British and Irish Lions confirm 2017 New Zealand tour schedule

[psychic duck]

It didn't ruin his reputation or standing . When people mention SCW name the first thing that comes to their mind is the 2003 World Cup not the lions tour 2 years later ... SCW would have won the last lions tour had he been the coach . Gatland had a far better group of players to pick from in 2013 than in 2005 imo

By the way I agree he did **** it up though ..

Yes it did. Many now seem as bluffer and a joke, particularly outside England.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

I revisited the BOD "tackle" lastnight. They were clearing the ruck, but it was still very illegal and we saw no punishment. Real shame, it put a huge dampener on the tour.

But there was never any intent. Tana and Kevy are great guys and fair players, they wouldn't do something like that on purpose at all.

Dear God, please no one respond to this post. We don't need to go over this again.

 

[goodNumber10]

Dear God, please no one respond to this post. We don't need to go over this again.

too late

- - - Updated - - -

Yes it did. Many now seem as bluffer and a joke, particularly outside England.

perhaps, but i'm sure he doesn't care too much:

- - - Updated - - -

NZ would have won regardless, but still, Clive Woodward completely ****ed up that last tour.

yeah for sure, NZ were light years ahead of anything in the NH at that point, they completely re-invented rugby on that tour, gone were the days of brutality it was speed and guile and power the likes no one had ever seen before... phenomenal team.

And yes, Woody messed up big time.

 

[ncurd]

A bluffer who built a team over 4 years, led them to one loss in the next two.....yeah that guy had no clue...

The Lions was a complete mess but anyone who doesn't think he knew what he was doing before that needs their head checked.

 

[RedruthRFC]

A bluffer who built a team over 4 years, led them to one loss in the next two.....yeah that guy had no clue...

The Lions was a complete mess but anyone who doesn't think he knew what he was doing before that needs their head checked.

This, although the Lions tour was a nasty blot on his CV, it's the subsequent media whoring that makes him hard to respect IMO.

 

[William18]

I maintain that the 2005 All Blacks team was probably the best of the modern era. I think we would have smashed the record for consecutive wins if Rodney So'oialo hadn't had a shocker and given away a needless last minute penalty.

Either way Woodward built up an incredible forward pack and has strong outside backs to match. That England team in 2003 were deserving World Champions and truly a great team. I don't think any mistakes you make later should take that away from you.

 

[Sonic Kiwi]

too late

- - - Updated - - -



perhaps, but i'm sure he doesn't care too much:

- - - Updated - - -



yeah for sure, NZ were light years ahead of anything in the NH at that point, they completely re-invented rugby on that tour, gone were the days of brutality it was speed and guile and power the likes no one had ever seen before... phenomenal team.

And yes, Woody messed up big time.

He was a great soccer coach too, apparently

 

[Shaggy]

A full strength Samoa or Fiji or Tonga would definitely be a better challenge for the Lions than a provincial XV. Even a full strength USA or Canada would have given them a better warm up match.

- - - Updated - - -

It was a weak side against the Brumbies and this Lions side will be a lot better than the one from 2005. I can see a clean sweep of the Super 15 sides or at least 4-1 to the Lions and maybe even a test match won. Though i would be surprised if they won the series it is not impossible.

I thought tours were for the benefit of the home side ... Just saying

Seriously though, it will really depend on who the super sides (and the Lions) include in their match day squads, as to who the likely winners are. The games between England and the Super sides, the Super Rugby playing teams didn't look anywhere near full strength; it was basically an opportunity to see how some of their development squad players would go ... I'm pretty sure they won't do this against the Lions though, as it's a "once in a career" opportunity for many players.

 

[psychic duck]

A bluffer who built a team over 4 years, led them to one loss in the next two.....yeah that guy had no clue...

The Lions was a complete mess but anyone who doesn't think he knew what he was doing before that needs their head checked.

