France will play ABs while Lions tour Australia....

hmm....not a very hard one to chose in terms of which will be more interesting.

Ireland v USA?

But where will Paddy Wallace be.... that is the question

Who do SA and Argentina play? They might well be undercooked in terms of the 4N. Which might actually benefit SA in terms of injuries.

This anti-lions stuff got boring in 2009 DOD. Yep, it's been that long.
I do look forward to NZ v France if there is such a fixture.

Playing them three times apparently. Not anti-lions just anti useless boring pointless sh1te like the lions.

DOD wrote:Playing them three times apparently. Not anti-lions just anti useless boring pointless sh1te like the lions.

Well in which case what is the point of National rugby teams? Or sport? What the hell does this post even mean?

I dont understand people who give out about the Lions. Feicing eejits the lot of them.

The majoirty of fans love it, it is profitable for everyone concerned and it provides variety and an occasion to break up the waits between RWCs like the Euro Championships do in soccer.

Love the Lions. Love how mental the French are.

Solution: Watch both series. They'll both be crackers.

It (the Lions) also means perpetuating the lovely European habit of losing...!

SecretFly wrote:It (the Lions) also means perpetuating the lovely European habit of losing...!

If you mean the British Isles habit of losing...dont think Les Grenouilles would agree with that...

I used to enjoy the Lions, loved it......now we batter those Welsh and Scottish fiecers every week in the Rabo and the English in the Heino.... only for the barstewards to pay us back with interest in the 6N...

Why the flip do we have to go on Holiday with the bollixes every 4 fiecin years too?..... ....

Lions tours still have their place, as suggested above, as a nice distraction and an excuse for a holiday etc. Problem is when it's taken so seriously, like when SCW took more management than players (including a spin doctor!) or Gatland has to prioritise the Lions over his national team duties a year in advance - it all gets a bit silly.

It's just a warm-up for the SH teams - we should have a bit more of a Barbarians attitude to it all. Make it more fun. And include France and Italy, so it makes more sense, geopolitically.

haha nice one rodders.

if they do not win this series they can throw the hat at it to be honest

Australia have had a terrible year but if they get their players back they are a good side and will have a better backline thats for sure.

DOD wrote:

SecretFly wrote:It (the Lions) also means perpetuating the lovely European habit of losing...!

If you mean the British Isles habit of losing...dont think Les Grenouilles would agree with that...

You call it the British Isles if you want to DOD.. I'll call them Welsh, Scottish, Irish and English. But yes, the French might object to the Euopean bit of my comment ... not by much, mind you! - as for all the gifted elan and reputation, they're still beneath the big three SHers in winning percentages.

disneychilly wrote:Love the Lions. Love how mental the French are.

Solution: Watch both series. They'll both be crackers.

I wonder would many be in favour of letting the French and Italians join in the Lions fun?

Gibson made the analogy last week with the previously p!ss poor British Isles Ryder Cup team losing all the time to USA. Then it became Europe v USA and the Europeans started to become dominant.

The British and Irish Lions have lost three series in a row. The European Lions might be more successful. And they might attract a lot of attention in 2nd tier euro nations like Portugal, Georgia etc. because of the name "European Lions"

I'd love to see the Italians and particularly the French involved. It would really spice things up a bit. Anyone agree?

Yep. As suggested above.

I have a feeling the French wouldnt be that interested. but you never know.

just imagine if next time the Lions are in OZ if we get a good old fashioned Springboks tour of NZ (or NZ in South Africa). Just the thought of it makes you jizz your pants

red_stag wrote:I have a feeling the French wouldnt be that interested. but you never know.

Possibly true stag. Wouldn't surprise me. But we won't know unless we ask them. They might like the idea. Do you think it would be good to have them on board?

dallym wrote:just imagine if next time the Lions are in OZ if we get a good old fashioned Springboks tour of NZ (or NZ in South Africa). Just the thought of it makes you jizz your pants

That would certainly be a treat.

Feckless Rogue wrote:

red_stag wrote:I have a feeling the French wouldnt be that interested. but you never know.

Possibly true sta g. Wouldn't surprise me. But we won't know unless we ask them. They might like the idea. Do you think it would be good to have them on board?

I dont think it would be as groundbreaking as others suggest. Could be ok.

Which French players do you think the Lions would take? Dusatoir would be the first in my opinion but it's hard to accommodate all the players for the British Lions (and Ireland if you so desire). Would there be political motivation to include more French players because they are being included? Many nations feel miffed as it is with each selection. Adding France to the equation would only make that much worse.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Which French players do you think the Lions would take? Dusatoir would be the first in my opinion but it's hard to accommodate all the players for the British Lions (and Ireland if you so desire). Would there be political motivation to include more French players because they are being included? Many nations feel miffed as it is with each selection. Adding France to the equation would only make that much worse.

