Support for the Lions tour (on a scale of 1-10)

Just trying to gauge people's interest for the upcoming Lions tour. With 10 being the most interested and 1 being the least.

I knew one of the first votes would be a 2 in support for the 2 token Scots. Brilliant.

Before the squad announcement I was an 8; after the 606 backlash I'm now a 4.

Now - 6.
When AP ends - 7
When England tests with Argentina - 8
When test series starts - 9

Now? 5

Still hurting a bit from Gatland's selection, and still full of foreboding having seen what the Crusaders are currently doing to teams as good as the Stormers.

Interest will climb as the tour approaches but right now, the selection and the inevitable tactics have me concerned. I might be completely wrong and Gatland will pick the lethal attacking players like Hogg, Williams, Watson with Farell at 12 and JJ at 13. But I do feel he is going to try and be physical.

My interest may climb, also maybe helped as the injuries pile up and Scotland's representatives increase, but time will tell.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Now? 5

Still hurting a bit from Gatland's selection, and still full of foreboding having seen what the Crusaders are currently doing to teams as good as the Stormers.

Interest will climb as the tour approaches but right now, the selection and the inevitable tactics have me concerned. I might be completely wrong and Gatland will pick the lethal attacking players like Hogg, Williams, Watson with Farell at 12 and JJ at 13. But I do feel he is going to try and be physical.

My interest may climb, also maybe helped as the injuries pile up and Scotland's representatives increase, but time will tell.

Sounds so wrong and bad.

Griff wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Now? 5

Still hurting a bit from Gatland's selection, and still full of foreboding having seen what the Crusaders are currently doing to teams as good as the Stormers.

Interest will climb as the tour approaches but right now, the selection and the inevitable tactics have me concerned. I might be completely wrong and Gatland will pick the lethal attacking players like Hogg, Williams, Watson with Farell at 12 and JJ at 13. But I do feel he is going to try and be physical.

My interest may climb, also maybe helped as the injuries pile up and Scotland's representatives increase, but time will tell.

Sounds so wrong and bad.

Until mighty Wales get overlooked, and all the representation you have is 2 guys you should reserve judgement.

Scotland's tests funnily enough are on the same days as the 3 Lions tests. I want both teams to win and play well, but if it came down to an either or decision it would be Scotland every time, and that's the first time I've ever said that.

I want the Lions to do well, since they represent us all, but as others have already joked, there are more kiwis in the Lions tour than Scots.

So to clarify, I want them to do well, but my interest is challenged at the moment.

Also Griff, I gave it a 5 and Gatland the benefit of the doubt, which is more than he gave my country's rugby players.

The bit I highlighted in bold. Sounds like your interest will only peak when some players get injured so that you countrymen can be called up. That's what sounded bad. Like you're wishing injuries on players.

Honestly, I couldn't care less. There have been 2 occasions where I have been excited by Lions tours. 1989 and 1997, all the others I barely noticed.

1989 I just wanted to see Ieuan Evans against David Campese, oddly it was that battle that decided the series.

1997 because the Lions had no chance and the Boks were full of themselves.

On a more serious note, when the Lions get smashed in the 1st Test how much discount will there be on the shirts?

I voted 2, the same number of defenders 1/2p has beaten since 2013

TightHEAD wrote:On a more serious note, when the Lions get smashed in the 1st Test how much discount will there be on the shirts?

I voted 2, the same number of defenders 1/2p has beaten since 2013

TightHEAD? TightARSE more like.

Griff wrote:The bit I highlighted in bold. Sounds like your interest will only peak when some players get injured so that you countrymen can be called up. That's what sounded bad. Like you're wishing injuries on players.

I would never wish injuries on anyone. It's a sad part of our sport that injuries are common, and in this ludicrous schedule injuries are inevitable.

Maybe Scottish players will fill the void, maybe not, I want the Lions to do well, and more than anything want a vested interest by having more Scottish tourists.

Griff wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:On a more serious note, when the Lions get smashed in the 1st Test how much discount will there be on the shirts?

I voted 2, the same number of defenders 1/2p has beaten since 2013

TightHEAD? TightARSE more like.

