The Lions Tour

[TheRugbyValkyrie]

So what did everyone think of the Lions Tour?
Was it a good advert for the Franchise, or should the Tour be discontinued?

Discontinued? Are you mad? It's the height of a rugby players career. Why would anyone think these tours should be discontinued?

Brilliant.

Would've liked for the Lions to win overall, but I think they ought to be really chuffed with the outcome.

I'm Australian, so obv never go for the Kiwis despite my mum being one. We all watched here, so I'd say it's a "good advert", whatever that means.

Bubbles - the issue seems to be that with Club rugby, Premiership, Pro 12 etc, they are the people calling the shots because they are the ones paying the wages. Add in the Six Nations and Autumn Internationals and Clubs are reluctant to release players for fear of burnout or injury.
This lions tour was also insanely busy for players who have been putting bodies on the line continuously since the previous July/August.
Having said that, I agree, I wouldn't want to see the Lions tours stop.

The fault is with the continued "growth" of Rugby and lack of care for the players with the huge number of matches played. The Lions Tour was well established before the professional era. Just look at the history of it! It should be protected and other competitions should be reduced. The Lions Tour is once every 4 years and is always said to define rugby careers.

Injuries are also down to the type of player that has been developed to compete with the Southern Hemisphere teams. I am not sure the modern super-rugby-hero is what I want to see and the final match was marred by the inability of the Lions to score a try. We need skill as well as brute force.I fundamentally object to tackles being called "hits" and other language which describes and reinforces power as opposed to skill.

I agree with you completely Bubbles, I coach U18 boys and we have a number of boys who have been dropped by our local Academy for not being big enough. One of them is now playing at International level.
Clubs are the ones calling the shots around the world. I think you also need to look at it from the club's point. They are the ones paying the players and looking after them throughout the season and want a return on their investment.
I do remember the "shamateur" with fond memories.
As the Lions only tour every four years, I'm pretty sure common ground can be reached but from a player welfare point of view, there are concerns.

So a year with a Lions tour has to be curtailed on the domestic front.

I find it incredible that the team with the most points in the season does not automatically win the championship. Who thought a play off would be a good idea? It is just money grabbing and yet another match. Let's pretend Chelsea did not win the Premiership shall we? Oh and Jess Ennis should have had a jump off with the second placed heptathlete to win the gold medal because she did not actually win with the most points.

Rugby needs bigger stadiums to get more money in. Better TV money helps - like football. Depends if you want to see the final outcome of that though! Look what has happened to football. Although at least football is genuinely a world-wide game. Unlike Rugby which has very colonial and public school overtones. Clearly Rugby should be professional but the Clubs need to expand the fan base. Difficult when the best players are off on international duty all the time and do not turn out week in week out for the clubs like the footballers do. Fans can easily get short changed.

Agreed Bubbles. If anything should be dropped it is some matches off the beginning or end of the club season. Too many injuries are occurring because of insufficient rest periods. The pressure to be big is also problematic and causing real health problems for players both professional and amateur.

I don't agree that rugby has colonial and public school overtones everywhere. Many of England's best players did not have a public school background, nor is rugby an upper class game in New Zealand or Wales.

Sarries supporter here! (Sorry! )
Our boys looked dead on their feet by the time the Premiership Semi rolled around. So much going on, more and more demands on the internationals. It's such a short career anyway, they need looking after!
Just look at poor George North and his concussions.

It's such a short career anyway, they need looking after!

That's very true. The salaries often don't justify the damage being done to players' bodies and unless they manage to train for a second career while playing many will struggle after retirement.

I don't think that rugby has the balance right at the moment when it comes to looking after players' interests.

NZ virtually only plays Rugby though and cricket. What else are they known for? Wales has always had a rugby culture (mixed in with a drinking culture if Welsh friends are to be believed) and I accept they are different. In NZ they are totally focussed on rugby where it is a national obsession. Hence touring there means everything.

In this country, not that many state schools play rugby and if they do, they are grammar schools. 8% of children go to public schools and historically too few cricketers and rugby players have come from state schools. It is cdertainly not balanced.

Of course rugby was colonial! Who are the best teams? NZ, Ireland, Australia, South Africa, etc. Just like cricket but without India and Pakistan, so even more of a select bunch. Luckily France joined in and more recently Italy and Argentina, but even Canada was a colonial country. Rugby has fewer top national teams than football and even fewer teams likely to win the World Cup. "World" Cup is a joke though because so few teams are competitive. That is part of the problem, of course. Too narrow in a world sense. Clubs could make more money if it truly was a world game but it would change from the cosy system that prevails now.

I think we actually agree Bubbles but are coming at it from different sides. I didn't mean that rugby is not linked with public schools and colonialism, just that it is not exclusively so. In addition to the countries you listed, what about Georgia, Portugal and Japan?

Also agree that rugby needs to be more of a world game, but how much potential is there for it to be so? Rugby has lots going for it, but it requires a lot of different skills plus the ability to read the game and think tactically, both of which are difficult to gain without match time. You would need to establish whole youth leagues, not just isolated clubs. That's not easy to do.

