Does the Lions series need a decider?

First topic message reminder :

A good number of people are calling for some way to decide a future Lions series. Not sure about the idea myself. On this occasion, the final match turned out to be a decider, but a draw in the second match could have left the Lions needing a win to square the series, which is another form of drama. That's what we were heading towards in 2009 before ROG was penalized at the death.

The only way to ensure that the series has a winner, is to make sure that all matches have a winner, which would mean playing extra time from match one. Draws have been part of rugby, and team sport in general, for ever, so I'd be concerned about losing something so basic to the game's DNA.

Can't help feeling the sponsors will want a winner, though. Especially since they commissioned a trophy to be held aloft by a victorious captain.

Taylorman wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Populist views by definition are held by the masses - doesn't automatically make them what's best for rugby, or more specifically NH rugby.

What's best is what most people want, so yeas actually, it does.

What's best for most people is what most people decide is best for them! What's best for NH rugby is something totally different.

The Lions is about self gratification. Players call it their pinnacle because they are singled out from their normal team environment. Fans love it because they don't feel guilty about spending thousands on themselves as they are supporting their team. As a fans tour it is very successful at pulling the crowds and extracting the money from their pockets. How many of those 'fans' would show up if it was their home nation on tour? Many don't give a fig about the damage it does to players or the teams halfway across the world - as long as they can gratify themselves that they've been there.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:The only way to ensure that the series has a winner, is to make sure that all matches have a winner, which would mean playing extra time from match one.  

Nonsense! It would be possible to just play extra time in the last match if the series is drawn.

Think of the example I gave. First match to the home side, second match drawn, then a win for the away side. How can you turn that into a result other than a draw?

In the example given the series is drawn at the end of the third match. Extra time is then played whoever wins that wins the series.

Is a draw such a bad thing?

NZ won one, Lions won one, they drew the other.... NZ played better and the Lions had a bit of fortune.... but NZ were playing at home (and that's one of the biggest plus you can have).

For the Lions to draw a series is pretty remarkable. I don't see why there needs to be a outright winner if the results dictate an even performance.

Does the Lions tours need a decider?NO many questioned the concept
calling it an anachronism.Like the Barbarians a thing of the amateur past
a reversion to a 4 test format certainly.Many I`m sure would like old
style SH tours to Europe.
It is plain from Tv coverage from ex-Lions and the supporters how much
they loved the concept and the shirt.
There has been a lot of narrow minded comments about The coaches/players/
officials of both sides of a partisan nature/rough play etc.
Take the result for what it was a fine achievement,put it into perspective
they are only the Second side to achieve a drawn series.Boks 1921 was
the other.
Only two sides have won a full tour in NZ ,Boks 1937 and and Lions 1971,
only 34 sides have won a matchin NZ.
France 4,England 2,Lions 7 the rest were SA or Aus.
Positives from a NZ supporter despite losing to injury/sickness key backs
SBW [rightly suspended]Crotty ,Naholo,Ben Smith,Milner-Skudder,Ionea,
and Coles.Youngsters have been absorbed seamlessly into the network.
From a tactical point of view the Crusaders game could have been won
by kicking for the posts.Barrett `s Goal kicking has always been suspect
and ultimately cost the series.Why didn't Jordie a recognised Kicker do
the job in the third test.?
From the Lions point of view given the schedule it was an honourable
result.
Finally inconclusive ?why wasn't it taken out of the officials hands?why not
a dropped goal attempt?

