The Lions should be played as close to after the RWC as possible!

I am not a fan of the lions- but I know you lot are.. however my concerns with the lions wouldnt be so bad if we got the matches out the way straight after the RWC, rather than sticking them a year or two before RWC's which gives the opposition SH team a top workout yet doesnt do anything for our individual national sides- i have no idea how the lions helps us and i have a feeling it actually hurts our teams!

thoughts peops!

100% agree with you Mysti.............

The Lions should have ended with the Amateur era IMO...............as it stands, elite international players are only available to their clubs 50% of the time (if that, given injury).

While i love to see a Lions Test game, i think it hurts the game overall........

As a possible siolution, cut it to 2 tests with zero build up games etc.........have a squad of 25 players go over on a Monday, and play 2 tests on the next 2 Saturdays........................

Not a massive fan of the Lions. Don't really see the point. Would prefer if the Lions were a combined second team for the home nations. they could tour the PIs etc. Spread the wealth a little.

Couldnt care less about clubs missing players to be honest. International rugby is and should always be more important than club rugby. Club rugby should serve to prop up the International game not the other way round as that is a recipe for disaster.

Lions tours tend to consistently produce the most exciting rugby every four year cycle.

As for the effects to national teams, I dont think that in terms of injuries there is any significant difference to a normal national tour. In terms of development the involved nations may take a hit but I think once every four years really doesnt make a huge difference.

Most fans of both hemispheres love the Lions and importantly so do the vast majority of players, who still consider it the pinnacle of their careers.

The last tour showed how it can be done well in the prop era. Long may it continue.

I must say I agree with most of the comments above. The Lions were a great way to tackle the Southern Hemisphere giants in the amateur era, it has no place in the current game.
I realise it presents the only opportunity for some players to beat the SH sides, but should it be kept going just to appease the odd Welsh player?

not sure if it hurts them.

ENG will travel to ARG this summer with a largely junior side and will give these players vital experience.

In 01 when the lions toured ENG took players like Martin Corry, Steve Thompson and Lewis Moody on their 01 alternative tour and the exposure proved invaluable according to SCW.

If the lions tour hadn't gone ahead, those guys will not have had the opportunity to make their case.

For me the Lions still epitomises what rugby used to be. A sport close to the fans as the players were just like you and me... its a throw back to our old amateur days (for those of us old enough to remember them).

The one thing I get miffed at is how outside of the tests the games are now completely one sided. Its worthless for the lions to go to SA and put 50 points on 3rd division players.
In the old days they used to play the very best players available. In 09 PDV withheld near 40 of the country's top players and the provincial sides were weaker than a standard Currie Cup match (SA 2nd division).

Now they top test players are withheld from the provincial sides and the matches become borefests and its near impossible for the players to develop together as a unit.

Havin been lucky enough to go to SA and NZ and finishing the cycle off with a trip to Oz next year I think the Lions are as good now as they ever were in the amateur era.

I have aslo been lucky enough to speak to players from the pro and amateur era and they love ot and wouldn't change it for anything.

For it to continue though it has to be competitive.

No point having a tour when they just get spanked by the opposition every tour. The odds are already against them given we throw together the worst of enemies into 1 side and try and make them into a world class unit in 6 weeks.

The last 2 tours have proved that the provincal games are not of high enough quality for the coaches to properly access who and who shouldn't be in the test side.
1 or 2 big games are not enough pre first test... every game needs to be a competition. If not the coaches will have a very tough task ahead.

I agree the tours should be longer but that won't happen in the pro era but of late its only been 05 where they were spanked, 01 and 09 were very close tours.

Ok I respect the lions lovers opinions- your clearly massive fans of the game and the history- and love the jolly- i just want to limit any impact it would have on our seperate teams- which lets be honest is the no.1 focus!

Mystir, You are right.

I fail to see how the Lions actually helps any of the Participating countries.

The other side of this issue is that, The SH countries have busy enough playing programmes as it is, adding the Lions is just another test series that has to be played, Are we trying to kill the top players in the game?

Being from a host country to the Lions. I must also say I have seen a lot of robust Lions supporters having the absolute time of their lives.

The lions is equally close to both world cups either side of it. Two for the price of one!

Not helping eh?

