Quota System for Future Lions Tours

Warren Gatland will formally suggest that a public debate occurs over a quota system for use on future British and Irish Lions Tours. Are you in favour of this or against it?

His motive in suggesting this is not exactly pure, it's more to do with him not being able to deal with the usual criticisms that pop up- but is it necessary?

Gatland wrote: “It’s worth debating and I think we should start it off. Do we need a minimum number of players from a country in the squad and then, when we are picking a Test side, does there need to be a minimum of one or two [from each country] in the starting XV?"

“I think I know what the answer will be with that, but, if we don’t raise it and debate it to get a consensus, then potentially we are going to end up with what we had recently on this tour.”

I would say with a coach who has strong ties to one specific national team like Gatland- yes, it absolutely is necessary. But by far the easiest way to resolve is surely to just pick a coach who hasn't worked as a coach of any NH team within the last two years before the tour. It's far too easy for a guy who is national coach of one of the home unions to just go and pick combinations from that team instead of doing what the Lions is meant to be about; experimenting, finding the best balance of all the home unions.

Although the British and Irish Lions are a team supposed to represent the English, Welsh, Irish and Scots, a quota system in any form is discriminatory in design.

We have a quota system in place in SA for obvious reasons and although I abhore any form of disrimination ours is about affording opportunities to a greater sum of our population for mainly development of the sport through every culture and sub part of our demographic society.

Not sure what the real benefit will be for the Lions though.

I think Gatland really belives he is going to be the Lions coach in 2019! Hopefully the board has a bit of sense.

The thing is if they want a successful NH coach (not necessarily British) to take charge then chances are that coach will be successful with one of the 6 Nation teams which means there will always be some sort of bias.

Should there be a quota no there shouldn't, the coach should be allowed to pick what players he thinks are the best to do the job.

Biltong wrote:Although the British and Irish Lions are a team supposed to represent the English, Welsh, Irish and Scots, a quota system in any form is discriminatory in design.

We have a quota system in place in SA for obvious reasons and although I abhore any form of disrimination ours is about affording opportunities to a greater sum of our population for mainly development of the sport through every culture and sub part of our demographic society.

Not sure what the real benefit will be for the Lions though.

I agree

In fact it's a perfect example, where do the lines get drawn if we start along this route? We can never drop certain players? Positive discrimination never works as by definition it puts one group at a disadvantage.

I don't care which team the players come from and even less so when they win.

Having been on 2 tours, most Lions fans put aside the petty jealousies in pursuit of the goal in hand, the sour grapes that come from some teams is just poor form, if they were better players they'd get picked.

I assume Gatland's comment is to field the criticism he has endured for winning a lions tour, no doubt because of his association with Wales who everyone in the NH is jealous of right now.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:I think Gatland really belives he is going to be the Lions coach in 2019! Hopefully the board has a bit of sense.

He'll have a very lonely tour if he is considering the next tour is in 2017, why wouldn't they select the only coach in 16yrs to deliver a tour win. Especially if Wales have a successful time in that period?

What about a quota system for coaches? Should the opportunity be given to coaches who are actually from one of the constituent countries?

Scratch wrote:

Biltong wrote:Although the British and Irish Lions are a team supposed to represent the English, Welsh, Irish and Scots, a quota system in any form is discriminatory in design.

We have a quota system in place in SA for obvious reasons and although I abhore any form of disrimination ours is about affording opportunities to a greater sum of our population for mainly development of the sport through every culture and sub part of our demographic society.

Not sure what the real benefit will be for the Lions though.

I agree

In fact it's a perfect example, where do the lines get drawn if we start along this route? We can never drop certain players? Positive discrimination never works as by definition it puts one group at a disadvantage.

I don't care which team the players come from and even less so when they win.

Having been on 2 tours, most Lions fans put aside the petty jealousies in pursuit of the goal in hand, the sour grapes that come from some teams is just poor form, if they were better players they'd get picked.

I assume Gatland's comment is to field the criticism he has endured for winning a lions tour, no doubt because of his association with Wales who everyone in the NH is jealous of right now.