He didn't know what he was doing. He got lucky with that group of players he had with England at a time when SANZAR was at their lowest point in the pro era and most of the rest of the 6 Nations hadn't yet fully got to grips with the professional era. Wales were a pub team pre regional era, SA were a laughing stock with their worst team in history, NZ had a strange coach who picked Ben Atiga in his squad ahead of Mehrtens and Cullen and had a weak front 5. By the time the rest of the world caught up he was soon shown up to be yesterday's man in 2004-05. New Zealand moved the sport forward a lot over that 04-07 4 year period even though they didn't win the RWC.

 

[ncurd]

he was soon shown up to be yesterday's man in 2004-05.

That was the beginning of Andy Robinson's reign of terror.

Glad to know we can call Steve Hansen a blagger though, cheers as clearly someone actual record counts for zero if you have the best players around at the time.

 

[Maverick1987]

He didn't know what he was doing. He got lucky with that group of players he had with England at a time when SANZAR was at their lowest point in the pro era and most of the rest of the 6 Nations hadn't yet fully got to grips with the professional era. Wales were a pub team pre regional era, SA were a laughing stock with their worst team in history, NZ had a strange coach who picked Ben Atiga in his squad ahead of Mehrtens and Cullen and had a weak front 5. By the time the rest of the world caught up he was soon shown up to be yesterday's man in 2004-05. New Zealand moved the sport forward a lot over that 04-07 4 year period even though they didn't win the RWC.

Sorry but that's the biggest pile I've read in ages ....

By your logic we can discredit everything Wales have done in the past 10 years because England and France haven't been at their best ....

We can also discredit NZs RWC win in 2011 because Aus weren't as good as in the late 90s SA weren't as good as 2007 and England weren't as good as 2003 ....

 

[TobesHodges]

Sorry but that's the biggest pile I've read in ages ....

By your logic we can discredit everything Wales have done in the past 10 years because England and France haven't been at their best ....

We can also discredit NZs RWC win in 2011 because Aus weren't as good as in the late 90s SA weren't as good as 2007 and England weren't as good as 2003 ....

I could not agree more, unusually poor from psychic duck..

 

[psychic duck]

Sorry but that's the biggest pile I've read in ages ....

By your logic we can discredit everything Wales have done in the past 10 years because England and France haven't been at their best ....

We can also discredit NZs RWC win in 2011 because Aus weren't as good as in the late 90s SA weren't as good as 2007 and England weren't as good as 2003 ....

It's not trying to discredit that England team. It's just putting it in context, England had leapt far ahead of most of the 6 Nations who were slower to get to the levels of professionalism that is now the norm, and that South Africa had their shïttest side in history that was losing to Scotland and shipping record defeats to France, New Zealand had a nutcase in charge who messed about the team and had a weak front five. That's all the truth I'm afraid. There was a weak field around 02 and 03. Woodward thought he could repeat what worked in 03 in 05, and his methods got exposed as way out date by a New Zealand side that advanced the pro era massively.

There was a much stronger overall field in both 2007 and 2011 than there was in 03 by the way. Virtually every side at both tournaments were stronger than their 03 version apart from England.

 

[Maverick1987]

It's not trying to discredit that England team. It's just putting it in context, England had leapt far ahead of most of the 6 Nations who were slower to get to the levels of professionalism that is now the norm, and that South Africa had their shïttest side in history that was losing to Scotland and shipping record defeats to France, New Zealand had a nutcase in charge who messed about the team and had a weak front five. That's all the truth I'm afraid. There was a weak field around 02 and 03. Woodward thought he could repeat what worked in 03 in 05, and his methods got exposed as way out date by a New Zealand side that advanced the pro era massively.

There was a much stronger overall field in both 2007 and 2011 than there was in 03 by the way. Virtually every side at both tournaments were stronger than their 03 version apart from England.

I understand what you mean but I still stand by that if there were a lions tour in 2003 we would have been fine under sir Clive . England had lost a lot of quality players by the time the NZ tour came around and the players just weren't there . It was a couple of years too early for Wales and Ireland too . Both teams are night and day better now than back in 2005

 

[Feicarsinn]

Wait, that argument makes no sense. Woodward gets no credit for bringing his side to a new level of professionalism within Union? He changed the way the game is played at the very highest level, that sounds like an incredible coach to me.