Moving the Lions to a year earlier in the world cup cycle would just make that season an absolute nightmare in fatigue and injury terms. They'd have a four month world cup period, a club season and then a Lions tour. It's currently sitting in the best space for it.

On the competitiveness question - they've been unlucky in that three of the last four tours have been against reigning world champions, with 2005 being the exception (and that was against a great All Blacks side). What's more, they came almost as close as is possible to beating South Africa last time.

I never understand people who don't get excited by the Lions, but then again it's not something I have any particular rational arguments in favour of. It's just one of my favourite things in sport.

GunsGerms wrote:Couldnt care less about clubs missing players to be honest. International rugby is and should always be more important than club rugby. Club rugby should serve to prop up the International game not the other way round as that is a recipe for disaster.

Lions tours tend to consistently produce the most exciting rugby every four year cycle.

As for the effects to national teams, I dont think that in terms of injuries there is any significant difference to a normal national tour. In terms of development the involved nations may take a hit but I think once every four years really doesnt make a huge difference.

....this man is correct.

International rugby is the pinnacle, and the Lions concept completely unique in sport. In my view, any collateral damage caused to the participant nations and clubs is a small price to pay for the prestige, tradition and downright entertainment that the Lions uphold (05 accepted ). AIs and 6Ns undoubtedly disrupt club rugby.....shall we get rid of them?

i find "international rugby the pinnacle" and collertaral damge to nations- very conflicting..

Are you suggesting that the lions is the pinnacle then?- that isnt really international rugby- i mean it is- but doesnt/cant even have test status for obvious reasons!

I am arguing that international rugby is the pinnacle..

The Lions is international rugby....test status? Who cares about that? Scoring the winning try (e.g) in a Lions series has to be up there with anything that any player from the participant nations could ever achieve in their career?

I mean, I wouldn't necessarily put it above winning a WC with your country, for example, but Lions series are on the same level, no?

No the lions are not on the same level for me, infact being honest I couldnt care less- I have no problem with others that do though- but i certainly dont.

this is a team game Adam, indiviudal efforts are pointless unless the teams win. so i dont buy that it matters if scoring a try for the lions is the pinncle to a player or not. personally i cant see that being the case for most anyway!

and any fan from england,ireland,wales or scotland would take 1 RWC over the next 50 lions wins!

mystiroakey wrote:
Are you suggesting that the lions is the pinnacle then?- that isnt really international rugby- i mean it is- but doesnt/cant even have test status for obvious reasons!

Actually the Lions does have test status.

The Lions games have Test status but should they? The Lions are a collections of individuals who haven't played together against battle hardened Test nations. In a team sport how is that much of a test?

Fair enough if the squad gets say maybe a dozen games together the way they used to, then maybe when they face the host nation, it can be described as a Test match, but that's not going to happen.

The paucity of games now undermine the real Lions traditions and cannot be equated with those legendary tours as anything approaching "Test" rugby.

So Mystiroakey, you are right to suggest a way that will minimise the damage to real Test rugby, even if it is at the expense of the marketing hologram that the Lions has become.

Sorry when i used the term test status i assumed that test basically meant IRB rankings qualifying.

which obviously the lions isnt.

I'm a total sucker for the entire Lions ethos. I look forward to it every time, despite Scotland not having much representation.

Tell you what, all you weird Irish dudes who put province before country, you can leave the likes of Kearney, O'Connel, Best, Healy, SOB, Heaslip, Ferris et al behind to play for Leinster, Munster and Ulster and let some of my club's players from Edinburgh go on the tour to represent the whole of the UK & Ireland and attain the highest honour an Irishman, Scotsman, Englishman and Welshman can achieve in their careers.

The Lions is also a great coming together of the 4 nations to see how things are done in the other home nations countries, most players come back having learned a lot more about rugby and being a part of a very unique team.

Long may the Lions tour continue.

It is an anachronistic throwback to amateur times - but its still great

When Ireland and Scotland weren't included in the selection for the Lions did those teams still represent the whole of GB and Ireland?

The variable geographical region the team has represented has no meaning outside of rugby circles and selection for the team is often as much about political correctness and marketing impact as rugby ability. Therefore it is hard to see how playing for the Lions is (or should be) considered to be the highest honour a player can achieve, when for everyone else in the world that status is reserved for when they play for their country.