Scratch,

I been lucky enough to go on 3 and loved everyone and didn't give a flying feck who played when they took the field. Yes we all had a bit of a moan especially in 05 but in the pubs and bars in NZ and OZ this year it was all in good fun and in Sydney everyone was just so glad to have seen a winning tour.

Wales will have to get a semi at RWC and win the 6 Nations twice before 2017 to be regarded as making progress…that and beating Aus once!
Problem Gats has is he has set himself very high standards by comparison with any other coach, while also courting controversy that few others seem to do. If England do well at RWC then i think Lancaster is a good choice, likewise the Irish fella.

Lets be honest if any of the coaches have successful 6 Nations and a WC they will be in with a shout.

If things go well for England then I wouldn't have a problem with Lancaster taking Lions to NZ i think he's very good coach and like what he is doing with England (just not to much).

I really hope we go with a different coach. Just feel like Gatland has had his shot, he was successful- good for him. I would really prefer us to move on. Right now, Stuart Lancaster is the front runner for me.

I didn't enjoy the tour and I think there are several reasons;

1) his willingness to come in with pre-conceived ideas about selection based on what works for Wales and not based on what works on tour.
2) His disregard for the warm-up and midweek matches, which after the first four or so games became pointless charades against overly weak opponents where cheap caps were handed out to the likes of Zebo, Wade, Shane Williams, Court etc. and the likes of Hogg were shoe-horned into roles that they were not suited to. Everything was geared towards the tests- it worked, but it also somewhat spoiled the tour.
3) His refusal to look to form on tour- players like Jamie Roberts and Tommy Bowe just walked back into the team despite missing most of it with injury. Thats not right.

I just didn't like the way he managed the tour and wouldn't be terribly interested in watching another Lions tour with him at the helm.

a quota would be ridiculous. elite competition and charity in team selection can't be reconciled.

i do think that a serving NH national team coach shouldnt be able to be picked. i reckon any other coach would have won the series 3-0 as there would have been none of the favouritism/team unease issues that obviously arose. look at how the lions did in 2009 against reigning world champions SA. should have won! was a truly team performance where the whole was far greater than the sum of the parts.

GloriousEmpire wrote:What about a quota system for coaches? Should the opportunity be given to coaches who are actually from one of the constituent countries?

Yes.  
And only from the constituent countries; B&I means B&I (last time I looked, that is).

Give the idea a go I say.
Problem with current Lions tours- every lions tour is by far the biggest moans are about the selection of players from countries not of your own- the BOD facade a screaming example of this. A successful Lions tour is the only occasion I have witnessed such pure and unrelenting hatred towards the winning coach and selected players- hence Gatlands recommendation.

He's offering it up because the fans can't cope with the concept. How sad...

For me Gatland got it badly wrong - as did Woodward by playing their favourites over the form players and I can see why this raised its head. too many scots have been robbed of their chances to be lions when lessor players have gone instead. See Jason White previously or Kelly Brown this time. One Scot got 10 mins of tests this time. By no rational judgement can that be merited. Not asking for a lot - but once again players missed their chance to be lions test players who should have been

Quotas would be bad but the coach must pick more fairly - the answer is a selection panel IMO

truth is no system will satisfy all- its by default a flawed concept.

No need for quotas. Yes there will be plenty of Welshmen on the next Lions tour, the coach is known to be quite fond of them after all.  But being a Kiwi, he is the ideal choice for a tour in New Zealand.  

He is also rumoured to be a bit pally with Joe Schmidt so the Irish players will have someone with the ear of the coach to ensure they get a fair chance of selection.  The English will have a decent representation, they always do and have too many good players not to, particularly in key front row positions. Finally, having just finished his two year stint in charge culminating in a 2016 Six Nations victory, Vern Cotter will make sure the Scots have their day.

Every tour has it's naysayers, the discarded fans of teams that are not represented due to their poor performance should just get behind the bloke who is given the almighty task of winning something for the UK and Ireland and bow to his inevitably better judgment than that of sour faced supporters. And when they win those fans should have the humility to say they were wrong. Of course gate would favor the Welsh, they are the best side in Europe and have just defended the 6 Nations. Had SCW been true to his word in 05 you would have seen more Welshmen then not 10 2003 RWC Englishmen past their prime. Every coach wants to win, never is the focus clearer, and he will do whatever he can to achieve that. SCW got it wrong relying on what he knew, Gatland did not.