Rules would have to be minimum of 2 players from each nation in the starting XV. This would be brilliant. And fun in deciding where to put the second Italian.

Another consideration you have is that English is the language for the British and Irish players but if you include French and Italian players then you might have communication problems. It happens with the Barbarians but motivating the Lions when talking about the pride of the shirt or swearing just get the **** out there and ****ing smash those ****ing ****s might not be motivating for all.

DOD wrote:hmm....not a very hard one to chose in terms of which will be more interesting.

Exactly as I said in another thread DOD, NZ v France is the worlds top rivalry at the moment

red_stag wrote:I dont understand people who give out about the Lions. Feicing eejits the lot of them.

The majoirty of fans love it, it is profitable for everyone concerned and it provides variety and an occasion to break up the waits between RWCs like the Euro Championships do in soccer.

So if you're not into the Lions you're an idiot? That's a rather ridiculous statement isn't it? I don't really have much interest in the Lions, does that make me an idiot. Next it'll be "anyone who doesn't like the Lions knows nothing about rugby".

I've always felt that the Lions were the team for the ultimate fair weather fan. They come with a built in insurance policy.

If they're winning, a lot of part time rugby fans use it as a tub thumping opportunity and big up the domestic players they feel "contributed most".

When they lose it's inevitably blamed on politics, disharmony and selection of too few of the domestic players fans of the pertinent country believe would have contributed more...

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Which French players do you think the Lions would take? Dusatoir would be the first in my opinion but it's hard to accommodate all the players for the British Lions (and Ireland if you so desire). Would there be political motivation to include more French players because they are being included? Many nations feel miffed as it is with each selection. Adding France to the equation would only make that much worse.

What do mean by "British Lions (and ireland if you so desire)".

There is no team called the British Lions.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Which French players do you think the Lions would take? Dusatoir would be the first in my opinion but it's hard to accommodate all the players for the British Lions (and Ireland if you so desire). Would there be political motivation to include more French players because they are being included? Many nations feel miffed as it is with each selection. Adding France to the equation would only make that much worse.

What do mean by "British Lions (and ireland if you so desire)".

There is no team called the British Lions.

+1

Well quite but it was shorter than listing every nation. My apologies. So I'll just write the Lions (and France and Italy if you so desire) in future.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Well quite but it was shorter than listing every nation. My apologies. So I'll just write the Lions (and France and Italy if you so desire) in future.

Wait a minute, you do know that Ireland is not apart of Britian dont you?

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Well quite but it was shorter than listing every nation. My apologies. So I'll just write the Lions (and France and Italy if you so desire) in future.

Wait a minute, you do know that Ireland is not apart of Britian dont you?

No, and nor do most kiwis. It comes from being trapped alive on an island in the south seas a million miles from anywhere. What's even worse is they have the Aussies for reference. Think sheep flatback trucks and Cath and Kim

DOD wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Well quite but it was shorter than listing every nation. My apologies. So I'll just write the Lions (and France and Italy if you so desire) in future.

Wait a minute, you do know that Ireland is not apart of Britian dont you?

No, and nor do most kiwis. It comes from being trapped alive on an island in the south seas a million miles from anywhere. What's even worse is they have the Aussies for reference. Think sheep flatback trucks and Cath and Kim

Aussies are worse for it. One aussie journalist went on tv and started complaining that we didnt compete for GB in the olympics.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

DOD wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Well quite but it was shorter than listing every nation. My apologies. So I'll just write the Lions (and France and Italy if you so desire) in future.

Wait a minute, you do know that Ireland is not apart of Britian dont you?

No, and nor do most kiwis. It comes from being trapped alive on an island in the south seas a million miles from anywhere. What's even worse is they have the Aussies for reference. Think sheep flatback trucks and Cath and Kim

Aussies are worse for it. One aussie journalist went on tv and started complaining that we didnt compete for GB in the olympics.

Its the heat. But then again have you ever heard of an Aussie accused of being brainy..

DOD wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

DOD wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Well quite but it was shorter than listing every nation. My apologies. So I'll just write the Lions (and France and Italy if you so desire) in future.

Wait a minute, you do know that Ireland is not apart of Britian dont you?

No, and nor do most kiwis. It comes from being trapped alive on an island in the south seas a million miles from anywhere. What's even worse is they have the Aussies for reference. Think sheep flatback trucks and Cath and Kim

Aussies are worse for it. One aussie journalist went on tv and started complaining that we didnt compete for GB in the olympics.

Its the heat. But then again have you ever heard of an Aussie accused of being brainy..

I actually haven't.

I dont think they even realise there is a union jack in their flag.

Feckless Rogue wrote:I wonder would many be in favour of letting the French and Italians join in the Lions fun?

Gibson made the analogy last week with the previously p!ss poor British Isles Ryder Cup team losing all the time to USA. Then it became Europe v USA and the Europeans started to become dominant.