I think we are all in agreement with regards to the length of the domestic season, especially the play-offs!
Looking at from a fan's perspective, we all want to see games and the TV coverage has helped enormously. Having the chance to watch internationals ply their trade week in, week out is fantastic.
From the Club's perspective, they are trying to maximise their incomes in order to provide the fans what they want and remain solvent (unlike most football clubs).
From a coach's perspective, I would like to see the New Zealand rugby ethos spread further and faster in terms of player size and training.
I disagree with the idea that rugby is a private school/colonial thing. The majority of players now attend clubs and are nominated by their coaches to their local Academy, which is linked to a premiership/championship club. That is the route an overwhelming majority of players now take. Our Club has produced two U18 Internationals and one professional (playing in France) in the last two seasons. This from a youth player base of 350.
As for the Colonial idea, yes, the majority of countries playing are former colonies but the important thing is, they are playing. The Africa Rugby Cup competitions are going on at the moment and it is fantastic to see countries like Mali, Madagascar and Burkina Faso playing.
On the other hand the list of non-colonial playing countries is almost endless! Russia, Italy, USA, Belgium and Switzerland are all in the top 30.
Germany (my home country) has a proud rugby history dating back to 1850.
Rugby is more inclusive in terms of types of players than football, but I think it's public school/colonial history and the late arrival of professionalism has done it no favours.

Rugby is certainly a private school thing here in Aus and that is a big reason why we're struggling with it at the moment not to mention the useless coach and at least half the team being over it/unmotivated/not deserving

SuperBeagle - I have bee following the trials and tribulations of Australian rugby and am saddened that a once proud rugby nation is in the state that it is.

I find it incredible that the team with the most points in the season does not automatically win the championship

I agree with that.

WASPS won the league yet Chiefs are seen as the champions.

Players see being picked for the Lions as the pinnacle of their career which is why there was all the debate about the extras being picked for 'geographical location' rather than talent.

It certainly shouldn't be discontinued.

I do however think it's ridiculous that for example the Pro12 still don't know what is happening with a league that starts in a matter of weeks.

The Aviva Premiership announced their fixtures a couple of weeks ago.

I do think we all agree! I think it is clear the root of rugby is a colonial sport. It is simply the history, not the present. Like cricket though, it needs other countries to embrace the game. Unfortunately it will have to go up against football elsewhere and there are few football nations who are also world class at rugby, bar the French.

There are very few inner city comprehensives with rugby pitches, or indeed cricket pitches. It narrows down who may be interested in playing if parents do not encourage their children and are fans themselves. We are now living in a country that wants to be successful at all sports. Look at the re-emergence of cycling and many non-athletic sports at the Olympics. We will miss Mo Farah when he retires - ditto Andy Murray. It is difficult for us to be good at everything but we do try!

There are very few inner city comprehensives with rugby pitches, or indeed cricket pitches. It narrows down who may be interested in playing if parents do not encourage their children and are fans themselves.

I disagree with that to an extent.

We live in an area with a big name premiership rugby team. Their community and outreach work is brilliant. Especially with inner city schools.

I grew up in Scotland and it was quite hard to find a club for kids in the nineties and early 00s. Most of the good clubs were linked to schools so the vast majority of kids were locked out the system. My comprehensive did have rugby during PE lessons for boys only, but that was just because the head of PE took a personal interest and did a lot of work on his own time.

I live in France now and my DCs are too young to benefit at the moment, but in the area we live there are fantastic opportunities to play sport. There are at least two publicly accessible training pitches, subsidised sports for kids and a great tennis club which is not prohibitively expensive. This is in addition to the activities offered by the big rugby club nearby. I know that this doesn't come cheap, but I really wish that this were on offer in more parts of the UK.

I also used to live in Cairo and there is a rugby club there but since there are only two other clubs in Egypt it is hard, and I don't think that there are any matches at all for kids, only training.

It depends if the inner city schools, and others, have pitches though. Most rugby children I know play where their parents play or played. At private clubs. Not school. The only rugby pitches around here belong to the boys' grammar school. Outreach only goes so far, but if there are no pitches, school rugby does not exist.

Most schools used to have pitches though, even inner city ones but so many were sold off over the past two decades and newly built schools tend not to allocate extra land for playing fields.

The schools here in France don't have pitches either btw. There is a municipal sports stadium with training pitches and indoor training areas which everyone can access through the municipal sports programs.

Outreach only goes so far, but if there are no pitches, school rugby does not exist.

Nor does school football, hockey etc etc etc.

Outreach often isn't just in schools either it is everywhere. Fun days, community days etc etc. Our team is very good good at it. Much better than the football club

Lots of school football and hockey here. We are rural though with medium sized towns. All schools have outside pitches and they must have a certain size of fields according to the size of school. Only excess playing field acreage can be sold. Not all the space. Outreach may not provide inter school teams and competition though and it is this method that brings children into the game whose parents are not rugby fans sending their children along to the junior teams at the local rugby club. Tennis has the same problem and cricket too.

Up here in the north all the state schools play rugby, but it is league not Union. Obviously there is some crossover between codes in the professional game, but I don't know any kids who play Union.

I'm in Wales and an avid supporter. I'll be honest, before the tour got going I was very ambivalent but was totally gripped by the end.

The problem with the Lions is since the advent of the world cup in 1987 they have lost a lot of relevance. But I think this tour proved that it still has huge attraction, not least in the way the Lions usually (Sir Clive's Lions excepting) divert a little bit from the 'usual' northern hemisphere brand of rugby. Not totally of coirse, that'd be sporting suicide, but they tend to be more willing to mix things up.