emack2 wrote:Does the Lions tours need a decider?NO many questioned the concept
calling it an anachronism.Like the Barbarians a thing of the amateur past
a reversion to a 4 test format certainly.Many I`m sure would like old
style SH tours to Europe.
It is plain from Tv coverage from ex-Lions and the supporters how much
they loved the concept and the shirt.
There has been a lot of narrow minded comments about The coaches/players/
officials of both sides of a partisan nature/rough play etc.
Take the result for what it was a fine achievement,put it into perspective
they are only the Second side to achieve a drawn series.Boks 1921 was
the other.
Only two sides have won a full tour in NZ ,Boks 1937 and and Lions 1971,
only 34 sides have won a matchin NZ.
France 4,England 2,Lions 7 the rest were SA or Aus.
Positives from a NZ supporter despite losing to injury/sickness key backs
SBW [rightly suspended]Crotty ,Naholo,Ben Smith,Milner-Skudder,Ionea,
and Coles.Youngsters have been absorbed seamlessly into the network.
From a tactical point of view the Crusaders game could have been won
by kicking for the posts.Barrett `s Goal kicking has always been suspect
and ultimately cost the series.Why didn't Jordie a recognised Kicker do
the job in the third test.?
From the Lions point of view given the schedule it was an honourable
result.
Finally inconclusive ?why wasn't it taken out of the officials hands?why not
a dropped goal attempt?

You forgot France in 1994. They won the series 2-0.

For NZ to draw this tour is probably quite bad but in reality the team isn't in the same place as say the 2005 team. They were at home which is a massive advantage and against a side who had no natural order and the players had as much links to each other as those played for SA, AUS and NZ and Super rugby.

The lions faced their injuries too... Billy Vunipola and Stuart Hogg the most notable and 2 of their best players.

They dominated the tour but couldn't pull away. They can't keep on with Barrett kicking... if they do they probably won't win the world cup.

Can anyone name a world cup winning team that didn't have a world class kicker?

87 - Fox
91 - Lynagh
95 - Stransky.. probably the poorest of the lot.
99 - Burke
03 - Wilkinson
07 - Montegomery
11 - Carter/Cruden
15 - Carter
19 - Barrett? I just don't see it. They need a plan B and field a genuine world class kicker.

May as well have a decider. The Lions is already a meaningless moneymaking event disguised as "tradition" so why not have a decider in England and make a few more bucks I reckon

Steffan wrote:May as well have a decider. The Lions is already a meaningless moneymaking event disguised as "tradition" so why not have a decider in England and make a few more bucks I reckon

That will be the billing of the next probably England vs. New Zealand match.... "unfinished business".

Fa0019 that is hardly the case it wasn't a full tour any more than Nz`s
in 1996.I STAND corrected France lost matches v North Harbour and
Hawkes Bay.
I have tended to think of France tours,like to SA in1958 when they
won the series there,and 1964.First team to beat SA in a series at
home.
To the full blown tours of 28-34 matches as something rather
different don`t you.?

emack2 wrote:Does the Lions tours need a decider?NO many questioned the concept
calling it an anachronism.Like the Barbarians a thing of the amateur past
a reversion to a 4 test format certainly.Many I`m sure would like old
style SH tours to Europe.
It is plain from Tv coverage from ex-Lions and the supporters how much
they loved the concept and the shirt.
There has been a lot of narrow minded comments about The coaches/players/
officials of both sides of a partisan nature/rough play etc.
Take the result for what it was a fine achievement,put it into perspective
they are only the Second side to achieve a drawn series.Boks 1921 was
the other.
Only two sides have won a full tour in NZ ,Boks 1937 and and Lions 1971,
only 34 sides have won a matchin NZ.
France 4,England 2,Lions 7 the rest were SA or Aus.
Positives from a NZ supporter despite losing to injury/sickness key backs
SBW [rightly suspended]Crotty ,Naholo,Ben Smith,Milner-Skudder,Ionea,
and Coles.Youngsters have been absorbed seamlessly into the network.
From a tactical point of view the Crusaders game could have been won
by kicking for the posts.Barrett `s Goal kicking has always been suspect
and ultimately cost the series.Why didn't Jordie a recognised Kicker do
the job in the third test.?
From the Lions point of view given the schedule it was an honourable
result.
Finally inconclusive ?why wasn't it taken out of the officials hands?why not
a dropped goal attempt?

A Wales supporter for over 60 years, I agree 100% with you.

In Golf's Ryder Cup and in Cricket's Ashes, when the series is drawn, the previous winners get to retain the cup.

No name Bertie wrote:In Golf's Ryder Cup and in Cricket's Ashes, when the series is drawn, the previous winners get to retain the cup.

 Also the Bledisloe Cup and the Ranfurly shield in Rugby Union, you have to win it before you can take it away.