So it begins ... the MMXVII LIONS discussion starts. A quota in the starting XV sounds extreme and also unfair for the opposition : do you go as far as assigning some specific positions to a specific country ? How do manage injuries?
Maybe as TJ pointed out, have a selection panel made out of each home union members deciding instead. That or a draw   

In order to be representative of the UK and Ireland we must have

1 sheep farmer

1 recipient of an ASBO

1 red head

1 muslim

1 West Ham supporter

1 Owner of a BMW Z3

1 606v2 member

7 Ex colonials now working in the city

1 dog groomer

7 immigrants qualified by time in UK

1 Tartan wearing bag pipe playing deep fried mars bar eating Irishman

Even the idea of a quota is daft in this context.

But I am not keen on a serving national coach leading the tour as it inevitably creates a conflict of interest and removes one of the unique features of the Lions. A national coach of any reasonably successful team can only really be expected to build around the players he knows and the gameplan he's established for that side - anything else would be suicidal for the day job. But that instantly kills the sense of creating a team from the best players and a gameplan to suit them. One of the glories of the Lions is that unexpected players and combinations emerge from the early tour games, but that never looked likely this year. The preferred starting test team was settled almost before the tour boarded the plane.

We have already started looking back on the 2013 Lions with rose-tinted spectacles but that is to forget that the performances in the first two tests were unconvincing and ultimately a bit of loose turf away from a 2-0 losing start to the series. The final test was stirring but the team that took the field only arose when Gatland's hand was forced by injury.

Thought experiment: what would Gatland's touring party to NZ look like if the next Lions tour started in January 2014? I am pretty sure it would still be heavily Welsh. But form from the AIs would suggest that a coach's best chance of beating the ABs could well be to start from an English pack and an Irish backline...

That said, one way or another he did win the series. So what do I know?

Perhaps Gatty is right, there does need to be a discussion on quotas. a team comprising 23 players may well require an equal quotion of 5.75 players...yes, definitely needs debate.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:I think Gatland really belives he is going to be the Lions coach in 2019! Hopefully the board has a bit of sense.

He'll have a very lonely tour if he is considering the next tour is in 2017, why wouldn't they select the only coach in 16yrs to deliver a tour win.  Especially if Wales have a successful time in that period?

Guess some think BOD will be ready by then, he'll be able to pick himself   

I think there should be a quota system for Lions threads. Just 400 a year. Otherwise it gets a bit too much.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I think there should be a quota system for Lions threads. Just 400 a year. Otherwise it gets a bit too much.

Shhhh or they'll start the very first Haka thread.

Just an opinion, but seeing that New Zealand is the next host of the Lions I would think the coach has to be someone who has beaten the all Blacks.

I think the necessary knowledge to beat the All Blacks will be handy.

Even if the coach is not a current coach of one of the home unions.

Biltong wrote:Just an opinion, but seeing that New Zealand is the next host of the Lions I would think the coach has to be someone who has beaten the all Blacks.

I think the necessary knowledge to beat the All Blacks will be handy.

Even if the coach is not a current coach of one of the home unions.

Step forward Sir Clive

Seriously though, fans complain about favourtism but if you bring in quotas there will be more arguments about who only got in because of these quotas.

I do think it shouldn't be a current coach of the Home Nations but, like the players, it should be the best guy for the job.

Gats gets too much criticism, but he's off the mark with this suggestion.

But even if the coach doesn't currently coach a Home Nations team he will be biased, or at least be perceived as biased, because of either his own nationality or his desire for a certain type of player. Coach A favours strength and power. Coach B favours skill and subtlety. Coach C would like a mix. The tours are too short now to develop a style of player around the players. The coach has to predetermine the style of play and make selections accordingly.

If Scotland become seperate for the Uk do we no longer need any token sweaties ?   