Let's face it this isn't going to be a winning Lions shirt, £60 !!!! I'll pay no more than £20 after the first Test in Sports Direct.

LondonTiger wrote:Now - 6.
When AP ends - 7
When England tests with  Argentina - 8
When test series starts - 9

This is probably the more honest answer. I have very little interest but I'm sure when the tour begins I'll be watching almost every game. I would still rather watch Ireland though.

I voted 4 as at the moment it does not really register as a winnable one and too much of a 2005 feel to it (I was in NZ at that tour and went to the test

I have concerns over the tactics, some of the squad selection, overall the ability of the coaches (all of them) and the lack of a plan B

By the time the provincial games starts, I will be around 7 or 7 as the Lions is just so cool and I will be bought in.

It then goes one of 2 ways

If we fail and play poor style rugby in the provisional games (I.e play Conservative, bish bosh with little flair and the selections are based on a negative style of play) - 1

If the Coaching team get it right and play the style and players who I think are exciting and will give it a go (even if we lose some games) - 9

So at the moment, low, will rise, then benefit of the doubt given and needs to be taken

When will Rugby Union grow up. Letting the Lions go will deliver the second age of professionalism.

One of the things I particularly hate about the Lions is the latent psychology that says we cannot beat these sides away from home on our own and so have to band together in some sort of ritual masochistic fantasy to even begin to believe that beating the All Blacks in New Zealand for example is possible.

Quite frankly its vulgar defeatism and I can see no reason to continue to support such a pathetic mentality.

I enjoy the Lions because I don't give a toss one way or the other who wins and the Sky hype is very entertaining.

I always bristle when Southern hemisphere rugby nations claim superiority over the North, so I'm inevitably drawn into a Lions series because it embodies that conflict. I'll watch every game I can, and be upset by any loss.

It's a daft embodiment, mind you. New Zealand are the only team which still regularly outclasses the home unions, so we don't need our teams to do a G-Force combination for Australia or South Africa any more.

And not really for the All Blacks either. In all honesty, I'd be just as happy to see any of the individual home nations in a three match series against NZ this year (even Wales again). We'd learn more about each team, the quality of the players, and the potential of the back-ups.

Look how exciting last season's summer Tests turned out. We could have had something similar this year but England, Wales, and Ireland will all be below full strength, and Scotland's plan to take on Australia may yet be disrupted by Lions call-ups.

Griff wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Now? 5

Still hurting a bit from Gatland's selection, and still full of foreboding having seen what the Crusaders are currently doing to teams as good as the Stormers.

Interest will climb as the tour approaches but right now, the selection and the inevitable tactics have me concerned. I might be completely wrong and Gatland will pick the lethal attacking players like Hogg, Williams, Watson with Farell at 12 and JJ at 13. But I do feel he is going to try and be physical.

My interest may climb, also maybe helped as the injuries pile up and Scotland's representatives increase, but time will tell.

Sounds so wrong and bad.

unbelievable and why Scots don't belong. No 'I' in Scotland

Gwlad wrote:

Griff wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Now? 5

Still hurting a bit from Gatland's selection, and still full of foreboding having seen what the Crusaders are currently doing to teams as good as the Stormers.

Interest will climb as the tour approaches but right now, the selection and the inevitable tactics have me concerned. I might be completely wrong and Gatland will pick the lethal attacking players like Hogg, Williams, Watson with Farell at 12 and JJ at 13. But I do feel he is going to try and be physical.

My interest may climb, also maybe helped as the injuries pile up and Scotland's representatives increase, but time will tell.

Sounds so wrong and bad.

unbelievable and why Scots don't belong. No 'I' in Scotland

We do belong, just Gatland doesn't rate us.

Yeah, one anonymous poster making a comment on a meaningless message board means that Scots don't belong in the Lions team.

I'm sure if there were 2 Welsh players selected the whinging would be less intense, though.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Yeah, one anonymous poster making a comment on a meaningless message board means that Scots don't belong in the Lions team.

I'm sure if there were 2 Welsh players selected the whinging would be less intense, though.

