Quota System for Future Lions Tours

First topic message reminder :

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.

What's a tolken Scot: one with a beard and an axe in the scrum or one with pointy ears and a sharpshooter with the goalkicking or a backline wizard who conjures up something out of nothing and offers hope when the backs are up against the wall?

Notch wrote:

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.

It's an interesting issue as to what the priorities should be for a Lions tour. The last half of the last test of the 2013 tour was great, but the rugby preceding that did not make for engaging viewing. The 2009 tour didn't match 2013 for success, but by comparison the quality of the rugby better and more entertaining.

Should tactics, players and coaches be selected purely to get the win or should showcase and spectacle be the priorities?

Do you use players who can think for themselves (at least just a teeny tiny bit) or do you go for robots who are only capable of playing one way?

markb wrote:

Notch wrote:

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.

It's an interesting issue as to what the priorities should be for a Lions tour.  The last half of the last test of the 2013 tour was great, but the rugby preceding that did not make for engaging viewing.  The 2009 tour didn't match 2013 for success, but by comparison the quality of the rugby better and more entertaining.

Should tactics, players and coaches be selected purely to get the win or should showcase and spectacle be the priorities?

Well he's been mentioned before, but I think O'Driscoll's comments answer that question. He didn't say he wanted an enjoyable and entertaining series defeat on his CV, did he?

For me, as a fan, it's just never going to be the same as a real international series because its not a real country. Its like a better version of the Barbarians; a chance to see players who don't normally play together tearing it up. Test rugby is win at all costs. Lions rugby- I want to see a degree of flair, I want to see experimentation and guys who don't normally play together gelling and maybe tactics we don't normally get to see in the Six Nations and other tests being employed because more resources are available to the coach.

If its just about winning the tests, cut out the midweek games. Play 2 warm-ups with a smaller squad and then the three tests with one midweek game. If it's a proper, long tour I want to see new ideas implemented and selections made on form on tour. You don't need all these games when you come with pre-conceived ideas about what team you're going to pick.

If its just going to be a team modelled on one nation, its boring. Only the test matches are worth watching because the coaches aren't using the other games to do anything. A Lions test win is no good at the start of the next season when all your players are unavailable, it doesn't mean much to me then, so if thats how it is I would rather have less Irish players involved. I say reduce the length of the tour and cut out these meaningless midweek games so we can have a smaller, leaner touring party and less injuries and players needing rested the next season.

Basically, the format of a long tour is only worth watching if the coaches have an open mind about selection and tactics and base their test selections on what works in the midweek and warm-up games.

The thing that got me about Gatland was the misplaced loyalty to a number of injured and off form players. A year before the tour, "no one that is not fit to play in the first warm up game (HC) will go on tour", then a number of Welshman get injured and go on tour, Lydiate, Warburton, Jenkins etc. In order to do this he only took 2 fly halves and was short on wingers as well.

None of them in my opinion made a real contribution to the tour and they had top be either replaced by people who had top play straight off the plane, or hobbled about playing poorly whilst fit and equal replacements stayed at home.

I have no problem with the dropping of BoD, but I did have a problem with the way the Lions played such on dimensional rugby. Against NZ or SA they would have been trounced. Australia are at the moment a very poor side, the 2009 Lions would have walked over them.

You get 2 years to know the players, plan you tactics and pick a squad capable of performing plan A and if that doesn't work plan B. You do not need to be a national coach to do this, in fact it is probably an inhibitor to constructive thinking and planning how to beat a particular side. As a Lions coach, you only have one side to concentrate on beating, you can plan around their game plan and pick a squad to upset it and play more than one way. Some people do not have the ability to see beyond plan A and before the bile comes through, I include the current England coach in that group at present.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

markb wrote:

Notch wrote:

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.

It's an interesting issue as to what the priorities should be for a Lions tour.  The last half of the last test of the 2013 tour was great, but the rugby preceding that did not make for engaging viewing.  The 2009 tour didn't match 2013 for success, but by comparison the quality of the rugby better and more entertaining.

Should tactics, players and coaches be selected purely to get the win or should showcase and spectacle be the priorities?

