africa-series-win-bigger-than-world-cup-triumph

 Even though he did say that not winning the World Cup in 1995 was a mind changing experience, which is another way of saying thats what motivated them in 1996. never repeat failure.

When Fitzy cops it as an old man their will perhaps be half a dozen NZ world cup teams... maybe more.

But he's the only AB captain to ever win in SA.

Its like rugby only started in 1987. Amateur or not what they and the lions in 74 and 97 was epic.

However one team has their number. France won a series in SA in 93. The year later most of those players went to NZ and won a series there.

fa0019 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

fa0019 wrote:In terms of rugby prestige for home nations players would be the following

Series win in NZ
World Cup
Series win in SA
Series win in AUS
Grand Slam
Six Nations

In history SA have 1 series win in NZ. They have 2 world cups. It was just like that for NZ in 1996. Ask Sean Fitzpatrick what was more important to him... his world cup winners medal or captaining NZ to NZ's sole series win in SA I wonder what he would say.

How many world cup winners out there are there? How many guys alive today can say they won a test series in NZ? Perhaps 40 (France 94, Lions 71).

 Heres you answer fa:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/72400265/sean-fitzpatrick-historic-south-africa-series-win-bigger-than-world-cup-triumph

 Even though he did say that not winning the World Cup in 1995 was a mind changing experience, which is another way of saying thats what motivated them in 1996. never repeat failure.

When Fitzy cops it as an old man their will perhaps be half a dozen NZ world cup teams... maybe more.

But he's the only AB captain to ever win in SA.

Its like rugby only started in 1987. Amateur or not what they and the lions in 74 and 97 was epic.

However one team has their number. France won a series in SA in 93. The year later most of those players went to NZ and won a series there.

 Winning and losing at Rugby is pretty important to the Fitzpatrick clan, Sean was never going to be the next Fitzpatrick to lose to Wales.

fa0019 wrote:In terms of rugby prestige for home nations players would be the following

Series win in NZ
World Cup
Series win in SA
Series win in AUS
Grand Slam
Six Nations

In history SA have 1 series win in NZ. They have 2 world cups. It was just like that for NZ in 1996. Ask Sean Fitzpatrick what was more important to him... his world cup winners medal or captaining NZ to NZ's sole series win in SA I wonder what he would say.

How many world cup winners out there are there? How many guys alive today can say they won a test series in NZ? Perhaps 40 (France 94, Lions 71).

Whilst I believe that a World Cup win is the pinnacle your assertion that a win in SA or Australia is better than a grand slam is bizarre. You seem to be a few years out of date. Neither Australia or South Africa are anything special these days. To win a grand slam you have to beat both England and Ireland or if you if you are one of those teams beat the other. That is clearly more of an achievement than beating Australia or SA. Take a look at the World Rugby rankings.

Exiledinborders wrote:

fa0019 wrote:In terms of rugby prestige for home nations players would be the following

Series win in NZ
World Cup
Series win in SA
Series win in AUS
Grand Slam
Six Nations

In history SA have 1 series win in NZ. They have 2 world cups. It was just like that for NZ in 1996. Ask Sean Fitzpatrick what was more important to him... his world cup winners medal or captaining NZ to NZ's sole series win in SA I wonder what he would say.

How many world cup winners out there are there? How many guys alive today can say they won a test series in NZ? Perhaps 40 (France 94, Lions 71).

Whilst I believe that a World Cup win is the pinnacle your assertion that a win in SA or Australia is better than a grand slam is bizarre. You seem to be a few years out of date. Neither Australia or South Africa are anything special these days. To win a grand slam you have to beat both England and Ireland or if you if you are one of those teams beat the other. That is clearly more of an achievement than beating Australia or SA. Take a look at the World Rugby rankings.

 Just about every year the ABs go to Britain and do a grand slam, series wins in South Africa are much rarer..

GunsGermsV2 wrote:You will never have to beat the ABs twice to win a WC.

Of course you might have to. If NZ are in your pool, then you could beat them there, and still come up against them later in the knock-out rounds if they also qualify. France played NZ twice in 2011. As it turns out, they lost both.

Love how the pantie twisting crying for the lastl x posts is know where near the topic posted

Grow up please

Rugby Fan wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:You will never have to beat the ABs twice to win a WC.

Of course you might have to. If NZ are in your pool, then you could beat them there, and still come up against them later in the knock-out rounds if they also qualify. France played NZ twice in 2011. As it turns out, they lost both.

True but you only have to beat them in pool if you can't qualify without it. France wasn't in that position.

Rugby Fan wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:You will never have to beat the ABs twice to win a WC.

Of course you might have to. If NZ are in your pool, then you could beat them there, and still come up against them later in the knock-out rounds if they also qualify. France played NZ twice in 2011. As it turns out, they lost both.