I fully believe in the Lions ethos, the 4 teams coming together to be better than the sum of their parts. Just a shame that Gatland learned nothing of his time with Geech in the 2009 tests. Like I said, I'm not wanting quotas of any nonsense like that, but I certainly feel J Gray, Russel and Watson were amongst the 50-50 calls, if just 2 of those went Scotland's way I'd have been delighted.

Never mind. Still get the chance to see Clermont at Murrayfield in a few weeks.

I've no problem with your comments Radge and I know what you were saying. I'm addressing the triggered Welsh posters.

All Scots should declare as it is clear they are outliers who will distort this scientific study

To be honest I could have done a better job of the poll by separating the nations. Like an Irish yes/no vote in support of the Lions, Welsh yes/no etc. Would have probably been a more interesting poll. May redo it if I can be bothered.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:To be honest I could have done a better job of the poll by separating the nations. Like an Irish yes/no vote in support of the Lions, Welsh yes/no etc. Would have probably been a more interesting poll. May redo it if I can be bothered.

Its an interesting idea i just think the obvious chagrin of our Celtic brothers - i find it hard to reconcile with the true Scots fans I know - at their dismissal by Gatland is likely to pollute your findings.

The fact is that two potential picks, Laidlaw and Jones, are injured

Watson is brand new, undercooked and is small in stature; Gats likes em big, but will be on his speed dial and is one to watch

The Grays, IMO, were put back in their box firmly by England and France and that leaves Russell who no doubt was a 50/50 with no Scot on the coaching team to fight his corner.

I think one definite improvement for the future is that a coach from each nation should have to be on the coaching team as no doubt some of these debates would have gone their way had their been.

weird, if 2/3 of voters are < 5 then why the hell do they bother posting on a lions thread.

Because the point of this thread is for those who aren't interested in the Lions tour to give their vote/opinions as well.

Rory, what have I told you about feeding Gwlad?

The more attention you give trolls, the worse their breath gets!

LondonTiger wrote:Now - 6.
When AP ends - 7
When England tests with  Argentina - 8
When test series starts - 9

What he said, but maybe one number down on each.

Gwlad wrote:weird, if 2/3 of voters are < 5 then why the hell do they bother posting on a lions thread.

 I was actually thinking the same thing, and its very rare for me think the same way as Gwlad.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Gwlad wrote:weird, if 2/3 of voters are < 5 then why the hell do they bother posting on a lions thread.

 I was actually thinking the same thing, and its very rare for me think the same way as Gwlad.

It's probably just to annoy Gwlad. An approach I fully endorse

If you find yourself agreeing with him it's time have a long, hard look at yourself

Cyril wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Gwlad wrote:weird, if 2/3 of voters are < 5 then why the hell do they bother posting on a lions thread.

 I was actually thinking the same thing, and its very rare for me think the same way as Gwlad.

It's probably just to annoy Gwlad. An approach I fully endorse

If you find yourself agreeing with him it's time have a long, hard look at yourself

In your case i'd make an exception.

Cyril wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Gwlad wrote:weird, if 2/3 of voters are < 5 then why the hell do they bother posting on a lions thread.

 I was actually thinking the same thing, and its very rare for me think the same way as Gwlad.

It's probably just to annoy Gwlad. An approach I fully endorse

If you find yourself agreeing with him it's time have a long, hard look at yourself

 Thanx Cyril, I knew there had to be some reasonable explanation, and in the future I will make more effort not to run the risk of agreeing with Gwlad again.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Cyril wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Gwlad wrote:weird, if 2/3 of voters are < 5 then why the hell do they bother posting on a lions thread.

 I was actually thinking the same thing, and its very rare for me think the same way as Gwlad.

It's probably just to annoy Gwlad. An approach I fully endorse

If you find yourself agreeing with him it's time have a long, hard look at yourself

 Thanx Cyril, I knew there had to be some reasonable explanation, and in the future I will make more effort not to run the risk of agreeing with Gwlad again.

yeah stop making me look bad. I have no truck with nurturing

Gwlad wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Cyril wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Gwlad wrote:weird, if 2/3 of voters are < 5 then why the hell do they bother posting on a lions thread.

 I was actually thinking the same thing, and its very rare for me think the same way as Gwlad.