Or would it still be the British and Irish Lions as Scotland would technically still be part of the British Isles ?

Aweful idea.

What we should always do is pick the best XV for each match regardless.
What I would like to see is harder qualification requirements - no residency players qualify for example.

Flutey playing really suck in my throat - could not cheer him on.
He should not have been there

What we do need are coaches who select from each nation equally not the likes of Henry, Gatland (inspite of the success) and, utterly disgracefully, Woodward showing a clear bias to the nation they identify with.

I don’t think a quota system is the right move. I think that would make a coaches job very difficult, especially if one or two nations are having a particularly strong period whereas others are having a stinker.

What I think would be a sensible approach would be to have the coaching staff made up of coaches from each nation represented. When I say that, I don’t mean they have to necessarily be from B&I, but could be part of that national team’s coaching setup. That way there would be someone there to put forward the virtues of player ‘x’ from the country they represent. I think we saw this year that a lot of the players selected were known to the coaches and in some cases they were selected over potentially better players who were possibly unknown/less well known

geoff998rugby wrote:Aweful idea.

What we should always do is pick the best XV for each match regardless.
What I would like to see is harder qualification requirements - no residency players qualify for example.

Flutey playing really suck in my throat - could not cheer him on.
He should not have been there

What we do need are coaches who select from each nation equally not the likes of Henry, Gatland (inspite of the success) and, utterly disgracefully, Woodward showing a clear bias to the nation they identify with.

Same for Tuilagi and Falatau then? And Brent Cockbain in 2005?

geoff998rugby wrote:Aweful idea.

What we should always do is pick the best XV for each match regardless.
What I would like to see is harder qualification requirements - no residency players qualify for example.

Flutey playing really suck in my throat - could not cheer him on.
He should not have been there

What we do need are coaches who select from each nation equally not the likes of Henry, Gatland (inspite of the success) and, utterly disgracefully, Woodward showing a clear bias to the nation they identify with.

Totally agree Geoff. The fact that Gatland has even suggested this shows that after 2 tours he really has no clue what the Lions is about.

First and foremost it is about the best players going on tour and trying to win the series.

However a big part of the challenge is taking players from different nations and putting them together into a unified team which is better than any of the home nations teams - finding new combinations like Gibbs/Gusgott, BOD/Roberts - and producing a style of rugby beyond anything the individual teams are playing.

Gatland totally lacked the vision to do this - resorting to bolstering the Welsh side with a few players from Ireland and England, so although he got the series win many people feel short changed.

To some degree the weaknesses of Australia gave him the license to do this, there were probably half a dozen combinations which could have won that series but still it was a poor show from Gats, who obviously learnt nothing from McGeeghan in SA.

Quotas? Its sounding like South Africa now! And their quota system is pathetic aswell.

Pick the best players for gods sake. I have no issues it one team dominates IF that team has been way the better side.

I dont want players picked because they're favorites. Its quite a simple process.

rodders wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:Aweful idea.

What we should always do is pick the best XV for each match regardless.
What I would like to see is harder qualification requirements - no residency players qualify for example.

Flutey playing really suck in my throat - could not cheer him on.
He should not have been there

What we do need are coaches who select from each nation equally not the likes of Henry, Gatland (inspite of the success) and, utterly disgracefully, Woodward showing a clear bias to the nation they identify with.

Totally agree Geoff. The fact that Gatland has even suggested this shows that after 2 tours he really has no clue what the Lions is about.

First and foremost it is about the best players going on tour and trying to win the series.

However a big part of the challenge is taking players from different nations and putting them together into a unified team which is better than any of the home nations teams - finding new combinations like Gibbs/Gusgott, BOD/Roberts - and producing a style of rugby beyond anything the individual teams are playing.

Gatland totally lacked the vision to do this - resorting to bolstering the Welsh side with a few players from Ireland and England, so although he got the series win many people feel short changed.

To some degree the weaknesses of Australia gave him the license to do this, there were probably half a dozen combinations which could have won that series but still it was a poor show from Gats, who obviously learnt nothing from McGeeghan in SA.

How was McGeechan so good in 2009? For a start he got his selection badly wrong in the first test. He also took players who didn't really warrant selection (like Powell).