Well he's been mentioned before, but I think O'Driscoll's comments answer that question. He didn't say he wanted an enjoyable and entertaining series defeat on his CV, did he?

It would be interesting to ask him now, after the event, whether he would exchange the successful tour as it was for something different that may or may not have lead to a loss.

My question however was more about from the perspective of the supporters. It's their level of support that allows the Lions to continue and flourish as it has. Do they care only about the win, will that alone continue to attract the numbers that it has? This was probably the best supported Lions tour ever despite the three preceding losses and I suspect principally because of the nature and excitement of the 2009 tour. It'll be interesting what the public appetite is for 2017.

If it was the best supported tour I suspect that is because of the amounts of brits and Irish currently living in Australia. There are certainly record numbers of Irish there.

I voted yes. I'm normally strongly against quotas but lets face it, on a Lions tour the best players are never picked. Any close decisions the coach will side with what he knows.

2009 was such a great tour, it really got my juices flowing for this year.  I was initially planning on attending but work commitments prevented it.  This time round it completely failed to grab me in the same way however and despite there being more English caps than 2009 found myself watching more out of obligation than desire towards the end.

If the English and Welsh coaching staff and their gameplan remain the same for 2017 I can't see myself thinking of going along or even making sure I watch all the mid-week games from over here.

I don't mind my national side employing dull rugby in an attempt to win matches, but I have different expectations from following the Lions.

What about a quota of:
Those born in the country being toured
Those playing in France
Players who arent as good at union as they were at league
Scotts who have appeared in films alongside Hobbits

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:What about a quota of:
Those born in the country being toured
Those playing in France
Players who arent as good at union as they were at league
Scotts who have appeared in films alongside Hobbits

There are already enough "English" players picked each time without such quotas.

GunsGerms wrote:

There are already enough "English" players picked each time without such quotas.

Was that intended to be amusing or abusive?

Any way, of course there should not be a quota system. by suggesting iut, Gatland has demonstrated yet again just how thin skinned he is.

The coaches are appointed to then select the squad and team they feel best suited to win the series. They should accept that fans of an under-representd (or in this year's case effectively non-represented for Scotland) nation will struggle to find any real affinity witrh the team and will moan. That is life.

Oh and remember, Gatland was by no means the only coach lkambasted by pundits and fans. Farrell (sr) and Rowntree got a shed load of grief for the selections of Farrell (jr) and Corbisiero.

VietGwentRevisited wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

There are already enough "English" players picked each time without such quotas.

Was that intended to be amusing or abusive?

Just an observation.

Can't ever see quotas used but i definitely think the coach should come from outside of those employed by the 4 teams. Too much politics is created by it.

Its not a bad idea having a quota for the Lions, but an even better idea is ditching the Lions altogether.

Not everyone will agree but imo it has run it course, NH teams should be able to stand on their own two feet against the SH teams, there is no need for a tour every four years in this Pro-era.

Sometimes traditions should be laid to rest and this is one of them.

Scrumpy wrote:Its not a bad idea having a quota for the Lions, but an even better idea is ditching the Lions altogether.

Not everyone will agree but imo it has run it course, NH teams should be able to stand on their own two feet against the SH teams, there is no need for a tour every four years in this Pro-era.

Sometimes traditions should be laid to rest and this is one of them.

If you don't like the tradition or want t follow it then that's your problem. No one cares if you like them or not. I'm sure the tradition and fans will survive without you.

Who are you to say that a whole tradition should be put to bed?
Nobody that's who.

"I'm going to need a bigger boat"


If you read my post rather than jumping to conclusions I did say, IMO!

nth wrote:2009 was such a great tour, it really got my juices flowing for this year.  I was initially planning on attending but work commitments prevented it.  This time round it completely failed to grab me in the same way however and despite there being more English caps than 2009 found myself watching more out of obligation than desire towards the end.

If the English and Welsh coaching staff and their gameplan remain the same for 2017 I can't see myself thinking of going along or even making sure I watch all the mid-week games from over here.

I don't mind my national side employing dull rugby in an attempt to win matches, but I have different expectations from following the Lions.