 Technically GG might be right, in that you could lose at the pool stages but you obviously would have to win when the teams met again  in the semis or final. It has never been done, in fact no team has ever won a Rugby World cup after losing a game in the pool part of the tournament.

Exiledinborders wrote:

fa0019 wrote:In terms of rugby prestige for home nations players would be the following

Series win in NZ
World Cup
Series win in SA
Series win in AUS
Grand Slam
Six Nations

In history SA have 1 series win in NZ. They have 2 world cups. It was just like that for NZ in 1996. Ask Sean Fitzpatrick what was more important to him... his world cup winners medal or captaining NZ to NZ's sole series win in SA I wonder what he would say.

How many world cup winners out there are there? How many guys alive today can say they won a test series in NZ? Perhaps 40 (France 94, Lions 71).

Whilst I believe that a World Cup win is the pinnacle your assertion that a win in SA or Australia is better than a grand slam is bizarre. You seem to be a few years out of date. Neither Australia or South Africa are anything special these days. To win a grand slam you have to beat both England and Ireland or if you if you are one of those teams beat the other. That is clearly more of an achievement than beating Australia or SA. Take a look at the World Rugby rankings.

So winning 2 games in SA or 2 games in AUS in 3 is less of an achievement than winning a GS?

Do you know how many home nations teams have actually won an away series vs the 3N?

The earliest non lions tour was in 1963 (ENG to NZ). Since then their have been 48 tours by lions countries. Want to know how many series wins?

2

(both vs. AUS... IRE in 1979 in a 2 game series and ENG in 2016 in a 3 game series.  NZ have seen 18 tours, they have 18 victories. SA have seen 14 tours albeit they have only won 12 (ENG have drawn 2 series; 1994 and 2000). The "weakling" of the 3N AUS have seen 16 tours, won 12, drawn 2 (SCO in 1982, ENG in 2010)  together with the mentioned losses.

Even with the lions its rare since this date (1963) there have been 16 tours with only 5 wins.  A GS is memorable sure yet but they happen reasonably regularly (5 times in last 10 championships). Winning a SH series puts in you the pantheons of the greats.

R!skysports wrote:Love how the pantie twisting crying for the lastl x posts is know where near the topic posted

Grow up please

Apologies R!sky. The creativity and squad management of the coaching staff though is a huge talking point and somewhat related to Grant, although it has now turned into yet another is Gatland good thread (I am guilty of going down that path).

fa0019 wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

fa0019 wrote:In terms of rugby prestige for home nations players would be the following

Series win in NZ
World Cup
Series win in SA
Series win in AUS
Grand Slam
Six Nations

In history SA have 1 series win in NZ. They have 2 world cups. It was just like that for NZ in 1996. Ask Sean Fitzpatrick what was more important to him... his world cup winners medal or captaining NZ to NZ's sole series win in SA I wonder what he would say.

How many world cup winners out there are there? How many guys alive today can say they won a test series in NZ? Perhaps 40 (France 94, Lions 71).

Whilst I believe that a World Cup win is the pinnacle your assertion that a win in SA or Australia is better than a grand slam is bizarre. You seem to be a few years out of date. Neither Australia or South Africa are anything special these days. To win a grand slam you have to beat both England and Ireland or if you if you are one of those teams beat the other. That is clearly more of an achievement than beating Australia or SA. Take a look at the World Rugby rankings.

So winning 2 games in SA or 2 games in AUS in 3 is less of an achievement than winning a GS?

Do you know how many home nations teams have actually won an away series vs the 3N?

The earliest non lions tour was in 1963 (ENG to NZ). Since then their have been 48 tours by lions countries. Want to know how many series wins?

2

(both vs. AUS... IRE in 1979 in a 2 game series and ENG in 2016 in a 3 game series.  NZ have seen 18 tours, they have 18 victories. SA have seen 14 tours albeit they have only won 12 (ENG have drawn 2 series; 1994 and 2000). The "weakling" of the 3N AUS have seen 16 tours, won 12, drawn 2 (SCO in 1982, ENG in 2010)  together with the mentioned losses.

Even with the lions its rare since this date (1963) there have been 16 tours with only 5 wins.  A GS is memorable sure yet but they happen reasonably regularly (5 times in last 10 championships). Winning a SH series puts in you the pantheons of the greats.

No. It used to when Australia and South Africa were top teams.

Your stats accurately reflect the fact that Australia and South Africa used to be far stronger than the NH teams.

Exiledinborders wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

fa0019 wrote:In terms of rugby prestige for home nations players would be the following

Series win in NZ
World Cup
Series win in SA
Series win in AUS
Grand Slam
Six Nations

In history SA have 1 series win in NZ. They have 2 world cups. It was just like that for NZ in 1996. Ask Sean Fitzpatrick what was more important to him... his world cup winners medal or captaining NZ to NZ's sole series win in SA I wonder what he would say.

How many world cup winners out there are there? How many guys alive today can say they won a test series in NZ? Perhaps 40 (France 94, Lions 71).