 

[psychic duck]

Wait, that argument makes no sense. Woodward gets no credit for bringing his side to a new level of professionalism within Union? He changed the way the game is played at the very highest level, that sounds like an incredible coach to me.

No, because he got lucky (i) with the superior levels of professionalism throughout English rugby compared to other 6 Nations sides (ii) nutcase coaches in charge of NZ and SA the two traditionally strongest teams in the world (iii) a superb group of players in all the key positions with a talismanic leader. It didn't need a particularly great coach to have led England to dominance in that period. Unfortunately Woodward brought into his own hype though, and was brutally exposed on that Lions tour.

Remember back pre 2003, all the Celtic sides were playing Mickey Mouse rugby outside the Heineken Cup. England had a full professional league playing every week. The whole Welsh system was a complete mess and going through tumultuous time. And in the first years of professionalism the Irish provinces only played like 5 games a season outside Europe, and players were going to back to play in some joke league for sides like Blackrock College or Cork Constitution. They were essentially still semi-pro gradually creeping into pro. When they became properly pro and constructed elite systems, no surprise they were far more consistently competitive.

 

[goodNumber10]

No, because he got lucky (i) with the superior levels of professionalism throughout English rugby compared to other 6 Nations sides (ii) nutcase coaches in charge of NZ and SA the two traditionally strongest teams in the world (iii) a superb group of players in all the key positions with a talismanic leader. It didn't need a particularly great coach to have led England to dominance in that period. Unfortunately Woodward brought into his own hype though, and was brutally exposed on that Lions tour.

Remember back pre 2003, all the Celtic sides were playing Mickey Mouse rugby outside the Heineken Cup. England had a full professional league playing every week. The whole Welsh system was a complete mess and going through tumultuous time. And in the first years of professionalism the Irish provinces only played like 5 games a season outside Europe, and players were going to back to play in some joke league for sides like Blackrock College or Cork Constitution. They were essentially still semi-pro gradually creeping into pro. When they became properly pro and constructed elite systems, no surprise they were far more consistently competitive.

I think you're being a bit disingenuous here. The English domestic league was good but still pretty poor in contrast to super xv and where we are now, Woodward formed a test level squad despite the limitations of the NH game, he took players he liked away from the domestic game, ignored their club form and got them fitter and better skilled than everyone else - his team were more coherent, he brought in a fantastic coaching team, incredible analysts and levels of organisation that had never been seen before, he also took an England team to Australasia and won in NZ beating NZ Maori and the All Blacks and Australia and won his world cup in the SH - which regardless is a difficult place to go.

Also lets not forget that two years prior the Lions went to Australia with one of the strongest squads in recent history to play a world champion Wallaby squad and got turned over, the 2003 All Blacks ran a clean sweep in the Tri Nations that year and went 3/1 the year before.

I do agree that the Lions 2005 was a complete shambles and that he'd become stale by then - he also wasn't involved in domestic Rugby at that stage, but Woodward was/is a good sports related manager, despite his ridiculous move into football he has delivered a brilliant olympic squad.

that England team under the leadership of Woodward completely changed the face of rugby - it was no longer about rugby it was about Details! New Zealand 2005-2007 had almost the exact same impact imho showing that the game was better suited to athletes than just big blokes.

 

[psychic duck]

I think you're being a bit disingenuous here. The English domestic league was good but still pretty poor in contrast to super xv and where we are now,

I was referencing it compared the 6 Nations, not Super 12.

 

[Shaggy]

Clive Woodward, like Graham Henry, had a long tenure in their respective coaching stints, before they tasted success at the RWC, both weren't overly successful coach the B&I Lions, neither is in line for the 2017 coaching job, are they?

I know no one has mentioned Graham Henry, but the two are compariable coaching wise, and are equally irrelevant to this thread.

Lets move on/get back on topic

 

[goodNumber10]

I was referencing it compared the 6 Nations, not Super 12.

yes, i understand that, all i'm saying is that it is disingenuous to do so... because I think you have to judge Woodwards England on the world stage to define if they were a good side or not not just against the 6N sides.