Yep, same as that- probably judge the 2013 tour more harshly because the 2009 tour was so good. The 2017 tour doesn't hold much excitement for me right now but it might get interesting if they decide to think outside the box with regards to coaching etc.

The 2009 tour was great, maybe SIM should take charge again if there is another one?

If we try and play warren ball agaist the All Blacks then we might as well not bother.

VietGwentRevisited wrote:Any way, of course there should not be a quota system. by suggesting it, Gatland has demonstrated yet again just how thin skinned he is.

I'd bet he was responding to a question rather than suggesting it himself.

geoff998rugby wrote:Didn't say McGeechan was good but he wasn't biased towards a particular nation and that is the point I was making

If Geech was to get the nod again or when he has got it in the past if Scotland had won Slams, 6 Nations and successfull World Cups then I guess most of the selection would have been Scots, he would have picked them then and then he would be accused of bias.

Scrumpy wrote:The 2009 tour was great, maybe SIM should take charge again if there is another one?

If we try and play warren ball agaist the All Blacks then we might as well not bother.

Cant be any worse than what SCW done against the Blacks.

I'd rather watch paint dry than three Tests of negative WarrenBall.

Also was the SCW comment meant to upset me because I'm English?

No.

Playing quotas are nothing but discrimination.

Why dont they just ensure the coaches they select are not contracted to the home nations? That'd make everything a lot easier for people to swallow when they got selections/tactics they didnt like.

Yeah dont select the head coach of one of the home nations for lions coach. Easy.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Cant be any worse than what SCW done against the Blacks.

I missed that bit in Invictus

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Cant be any worse than what SCW done against the Blacks.

I missed that bit in Invictus

No wonder he wasnt invited to the Nelson Mandela film premiere!

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Cant be any worse than what SCW done against the Blacks.

I missed that bit in Invictus

Quite a few things were missing from Invictus weren't they? Interesting that the AB poisoning scandal didn't get a mention, although it is alluded to when one certain character to remain nameless representing a prominent South African says "We must win, at all costs". Or is it "any costs", I can't recall.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

Cant be any worse than what SCW done against the Blacks.

I missed that bit in Invictus

Quite a few things were missing from Invictus weren't they? Interesting that the AB poisoning scandal didn't get a mention......

True, although in the interests of fairness, they also left out any references to the 'ABs' 'choking' under pressure.

Scrumpy wrote:"I'm going to need a bigger boat"


If you read my post rather than jumping to conclusions I did say, IMO!

You poor little man   

Taffineastbourne wrote: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.

We did not win because Gats was lucky. We won because Australia are not that good a side. If England can beat them on their own then the best of B&I should win easily. In truth given the opposition losing a match was a disappointment.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote: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.

We did not win because Gats was lucky. We won because Australia are not that good a side. If England can beat them on their own then the best of B&I should win easily. In truth given the opposition losing a match was a disappointment.  

But England were the only team to beat Oz this autumn. Therefore logic would suggest that players from the other nations would weaken a lions team against Oz this year, so only English should be picked for the Lions against Oz. But that's the opposite of the quota suggestion.

Jhamer25 wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:"I'm going to need a bigger boat"


If you read my post rather than jumping to conclusions I did say, IMO!

You poor little man   

Calm down matey, remember you were the one snapping at my ankles  

As a Scotland fan, we've had by far the smallest representation on recent tours, and the idea of a quota is frankly patronising and completely undermines the idea of the Lions, that they are the best of the best. I would have said that we should have had about six players on the tour but anymore than that and it would have been a joke.

Insane idea.

Gatland is just stirring as usual. Furore happened just because Welsh players made up a large contingent. Nonsense. We won. Lions rarely win tours. Why are we moaning?

If England win the World Cup and contribute the biggest contingent on the NZ tour - good for them, they deserve it. I don't care how many from which country as long as the coach is choosing what he thinks is the best team to win the game. Best Lions coach ever IMO was Carwyn James. He always selected what he thought was the best team, NOT the best players. Let the Lions choose who they think is the best coach, let him pick his team and let's get behind it.

Stupid storm in a teacup. Cheer up, we won the series!   