Whilst I believe that a World Cup win is the pinnacle your assertion that a win in SA or Australia is better than a grand slam is bizarre. You seem to be a few years out of date. Neither Australia or South Africa are anything special these days. To win a grand slam you have to beat both England and Ireland or if you if you are one of those teams beat the other. That is clearly more of an achievement than beating Australia or SA. Take a look at the World Rugby rankings.

So winning 2 games in SA or 2 games in AUS in 3 is less of an achievement than winning a GS?

Do you know how many home nations teams have actually won an away series vs the 3N?

The earliest non lions tour was in 1963 (ENG to NZ). Since then their have been 48 tours by lions countries. Want to know how many series wins?

2

(both vs. AUS... IRE in 1979 in a 2 game series and ENG in 2016 in a 3 game series.  NZ have seen 18 tours, they have 18 victories. SA have seen 14 tours albeit they have only won 12 (ENG have drawn 2 series; 1994 and 2000). The "weakling" of the 3N AUS have seen 16 tours, won 12, drawn 2 (SCO in 1982, ENG in 2010)  together with the mentioned losses.

Even with the lions its rare since this date (1963) there have been 16 tours with only 5 wins.  A GS is memorable sure yet but they happen reasonably regularly (5 times in last 10 championships). Winning a SH series puts in you the pantheons of the greats.

No. It used to when Australia and South Africa were top teams.

Your stats accurately reflect the fact that Australia and South Africa used to be far stronger than the NH teams.

So by that logic a grand slam only counts if youre actually rubbish and win it by luck, and New Zealands world cups dont count because they were the best side in the world when they won it?
 I do understand youre saying that it only counts if the opposition is good ...but doesnt that also apply to grand slams ... France seem to have pretty much given up on test rugby...and Italy are a joke, theres only really two teams to compete against and form is wildly inconsistent. Is a grand slam won by a team being great or the opposition being weak?
What if these games against the SANZAR sides are being won because the NH sides have actually improved recently, rather than the SANZARS being especially rubbish? We also keep getting told that this is amongst the strongest All Blacks sides ever ...teams have played much weaker ones and lost in the past. Theyve also been to SA when they had been in isoltaion for years and still got spanked. Theyve played weak Aus sides in the past and been beaten. Going to SANZAR and winning series is rare regardless of the fluctuations in fortunes of the sides.

I guess you could argue that right now winning a grand slam would be a big achievement as theres 3 sides with their acts together, but they do happen way to often to be considered massively difficult. Sure Irelands first one was a historic thing, but they are now well established as a major international force which they'd never been historicaly.

England 3-0 series win in Australia is something thats never happened before in the history of ever. A lions tour win in NZ would be enormous and well against the odds whether or not its come at a time of relative strength for the NH unions.

Whilsyt I agree that winnings omething because the oppsoition is rubbish devalues it, I cant accept that winning something because youre good devalues it. Its pretty common for an NH side to be good enough and the rest rubbish enough for someone to win a grand slam. It almost never happens for tours of the SANZAR and only once for a world cup (although theres not been many), even with a combined Lions side its rare.
Winning a grand slam isnt that big a deal.

If Rowntree really said such a disgusting thing to a player on the bench my reaction is WHAT THE FLYING F%%K WAS HE DOING THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Exiledinborders wrote:

fa0019 wrote:In terms of rugby prestige for home nations players would be the following

Series win in NZ
World Cup
Series win in SA
Series win in AUS
Grand Slam
Six Nations

In history SA have 1 series win in NZ. They have 2 world cups. It was just like that for NZ in 1996. Ask Sean Fitzpatrick what was more important to him... his world cup winners medal or captaining NZ to NZ's sole series win in SA I wonder what he would say.

How many world cup winners out there are there? How many guys alive today can say they won a test series in NZ? Perhaps 40 (France 94, Lions 71).

Whilst I believe that a World Cup win is the pinnacle your assertion that a win in SA or Australia is better than a grand slam is bizarre. You seem to be a few years out of date. Neither Australia or South Africa are anything special these days. To win a grand slam you have to beat both England and Ireland or if you if you are one of those teams beat the other. That is clearly more of an achievement than beating Australia or SA. Take a look at the World Rugby rankings.

Really? Then how come none of them have beaten SA in SA 'recently' then? Ireland went last year and lost. France just lost 3-0. In 2014 Wales failed and in 2010 England failed. How is winning a grand slam harder than something none of them have done? Because you 'think it is'?

England has just beaten Oz in a series first time. It isn't their first grand slam. Never mind the rankings. Until you beat them how can you say something else is more difficult when you've already done one and not the other?

Gwlad wrote:If Rowntree really said such a disgusting thing to a player on the bench my reaction is WHAT THE FLYING F%%K WAS HE DOING THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Hes the only one with the guts to tell best that his throwings not that good

Another whining Scottish person