Shane Williams gets Lions call up (this is not a joke)

The Saint wrote:A retired Shane is still better than Chris Ashton, this proves it .

A retired Shane is still better than any of them

Breadvan wrote:It sort of makes sense. SW is aleady out there, fit and still playing rugby.He'll do a job. Suprised if he remians with the squad for the remainder but you never know....

I wonder if there's a rugby forum version of godwins law? Any subject online will eventually turn into a tirade against chris Ashton...

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Breadvan wrote:It sort of makes sense. SW is aleady out there, fit and still playing rugby.He'll do a job. Suprised if he remians with the squad for the remainder but you never know....

I wonder if there's a rugby forum version of godwins law? Any subject online will eventually turn into a tirade against chris Ashton...

Make it a "tirade against Chris Ashton/Owen Farrell/Sean Maitland/Sam Warbuton's knee/Gavin Henson/Wayne Barnes" and you're probably right

The Great Aukster wrote:

Scarpia wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:
This opportunity should have been used to give a potential future tourist valuable experience that would have stood them in good stead for the future rather than the aggrandisement of a retired has-been.

And exactly how much valuable experience would a player get by jetting in Monday, playing Tuesday and jetting off again on Wednesday?

Some would consider being kitted out in a Lions shirt as an honour and valuable experience - however brief.

SecretFly wrote:If players need resting before tests (and I'm not saying they don't) - but if they do, why have the extra games at all and just have a three test tour against a bunch of players who are also only going to have three tests.

If players can come in a week before the first test, play a game and then perhaps be seen to have done more than enough to actually stick around for one of the later tests (and Williams very well could!), then I don't really see the point in all this publicity about needing all the little games to work on combinations and separate the men from the boys.

None of these Lions boys are boys, they don't need the extra games in the first place, they don't need the extra risks of getting injured or exhausted before the true games of meaning actually happen.

I know it's tradition but increasingly in this professional world - when the back-ups can fly in at a moment's notice - the long tour idea is becoming less valid.

Scarpia wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Scarpia wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:
This opportunity should have been used to give a potential future tourist valuable experience that would have stood them in good stead for the future rather than the aggrandisement of a retired has-been.

And exactly how much valuable experience would a player get by jetting in Monday, playing Tuesday and jetting off again on Wednesday?

Some would consider being kitted out in a Lions shirt as an honour and valuable experience - however brief.

It would be An experience.  Rather than experience

The Great Aukster wrote:

Scarpia wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Scarpia wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:
This opportunity should have been used to give a potential future tourist valuable experience that would have stood them in good stead for the future rather than the aggrandisement of a retired has-been.

And exactly how much valuable experience would a player get by jetting in Monday, playing Tuesday and jetting off again on Wednesday?

Some would consider being kitted out in a Lions shirt as an honour and valuable experience - however brief.

It would be An experience.  Rather than experience

There's a difference?  

pioden gorllewin wrote:

SecretFly wrote:If players need resting before tests (and I'm not saying they don't) - but if they do, why have the extra games at all and just have a three test tour against a bunch of players who are also only going to have three tests.

If players can come in a week before the first test, play a game and then perhaps be seen to have done more than enough to actually stick around for one of the later tests (and Williams very well could!), then I don't really see the point in all this publicity about needing all the little games to work on combinations and separate the men from the boys.

None of these Lions boys are boys, they don't need the extra games in the first place, they don't need the extra risks of getting injured or exhausted before the true games of meaning actually happen.

I know it's tradition but increasingly in this professional world - when the back-ups can fly in at a moment's notice - the long tour idea is becoming less valid.

Agreed totally with the last bit. Personally all these call ups has taken away the excitement of listening to the initial squad being announced. My earliest memory of a lions tour was Australia 1989.....prior to that I can't comment how many replacements had been called up on a lions tour. But this tour stands out as replacements are being called up to allow other tourist rest periods rather than covering injuries. to me that's not in keeping with the lions tradition. I personally think (i'll put my tin helmet on how) there should be a limit on the number of replacements you can call up on a lions tour.....possibly only 2-3 players. would mean WG would have to think carefully before calling anyone up.