Scrumpy wrote:

Jhamer25 wrote:

Scrumpy wrote:"I'm going to need a bigger boat"


If you read my post rather than jumping to conclusions I did say, IMO!

You poor little man   

Calm down matey, remember you were the one snapping at my ankles  

Calm im   pal

There was a good reason why I replied to your post and i'm sure the majority agree with me.

The lions has only ever once had no players from a country play a test, England in the 1950 tour. Personally think any sort of artificial interference in selection based on any criteria other than the coach's choice sets a dangerous precedent and it should be left well alone.

Notch wrote:

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.

Maybe that's why Gatland thought he couldn't trust many other nationalities, after an Irishman and two Englishmen botched the last tour for the Lions

Totallybiasedscarlet wrote:Insane idea.

Gatland is just stirring as usual.

I'll bet any money it wasn't his idea. He'll have been replying to a journalist's question.

bedfordwelsh wrote:

geoff998rugby wrote:Didn't say McGeechan was good but he wasn't biased towards a particular nation and that is the point I was making

If Geech was to get the nod again or when he has got it in the past if Scotland had won Slams, 6 Nations and successfull World Cups then I guess most of the selection would have been Scots, he would have picked them then and then he would be accused of bias.

Well McGeechan has been Head Coach in 4 of the last 7 Lions tours.

He is the only one who cannot be accused of bias - you do the man an injustice

Totallybiasedscarlet wrote:

If England win the World Cup and contribute the biggest contingent on the NZ tour - good for them, they deserve it. I don't care how many from which country as long as the coach is choosing what he thinks is the best team to win the game. 

So when New Zealand win the world cup (again) and the Lions team mainly consists of NZ born EQPs we can all be happy?

Notch wrote:For me, as a fan, it's just never going to be the same as a real international series because its not a real country. Its like a better version of the Barbarians; a chance to see players who don't normally play together tearing it up. Test rugby is win at all costs. Lions rugby- I want to see a degree of flair, I want to see experimentation and guys who don't normally play together gelling and maybe tactics we don't normally get to see in the Six Nations and other tests being employed because more resources are available to the coach.

This.

It's a problem with professionalism, the lions has morphed from a tradition into a "must-win" series like everything else. It's all politics.

I'm not suggesting Lions players & coaches should contrive to lose, far from it. They should try to win, but I think the pressure on them (wherever it is coming from) should be relaxed a little bit to allow what Notch is talking about above. A kind of Barbarians+. Picking on form, trying out new things, getting to see the best players who were just at each other in the 6N playing alongside each other against a common enemy.

If you pick a coach outside of one that has coached in the 4N in the past 5 years and one who is open minded about gameplan, you would see more Scots picked simply because the Scots, especially this year, had so much more to offer than was implied by the selections. We came 3rd this 6N with most of our tries scored from our own half and were coming off a run of beating Aus 2 from 2 (instead of 0 from 6) because of good forward work and defense albeit in awful conditions. Having said that, Numbers rightly points out that any more than 6 and more than any other nation would have been joke. But we would have seen those 4,5, 6 used properly and treated the same as the rest; then I would have enjoyed it.

I'm really not a biased person, I actively am probably over critical of my team to be sure of it. If the Lions series deserved 0 scots because we are atrocious, and we got 0 scots, i'd have been glued to my telly. Fact is, it deserved more than it had this year, much more, and they deserved a decent shot at making the test squad, and they didn't appear to get it, so I didn't even bother watching the last test and I wanted them to lose. Shame that they didn't because Sir Warren is now seen as a good coach even though he still can't get his own team to beat Aus and as someone else rightly pointed out, the 2009 Lions would have thumped the 2013 Wallabies in Oz and the 2009 Lions probably would beat the 2013 Lions 2-1 (on neutral ground).

Ineffable wrote:

Notch wrote:For me, as a fan, it's just never going to be the same as a real international series because its not a real country. Its like a better version of the Barbarians; a chance to see players who don't normally play together tearing it up. Test rugby is win at all costs. Lions rugby- I want to see a degree of flair, I want to see experimentation and guys who don't normally play together gelling and maybe tactics we don't normally get to see in the Six Nations and other tests being employed because more resources are available to the coach.

This.