It's probably just to annoy Gwlad. An approach I fully endorse

If you find yourself agreeing with him it's time have a long, hard look at yourself

 Thanx Cyril, I knew there had to be some reasonable explanation, and in the future I will make more effort not to run the risk of agreeing with Gwlad again.

yeah stop making me look bad. I have no truck with nurturing

 You look bad enough, without any assistance from me.

LondonTiger wrote:Now - 6.
When AP ends - 7
When England tests with  Argentina - 8
When test series starts - 9

Similar but replace England with Ireland
Mind you it would have been 5,6,7,8 before the Kiwi thuggery against Ireland in Dublin.
That match means I want us to beat them more

geoff999rugby wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Now - 6.
When AP ends - 7
When England tests with  Argentina - 8
When test series starts - 9

Similar but replace England with Ireland
Mind you it would have been 5,6,7,8 before the Kiwi thuggery against Ireland in Dublin.
That match means I want us to beat them more

 Jeez I'd forgotten about that, Wouldn't it be absolutely brilliant for the ABs to put on another display of defense on like that. Especially at the test I'm going to.

Not the high hits no. I doubt they would want to risk that either. If it happens I would suggest it'll be good for the lions as it means they're in a winning position.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not the high hits no. I doubt they would want to risk that either. If it happens I would suggest it'll be good for the lions as it means they're in a winning position.

 Apart from Fekitoas head high what other ones were there? I'd love to see another victory by three tries to Nil.

The Lions tours have always been enjoyable and I usually support them fully but unlike everyone here I won't be supporting them against the ABs. My natural supporting inclination goes directly to the men in black as it always has done since I was a nipper. Ireland first, New Zealand second. That's the order of things for me.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not the high hits no. I doubt they would want to risk that either. If it happens I would suggest it'll be good for the lions as it means they're in a winning position.

 Apart from Fekitoas head high what other ones were there? I'd love to see another victory by three tries to Nil.

Sam Cane?

Pete330v2 wrote:The Lions tours have always been enjoyable and I usually support them fully but unlike everyone here I won't be supporting them against the ABs. My natural supporting inclination goes directly to the men in black as it always has done since I was a nipper. Ireland first, New Zealand second. That's the order of things for me.

 So dont you support the Tour Pete?

Scottrf wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not the high hits no. I doubt they would want to risk that either. If it happens I would suggest it'll be good for the lions as it means they're in a winning position.

 Apart from Fekitoas head high what other ones were there? I'd love to see another victory by three tries to Nil.

Sam Cane?

 What did Sam do?

Cane of course was pretty lucky to escape given other verdicts around the time. Showed that nz were pretty rattled following their previous game with the irish. I'd love to see them losing their cool like that again but without the injuries.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not the high hits no. I doubt they would want to risk that either. If it happens I would suggest it'll be good for the lions as it means they're in a winning position.

 Apart from Fekitoas head high what other ones were there? I'd love to see another victory by three tries to Nil.

Sam Cane?

 What did Sam do?

http://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/rugby-union/10664032/controversial-tackle-on-henshaw

Scottrf wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not the high hits no. I doubt they would want to risk that either. If it happens I would suggest it'll be good for the lions as it means they're in a winning position.

 Apart from Fekitoas head high what other ones were there? I'd love to see another victory by three tries to Nil.

Sam Cane?

 What did Sam do?

http://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/rugby-union/10664032/controversial-tackle-on-henshaw

 Nothing wrong with it. Sam and another bloke accidentally bumped into each other.

Scottrf wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not the high hits no. I doubt they would want to risk that either. If it happens I would suggest it'll be good for the lions as it means they're in a winning position.

 Apart from Fekitoas head high what other ones were there? I'd love to see another victory by three tries to Nil.

Sam Cane?

Cleared by the citing commissioner. Probably should have been yellow under the mid-season interpretations (which seem to have largely been dropped by refs again). Of course Ireland could easily have had 3 or 4 yellows on the day too (Trimble deliberate knock on, Sexton high tackle on Barrett, Ryan knee drop on Franks, Kearney neck roll)

Yeah it was you who said he definitely wouldn't be cited wasn't it? Hey ill take the penalties coming our way if nz go down that route again. First time they looked properly rattled, they really missed guys like mccaw that day to encourage cool heads.