I really find it such a romantic view that professional sport is about anything other than winning. You just as well follow the Baabaa's religiously, if you want to see rugby played in a certain way. If the ethos of the Lions is not about winning nowadays, then they really are an outdated concept.

Didn't say McGeechan was good but he wasn't biased towards a particular nation and that is the point I was making

rodders wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:Aweful idea.

What we should always do is pick the best XV for each match regardless.
What I would like to see is harder qualification requirements - no residency players qualify for example.

Flutey playing really suck in my throat - could not cheer him on.
He should not have been there

What we do need are coaches who select from each nation equally not the likes of Henry, Gatland (inspite of the success) and, utterly disgracefully, Woodward showing a clear bias to the nation they identify with.

Totally agree Geoff. The fact that Gatland has even suggested this shows that after 2 tours he really has no clue what the Lions is about.

First and foremost it is about the best players going on tour and trying to win the series.

However a big part of the challenge is taking players from different nations and putting them together into a unified team which is better than any of the home nations teams - finding new combinations like Gibbs/Gusgott, BOD/Roberts - and producing a style of rugby beyond anything the individual teams are playing.

Gatland totally lacked the vision to do this - resorting to bolstering the Welsh side with a few players from Ireland and England, so although he got the series win many people feel short changed.

To some degree the weaknesses of Australia gave him the license to do this, there were probably half a dozen combinations which could have won that series but still it was a poor show from Gats, who obviously learnt nothing from McGeeghan in SA.

Rodders, I think you missed a trick here, Gatland suggested discussing it after the flak he got about his selections - it wasn't/isn't something that he actually wants

Rev the 2009 team played some of the best rugby ever by a B&I side against a very strong SA team, a world champion side full of legends like Matfield, Botha, Habana - they were incomparably better than this lot who made hard work against an inexperienced Australian side in disarray on and off the field.

Professional sport is about winning - but the Lions is an amateur concept so their needs to be a balance between winning and staying true to the underlying ethos and traditions which make the Lions unique - otherwise there is no point, just scrap it and give players the summer off.

The O'Driscoll incident was unfortunate...because the hype around it masked so many other poor calls from Gatland and his team- the lack of Scottish representation, leaving out Robshaw from the tour, not picking O'Brien, the nonsense with Wilkinson and subsequent misuse of Hogg as a 10, keeping Kearney on tour when injured, picking Bowe when injured, calling up Tom Court.... the list goes on.

Gatland was a Kurtley Beale penalty away from this being the biggest shambles in Lions history. A win is a win is a win but if there is any romance in the air its around the rose tinted idea that Gats did a great job and this was a good tour.

You boys will all be f*cking moaning when someone like Jamie Roberts is picked ahead of one of your centres just to make up the quota.

When you appoint someone to a job, you do so based on their track record. You see how they've operated in the past and what's brought them success. Wouldn't you be worried, not to say angry, if they then turned up on their first day and went about their businesss completely differently?

Andy Irvine and co knew what they were getting with Gatland.

rodders wrote:Rev the 2009 team played some of the best rugby ever by a B&I side against a very strong SA team, a world champion side full of legends like Matfield, Botha, Habana - they were incomparably better than this lot who made hard work against an inexperienced Australian side in disarray on and off the field.

100% agreed. The SA tour was a far better tour, more entertaining, better rugby, and the Lions also played much better.

rodders wrote:
Professional sport is about winning - but the Lions is an amateur concept so their needs to be a balance between winning and staying true to the underlying ethos and traditions which make the Lions unique - otherwise there is no point, just scrap it and give players the summer off.

The O'Driscoll incident was unfortunate...because the hype around it masked so many other poor calls from Gatland and his team- the lack of Scottish representation, leaving out Robshaw from the tour, not picking O'Brien, the nonsense with Wilkinson and subsequent misuse of Hogg as a 10, keeping Kearney on tour when injured, picking Bowe when injured, calling up Tom Court.... the list goes on.