The British and Irish Lions have lost three series in a row. The European Lions might be more successful. And they might attract a lot of attention in 2nd tier euro nations like Portugal, Georgia etc. because of the name "European Lions"

I'd love to see the Italians and particularly the French involved. It would really spice things up a bit. Anyone agree?

The British and Irish Lions is a great tradition that I love to be honest and wouldn't change it for the world. For me it is a huge deal and always has been.

The reason the Ryder Cup team was changed to inlcude all of Europe was not only because of results but because of the difference in the sizes of the populations (over 300m to about 60m or so). Therefore it made more sense to change it.

IMO it would be silly to have Europe versus one nation (SA, Aus or NZ) when comparing population sizes. If you want to have a European team then have them play a combined NZ, SA & Aus team or just have NH v SH. This is something I would enjoy watching, but it would be closer (at first anyway) to the level of the Barbarians in terms of how I perceive it. The Lions for me though is way more important than the likes of the Barbarians. For me the Lions is something that is almost as close to my heart as Ireland in the way it makes me feel when we play. Not quite equal but close enough to be very important to me. I feicin love it

I know that Ireland is not a part of Britain unless you count Northern Ireland. I have heard NH posters say the British Lions and Irish posters get their knickers in a twist so ignorance is everywhere.

Besides, I think if we spank you 60 - 0 then the very least is to know where the the Irish got off from the flight back home and hid behind rocks and where they were located.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I know that Ireland is not a part of Britain unless you count Northern Ireland. I have heard NH posters say the British Lions and Irish posters get their knickers in a twist so ignorance is everywhere.

Besides, I think if we spank you 60 - 0 then the very least is to know where the the Irish got off from the flight back home and hid behind rocks and where they were located.

You tried really hard to fit the 60-0 in somewhere didnt you. It took you a while but you eventually came up with a bad joke to get it in,well done.

Oh and Northern Ireland isnt apart of britian its apart of the UK.

disneychilly wrote:Love the Lions. Love how mental the French are.

Solution: Watch both series. They'll both be crackers.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Oh and Northern Ireland isnt apart of britian its apart of the UK.

Thanks for the complex lesson in geography and politics! Now please stop saying New Zealand poaches Samoans or we'll be forced to explain that relationship to you in a faux-offended and patronising manner too.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Oh and Northern Ireland isnt apart of britian its apart of the UK.

Thanks for the complex lesson in geography and politics! Now please stop saying New Zealand poaches Samoans or we'll be forced to explain that relationship to you in a faux-offended and patronising manner too.

What? When did I say that?

Sorry?! Who were you talking to?

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Oh and Northern Ireland isnt apart of britian its apart of the UK.

Northern Ireland is apart from Britain; it's not apart from the UK.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Oh and Northern Ireland isnt apart of britian its apart of the UK.

Thanks for the complex lesson in geography and politics! Now please stop saying New Zealand poaches Samoans or we'll be forced to explain that relationship to you in a faux-offended and patronising manner too.

What? When did I say that?

I'm assuming AWOP is taking your Northern Ireland quote as if it's directed at every Kiwi that ever lived (which means him too, after all he does speak for all NZders apparently - see bold above) and he is also assuming that all talk of NZ poaching Pacific Islanders on these boards came directly or indirectly from you Leinsterfan4Life/Europe/NH - you are all one and the same after all. Gawd it is difficult having to deal with this bile at times (although I usually ignore it), but do keep it up AWOP, it is entertaining once in a while at the end of the day

There are awful generalisations made on these sites...like Kiwis and sheep, or the requirement of a referee's help to win the world cup etc..none of which are TRUE of course

I don't think I'd feel as as strong an affinity with a European All Star team.

It hasn't really been a question of the Lions being outclassed except against New Zealand. 1983 and 2005 were equally poor although Woodward's tour is fresher in the mind, and more heavily documented. 1993 felt bad because of the midweek failures, but the Test series was a controversial penalty away from being a different result.

Against Australia, there's a win and The One That Got Away. England had the beating of Australia in 2001 but an England-rich Lions couldn't close the deal.

Against South Africa, there's a win and one of the best rugby confrontations of the professional era in 2009.

Practically speaking, a Six Nations team wouldn't really be on the agenda without a major change to the calendar, probably a move to a global season. As it stands, the last French title match clashes with the first Lions match this year. If we did make that move, Lions tours might not even be part of the new world order.

Financially, it doesn't make a lot of sense either. Add two unions, and Lions revenue would need to be split six ways instead of four. You'd need to take over 50% more than current deals are worth just to stand still.

Sport is only there as entertainment, taken to the extreme. The Lions tour is in many fans eyes the pinnacle of rugby entertainment.

How can that be wrong/useless/stupid?