Can we now support the Lions...

... instead of this constant bickering...

The squad has been picked. It is inevitable that reserves will be called up. The major sponsors will want to harvest the media (ie. the "convict" ship ad, which was Sky and HSBC's doing not Gatland's as been suggested...).

Isn't now time to pull behind the Lions as a collective, in the name of British & Irish rugby, and stop trying to pull it apart with titter-tatter.

Tell you what.....

I'll keep an eye out for the score whilst concentrating on Scotland's tour in SA.

How's that?

I support England, but that's never stopped me taking issue with England selections and tactics. Wallaby supporters also seem quite happy to lay into Robbie Deans.

I'll be supporting the Lions all through the series but I don't know why the squad and coaches should have to be untouchable. I didn't enjoy seeing these comments during 2005, however the individuals had every right to make them:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/international/4626343.stm

Some, JPR Williams in particular, didn't even wait for the result of the first Test:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/jun/20/lions2005.rugbyunion4

Rugby Fan wrote:I support England, but that's never stopped me taking issue with England selections and tactics. Wallaby supporters also seem quite happy to lay into Robbie Deans.

I'll be supporting the Lions all through the series but I don't know why the squad and coaches should have be untouchable. I didn't enjoy seeing these comments during 2005, however the individuals had every right to make them:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/international/4626343.stm

Some, JPR Williams in particular, didn't even wait for the result of the first Test:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/jun/20/lions2005.rugbyunion4

What you say may be true, but in hindsight they where spot on re Sir Woodentop's "coaching" of the 2005 Lions wasn't they...

Best prepared Lions Tour, what a laugh..... best ever party for Woodentop"s golden boys more like.

I support the lions thru and thru - but that does not mean I wont discuss selection and tactics

SirBiggles, I don't think it supports your call to "pull behind the Lions as a collective" if you are happy to celebrate an occasion when people did precisely the opposite.

Fan, did I say that... No. I said in hindsight the 2005 Lions Tour was a made into a joke, thanks to Sir Clive and his media frenzy and poor selection. I did put my support behind the Lions before they toured and right up to the final game. My comment is post tour when we can all see what a disastour it was.

I have no problem with any citiscm of selections. My point of support is be constructive, and not simply pull apart because your guys are not picked. The later is like the "boy taking his ball home because he doesnt get his own way".

I don't really mind who wins the series. Just hoping for some good games.

My Favourite quote following the record defeats:

"It's actually been a successful tour, it has been great experience"
Sir Clive Woodward (2005)

You've got to hand it to the guy

sirBiggles wrote:... instead of this constant bickering...

(ie. the "convict" ship ad, which was Sky and HSBC's doing not Gatland's as been suggested...).

I believe it is a reference to Captain Cook not a convict ship.

VictorU3 wrote:

sirBiggles wrote:... instead of this constant bickering...

(ie. the "convict" ship ad, which was Sky and HSBC's doing not Gatland's as been suggested...).

I believe it is a reference to Captain Cook not a convict ship.

Must be honest I didn't think of a convict ship either.

I went for No. 5 of course.

It looks like the Bounty replica to me.
The limes (or unripe lemons) were from Rio or Capetown I believe. Amazing to think there was such a simple cure for scurvy.

Rugby Fan wrote:SirBiggles, I don't think it supports your call to "pull behind the Lions as a collective" if you are happy to celebrate an occasion when people did precisely the opposite.

+1 !

Linebreaker wrote:I went for No. 5 of course.

It looks like the Bounty replica to me.

Are you implying there may be a mutiny on tour?

Nah, no French

Who are those sad 6 people (as it stands) who took option 8?

There was no "I'm not British or Irish or Australian and am neutral" option

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

VictorU3 wrote:

sirBiggles wrote:... instead of this constant bickering...

(ie. the "convict" ship ad, which was Sky and HSBC's doing not Gatland's as been suggested...).

I believe it is a reference to Captain Cook not a convict ship.

Must be honest I didn't think of a convict ship either.

come on guys, you lot are so naive, this is pure gatland....of course it doesn't say HMS PRISON HULK on the bow but the inference is clear

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:There was no "I'm not British or Irish or Australian and am neutral" option

Then don't vote. I'm sure this poll/thread is meant to encourage people to put aside their national bias and support the Lions and also to discover whether people who do not like the selection can put that aside and get behind the team. I fervently believe that most people are already in that position or soon will be - but there seem to be some who have decided to be, to my mind, rather petty and childish in their decision to vote for option 8.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:There was no "I'm not British or Irish or Australian and am neutral" option

To me a valid point, and that would be a valid option.

Which would keep you out of this less than cheery bun-fight ! Can I pretend I'm neutral, I'm beginning to get a bit anxious

Surprised you haven't done a " devalued" Lions poll sir...

VictorU3 wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:I went for No. 5 of course.

It looks like the Bounty replica to me.

Are you implying there may be a mutiny on tour?

Hopefully.

Are the people that voted to support the Lions, but only when they get to their first game in OZ, saying that they would rather support the Barbarians than the Lions?

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Are the people that voted to support the Lions, but only when they get to their first game in OZ, saying that they would rather support the Barbarians than the Lions?

I think they're generalising about a mood rather than a distinct time and date on a calendar, laurie.

It's hard to define exactly when enthusiasm might kick-in for some (for others it might not kick-in at all). But around the time of games actually happening (maybe Barbarians, maybe not) will be the time when some slackers get emotionally involved.