Gatland was a Kurtley Beale penalty away from this being the biggest shambles in Lions history. A win is a win is a win but if there is any romance in the air its around the rose tinted idea that Gats did a great job and this was a good tour.

Again, spot on. People love to lean on the O'Driscoll decision as some sort of vindication for Gatland and proof of his genius when in reality it was completly meaningless yet it seems to have served to mask other failures on tour.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:When you appoint someone to a job, you do so based on their track record. You see how they've operated in the past and what's brought them success. Wouldn't you be worried, not to say angry, if they then turned up on their first day and went about their businesss completely differently?

Andy Irvine and co knew what they were getting with Gatland.

Well, exactly. And that's why we shouldn't have a serving national coach as Lions coach. Although given Gatland's track record against the SH teams, it mightn't have been unreasonable to expect him to change his approach somewhat and make the most of the personnel available to him.

It seems strange to attack someone for being appointed to a position and delivering what his employers wanted. If fans wanted him to deliver more, shouldn't they be asking questions of those that appointed him?

I'd love to see how some people on here would get together players from 4 different nations and invent a completely new gameplan in a very short space of time and win the series without a single mistake or niggle.

Could have a quota for the individual international sides too.....

E.g. has to be at least 1 Newcastle,London Irish,Worcester or Sale player each in the England 23...

For Ireland must pick at least 5 Connacht players in their squad.... For Wales must pick at least 5 Gwent Dragons in their squad....

I am not a big fan of quotas.

Pick the best players irrespective of where they come from. The difficulty comes when the best players aren't picked like arguably what happened with Gatland on the Lions tour.....

Generally picking players from one country might lead to more success because they should have more cohesiveness and understanding. E.g. in the Wales 2008 grandslam the bulk of the side came from Ospreys which helped significantly in my opinion.

munkian wrote:I'd love to see how some people on here would get together players from 4 different nations and invent a completely new gameplan in a very short space of time and win the series without a single mistake or niggle.

I'd have picked 13 Irish players, a tolken Scot and made Robshaw captain   .

munkian wrote:I'd love to see how some people on here would get together players from 4 different nations and invent a completely new gameplan in a very short space of time and win the series without a single mistake or niggle.

You can imagine the training sessions: "Okay, this is the gameplan. It's not one I'm familiar with and you might not be either, since they wanted something new; and I can't guarantee it'll work because I've never coached a side to play this way; but what the hell, we can wait another four years if it doesn't come off."

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

munkian wrote:I'd love to see how some people on here would get together players from 4 different nations and invent a completely new gameplan in a very short space of time and win the series without a single mistake or niggle.

You can imagine the training sessions: "Okay, this is the gameplan. It's not one I'm familiar with and you might not be either, since they wanted something new; and I can't guarantee it'll work because I've never coached a side to play this way; but what the hell, we can wait another four years if it doesn't come off."

Sounds a bit like 2009, far and away the best, most entertaining Lions tour of the professional era and given the strength of the opposition compared to 2013, arguably the most successful.

rodders wrote:

munkian wrote:I'd love to see how some people on here would get together players from 4 different nations and invent a completely new gameplan in a very short space of time and win the series without a single mistake or niggle.

I'd have picked 13 Irish players, a tolken Scot and made Robshaw captain   .

  But there is a serious point shown here. A couple of obvious decisions could have significantly changed the feel of the tour. Going with POC as skipper say (even if he would not have lasted). Taking either or both of Kelly Brown and Robshaw rather than, say, the off form Lydiate we got.

The injury thing is a big problem as well. I hope they have a major review on how they manage injuries on tour and in trying to carry on rehabilitation of players lacking full fitness coming on to the tour.

Some folk seem to be advocating that someone who doesn't know any of the squad should be in charge and would gel the squad into his own playing style.I would like a pint of what they are having!
Gats was the obvious choice,the bulk of his players from the repeat 6N's champions who were used to his tactics and coaching methods made perfect sense given the shortness of the tour.
We won because Gats was lucky some claim.I am with Napoleon on this one:give me a lucky general every time!
Back to back 6N's and a winning Lions Test Series,he really is a lucky soandso!
Quotas were employed in the amateur days and they went well didn't they.