It's a problem with professionalism, the lions has morphed from a tradition into a "must-win" series like everything else. It's all politics.

I'm not suggesting Lions players & coaches should contrive to lose, far from it. They should try to win, but I think the pressure on them (wherever it is coming from) should be relaxed a little bit to allow what Notch is talking about above. A kind of Barbarians+. Picking on form, trying out new things, getting to see the best players who were just at each other in the 6N playing alongside each other against a common enemy.

I agree except from the barbarians bit - the baa baas is a bit of fun whereas the Lions is a serious business, series victories are the primary objective. However in the spirit of tradition there should be:

a) a conscious effort to get representation from all the home nations on tour - not give people a free ride but factor the balance into 50:50 calls.
b) give each player a fair chance to press his case for the tests.

There doesn't need to be a quota for this, in fact to even suggest this shows a real lack of understanding of what the lions is about.

If the precedent has been set that its about winning at all costs, and taking the easy route to selection then there is no point continuing with the concept in the professional era.

rodders wrote:
a) a conscious effort to get representation from all the home nations on tour - not give people a free ride but factor the balance into 50:50 calls.
b) give each player a fair chance to press his case for the tests.

There doesn't need to be a quota for this, in fact to even suggest this shows a real lack of understanding of what the lions is about.

If the precedent has been set that its about winning at all costs, and taking the easy route to selection then there is no point continuing with the concept in the professional era.

Factor the balance in 50:50 calls? No chance. A player's nationality should never be a factor, even if it's a tight decision.

A fair chance? Every available player had a start in the first three games. How's that not a chance?

Risca,

The test team was decided before they got on the plane in Gatlands mind, he even took crocked players who didn't play in the warm ups, contrary to what he said he would do. They therefore played in the test side, undercooked and therefore under performed. Some were a waste of a squad slot as they never recovered on the hence a number of the replacements that should have gone anyway. Think Corbisiero.

Playing all plays prior to the tests was a political move and a chance to see who could play if a favourite got injured.

No - Imagine feeling you have been picked because you are a token Scot and not on merit! It would devalue the Lions as a whole.

What I do think needs to happen is either:
A - The lions coach is not currently or just finished coaching any of the four nations involved in the lions.
B - The selection of the lions team is made by a panel where each of the four nations has representation.

Woodward picked his boys, Gatland picked his Boyos

i think in future there should be a quota for the amount of fans allowed to accompany the tour, proportions being determined by how many players are selected from each country.
If an established player is not selected for a test then all fans from that country should be sent home and barred from using a rugby forum in perpetuity.
This will remove the petty, dull bitterness that i have seen displayed on this site and others

Scratch wrote:i think in future there should be a quota for the amount of fans allowed to accompany the tour, proportions being determined by how many players are selected from each country.
If an established player is not selected for a test then all fans from that country should be sent home and barred from using a rugby forum in perpetuity.
This will remove the petty, dull bitterness that i have seen displayed on this site and others

Ugh, could you at least try to empathise ?

Ineffable wrote:

Scratch wrote:i think in future there should be a quota for the amount of fans allowed to accompany the tour, proportions being determined by how many players are selected from each country.
If an established player is not selected for a test then all fans from that country should be sent home and barred from using a rugby forum in perpetuity.
This will remove the petty, dull bitterness that i have seen displayed on this site and others

Ugh, could you at least try to empathise ?

Ug, no.

Empathise with what? I am fed up with the bleating from so called fans after a hugely successful WINNING tour. Fine, if we'd lost, the whole thing rightly comes under scrutiny and is fair game, but rugby is about one thing WINNING and there is no perfect set up.

It's not about ego players being humoured, has-been pundits and players being used because of the country they come from……they are all Lions, the idea is bigger than the individual or the country they came from and in respect of the Lions, Gatland's achievement is absolutely immense and should be applauded and not whinged about by bitter pillocks. That's me empathizing.  

Let's not forget that Henry failed in Aus after being 1 up, SCW just didn't get the Lions and was too weak to make the decisions Gats made, even Geech blew a golden opportunity in SA….but Gats, he took a Lions side halfway around the world and beat the Aussies in their own back yard.