If the Lions win the first game you'll find the enthusiasm and support levels going up. If they lose the next two you'll find that enthusiasm and support was never there and they'll let people know that. Lions support depends on results.

Personally I think the Lions will win the second game. That should be a big contrast between the I told you so brigade of the first week and the they finally listened to me brigade all of whom are the same people. Only to spectacularly disintegrate into tiny fractured pieces after the last match. But I'm hoping that's not the case as there really are other things in the world that deserve getting upset about.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:If the Lions win the first game you'll find the enthusiasm and support levels going up. If they lose the next two you'll find that enthusiasm and support was never there and they'll let people know that. Lions support depends on results.
Personally I think the Lions will win the second game. That should be a big contrast between the I told you so brigade of the first week and the they finally listened to me brigade all of whom are the same people. Only to spectacularly disintegrate into tiny fractured pieces after the last match. But I'm hoping that's not the case as there really are other things in the world that deserve getting upset about.

I actually think it is much, much, much more complicated than that, kia. Winning turns the tide? Emmmm.... no, much more complicated.

We'll see mate. Of course there are many other factors involved but just like fair weather supporters of one nation give up when the going gets tough so too do I think resentments build when results don't go the Lions way. A series win will not paper over the many cracks but it may well appear to do so is all I'm saying.

SecretFly wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Are the people that voted to support the Lions, but only when they get to their first game in OZ, saying that they would rather support the Barbarians than the Lions?

I think they're generalising about a mood rather than a distinct time and date on a calendar, laurie.

It's hard to define exactly when enthusiasm might kick-in for some (for others it might not kick-in at all). But around the time of games actually happening (maybe Barbarians, maybe not) will be the time when some slackers get emotionally involved.

Gee Fly, you guys are big on feeelings.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Are the people that voted to support the Lions, but only when they get to their first game in OZ, saying that they would rather support the Barbarians than the Lions?

I think they're generalising about a mood rather than a distinct time and date on a calendar, laurie.

It's hard to define exactly when enthusiasm might kick-in for some (for others it might not kick-in at all). But around the time of games actually happening (maybe Barbarians, maybe not) will be the time when some slackers get emotionally involved.

Gee Fly, you guys are big on feeelings.

Don't knock it till you try it. Joke but also fact. Try it and then see where the emotions go and how conflicted they can often be...in one game!. You just don't know how it all works until you live it.

aucklandlaurie wrote:


Gee Fly, you guys are big on feeelings.

BTW too...we don't have the serious war dance before every game with threatening gestures of necks being sliced

We'll stick to cold, clinical lack of emotions thanks. It's served us well.

Easiest poll for me ever, I love the Lions and the whole concept of it always have done.

I will join in with all the banter about who should and shouldn't have gone but ultimately I will support whatever team Gatland (or coaches in the past) put out.

I slated SCW selection in 05 as much as some have slated Gatlands selections now but I supported the whole lot of them to a man when the tour started.

sirBiggles wrote:...I have no problem with any citiscm of selections. My point of support is be constructive, and not simply pull apart because your guys are not picked...

How can you tell the difference? Was JPR Williams being constructive in 2005, or throwing his toys out of the pram because his preferred players weren't selected?

In a way, no criticism of the Lions can ever be constructive, because it is a one-off deal. If I berate Lancaster for choosing to play Brown on the wing for England instead of a specialist, I can hope for some validation if, in future games, someone like Wade is played and excels. Selection for clubs and national sides is an ongoing matter, but selection for the Lions is a full stop.

Only injury brings new players into the fold. However, with the occasional exception of someone like Martin Corry in 2001, or Ryan Jones in 2005, a late arrival has little chance to make an impact and change the balance of the Test team. For instance, if one of the hookers goes down, then Rory Best will surely be on a plane, but why would Warren Gatland suddenly prefer to play him in the Test side over the other two men he chose ahead of him?

In that sense, complaining that Best has not been selected is unconstructive. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't discuss Gatland's selections, only that we are very unlikely to ever have a chance to see what the alternatives might have achieved.

I hope the Lions put on such a performance that, even if they lose, we won't be reflecting on who should have toured instead. That's how 2009 ended. Unfortunately, because many of the decisions this year were so close, there will almost certainly be more grumbles if the Lions don't win. Let's hope they do.

I've no time for people who almost want to see the Lions fail just so they can say "I told you so". In Australia, there are many Wallaby fans who have wrestled over time with the dilemma of wanting their team to lose to get Robbie Deans sacked. In that case, though, the desired goal is to see another coach get a better performance from the team. One step back to go two steps forward, if you will. It doesn't work that way with the Lions.

That doesn't make the Lions sacred or untouchable. If you like rugby, then you've got strong opinions on players and how the game should be played. Not everyone will agree with you but you shouldn't have to keep them to yourself for fear of being branded disloyal or a whinger.

Rob Andrew wasn't originally selected in 89 but went on to play significant part in winning the series.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Rob Andrew wasn't originally selected in 89 but went on to play significant part in winning the series.

Like Corry, though, he was out very early. Paul Dean got injured in the first match. There was only one other specialist flyhalf in the group (Chalmers) so Andrew was also assured of game time. He was still second choice for the First Test, and only got promoted once McGeechan decided to ring the changes.

It's interesting that most of the players brought into the team for the second Test in 1989 had actually played the midweek game only a few days before.