Someone who never got a Lions cap cannot consider they haven't achieved the highest honour when it can come down to a fitness lottery once every four years. Unlucky yes, unfair certainly.

The games should no longer be considered Test quality, neither should statisticians include mythical Lion's caps in a player's Test quota.

The Great Aukster wrote:When Ireland and Scotland weren't included in the selection for the Lions did those teams still represent the whole of GB and Ireland?

The variable geographical region the team has represented has no meaning outside of rugby circles and selection for the team is often as much about political correctness and marketing impact as rugby ability. Therefore it is hard to see how playing for the Lions is (or should be) considered to be the highest honour a player can achieve, when for everyone else in the world that status is reserved for when they play for their country.

Someone who never got a Lions cap cannot consider they haven't achieved the highest honour when it can come down to a fitness lottery once every four years. Unlucky yes, unfair certainly.The games should no longer be considered Test quality, neither should statisticians include mythical Lion's caps in a player's Test quota.

Same goes for the RWC then?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Same goes for the RWC then?

The highest honour is representing one's country, what does it matter whether it happens to coincide with a World Cup or not?

The Great Aukster wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Same goes for the RWC then?

The highest honour is representing one's country, what does it matter whether it happens to coincide with a World Cup or not?

Surely the pinicale would be playing in the RWC, what if you get injured, like you said might happen during Lions time?

It's up to the players to decide what they believe is the highest honour. Many former players regard their Lions experience as a pinnacle and I'm not going to tell them they should feel otherwise. It doesn't show any disrespect for their individual national teams to say so.

Jonny Wilkinson has a World Cup winners medal but he sees the Lions as an equal challenge. Here he is talking about whether he would consider responding to Gatland's call next year:

There’s no way I could say no...In terms of what that represents, everything about it, it’s enormous – such a fabulous thing... In 2001, I sat in the changing-room after the third Test and it felt like a World Cup Final loss. As disappointments go, it was up there, definitely...

...So much had gone into getting to a position of having a shot at it. It’s like trying to run a marathon, getting to the 25th mile and someone saying, “That’s it”. To complete one you need to go right back to the start, knowing how hard the 25 miles were and knowing you could fall after 10 miles next time, like we did in 2005...

Effervescing Elephant wrote:Not a massive fan of the Lions. Don't really see the point. Would prefer if the Lions were a combined second team for the home nations. they could tour the PIs etc. Spread the wealth a little.

hmm not a bad idea, smae the home unions can't get their 2nd teams together and tour as a group taking on tier 2&3 regions under a single name/cup

but I do like the lions, its unique and is still the pinnacle in terms of scratch building the best the UK has to offer and getting the Home Nation fans together.

Couldnt care less about clubs missing players to be honest. International rugby is and should always be more important than club rugby. Club rugby should serve to prop up the International game not the other way round as that is a recipe for disaster.

GunsGerms whilst I still think the Lions are a valid concept I could not disagree with a statement more than yours.

Yes the Internationals are the media showpieces, but club rugby is more important, without it you could not have internationals.

A Union that solely promotes the international game above the club game and ignores the grass roots is just looking for future problems.

Correct without club there is no international. Club fans are the true fans and what make this game.

Lions - I accept people like it, and it's a touring party for players and fans. I personally find it a vapid, surprising divisive, sour little show where National loyalties are barely disguised under the so shallow cloak of 'unity'. But let it continue if those involved want it so.

On the point about International v club though. Without International... you have the level down players playing eternal level down rugby. Which is fine if we're all happy with level down rugby. Level down rugby is fine as a competitive sport in its own right as equal sides of equal skill will always be involving games for the fans - but it isn't necessarily great rugby.

True fans love rugby played at its best. Players play hard in their leagues in the hope that they'll get chosen for International. International is the universally declared 'level up' standard of rugby that club rugby can't always mimic (Irish players constantly get told just coz you are good in HEC doesn't mean you have the ability to step up)

So players crave the step up, want to be in that 'league' - International. It's why we have so many roving players now looking for countries to settle down into so that they can have a shot at International - not because they love the clubs/regions/Provinces they've landed in.