• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

British and Irish Lions: is it time to an Argentinian tour?

The Lion's is a money maker, it used to play a purpose when touring wasn't all that feasible and used to end in complete failure for the four nations but we don't need that now. It's a pretty empty honour especially when you play a team that three of the four countries would have underachieved had they not won the series like last time.

In a time where most the NH discussion on this forum is how to get ourselves to the level of the NH, I really think we should be looking at this regarding it's purpose or lack thereof. The Lions is simply a hindrance to the development of a team in a vital stage of the four year World Cup cycle where teams should be expanding on the foundations they have built in the previous 18 months, instead they go on a worthless and amateurish tour which lacks identity other than videos of Martin Johnson, Willie John MacBride etc... It's a good idea but bad for rugby in the four nations involved.

Without anything to base it on, I'd warrant that those involved in 2013 would rather have won that test series wearing white, green, blue or with a leek on their chest. At the very least I'd want the tour to be moved to the year after the RWC.

The modern Lions, like every professional sport, are indeed a money maker. We've the success of the '97 tour to thank for that. To call it an empty honour is nothing but your opinion. Take a look at the team announcement events in recent years; looks far from an empty when you see the eyes, smiles and puffed out chests of those picked, of those handed their jersey by the amateurs of old.

And thats an unbelievably selfish take; each for their own. No thanks, I don't want a part of that. There remains an incredibly powerful history of unity that comes with the Lions. The hosts relish the opportunity to be part of something more than just another touring nation, and thats clear when you read the reverence with which they are spoken of.

"Worthless and amateurish"? Wrong, wrong, wrong. Why should players be treated merely as commodities to serve the purpose of their clubs and country? There has never been so much as a whisper from the players that the Lion's concept is redundant, as they clearly value the honour that comes with wearing the red jersey.

I'd beg to differ; a test series as a Lion strikes me as a more significant achievement. Always the underdog and but once every four years. The opportunity to actually represent the Lions is something that is bestowed on so few players.

Ultimately, you won't get what you want. The Lions is much more than you give it credit for.
 
I just don't think Argentina would give decent competition to the Lions.


Really?

 

[/QUOTE
....and with a penalty kick converted by Wilko in the minute, 88th, to tie the game.
 

In his defense that wasnt a vintage lions team
 
Really?

[/QUOTE
....and with a penalty kick converted by Wilko in the minute, 88th, to tie the game.

Wasn't this a Lions team missing a good few though. Add in that tour was arguably the worst in terms of team preparation and togetherness.

Out of team that played Argentina. Only few players were in test team. I think it was only 5 were in 22 and of that 2 started.
 
Wasn't this a Lions team missing a good few though. Add in that tour was arguably the worst in terms of team preparation and togetherness.

Out of team that played Argentina. Only few players were in test team. I think it was only 5 were in 22 and of that 2 started.

Yes maybe so, but Argentina have shown a massive improvement and would be more competitive now against a full strength Lions side.

- - - Updated - - -

It wouldn't be as commercial as the other three so it won't happen. I think the Lions should be scrapped altogeher, only adds to the "they're better than us down there" attitude. It helps the teams that play the Lions a lot but does nothing for the Lions' nations.

I think the only nation who Ireland, England or Wales couldn't beat in a test series with the prep an financial backing the Lions have is New Zealand, it'd be close with the other three.

The comments of how Los Jaguares will pretty much be the international side has intrigued me though, it risks the team getting used to superugby and not then being able to make the jump to International, I'd be pushing hard for another Argentinian team because while it will establish pro rugby in Argentina it risks their national team going stale.

I struggle to think anyone would agree with you on this one, for the players it is the pinnacle of there careers, rivalled only by a WC winners medal and to deprive them and us as supporters would be a disaster.
As far as your point re New Zealand lets reserve judgement I think we have a decent chance.
 
The modern Lions, like every professional sport, are indeed a money maker. We've the success of the '97 tour to thank for that. To call it an empty honour is nothing but your opinion. Take a look at the team announcement events in recent years; looks far from an empty when you see the eyes, smiles and puffed out chests of those picked, of those handed their jersey by the amateurs of old.

And thats an unbelievably selfish take; each for their own. No thanks, I don't want a part of that. There remains an incredibly powerful history of unity that comes with the Lions. The hosts relish the opportunity to be part of something more than just another touring nation, and thats clear when you read the reverence with which they are spoken of.

"Worthless and amateurish"? Wrong, wrong, wrong. Why should players be treated merely as commodities to serve the purpose of their clubs and country? There has never been so much as a whisper from the players that the Lion's concept is redundant, as they clearly value the honour that comes with wearing the red jersey.

I'd beg to differ; a test series as a Lion strikes me as a more significant achievement. Always the underdog and but once every four years. The opportunity to actually represent the Lions is something that is bestowed on so few players.

Ultimately, you won't get what you want. The Lions is much more than you give it credit for.

I know I have a very unpopular opinion here and I won't get what I want but the whole tour has no function or benefit for the professional rugby players and teams in Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales, if anything it has a negative effect.

It's very easy to, as you have done, paint a romantic picture that the Lions is sugar and spice and all things nice but the reality is that it's not. The touring nations either don't respect the Lions, NZ and SA before '97, or don't care, Australia. It's more rugby that our already over worked players have to play and results in the likes of Jonathan Davies and Johnny Sexton, guys who haven't had a non-injury related break of any significant amount of time since August 2012, missing their chance to create history with their nation at a world cup, an event and teams that people genuinely care about. And great players aren't remembered by their Lions' achievements any more, BOD and POC for example will always be remembered for their grand slam, 6 nations, Heineken cup and Pro 12 wins over captaining Lions tours and winning one. BOD's remembered as a Lion because he got dropped on his shoulder.

A selfish system is exactly what I want to be part of, the All Blacks and South Africa are as selfish as they come, they're also the best. Could you ever picture NZ and SA getting chummy and sharing moves and secrets to their game to win a test series that won't help their nation in any way?

Never did I imply that players are commodities, my main point is that the Lions tour plays a negative effect on their career. Cian Healy's injury in 2013 may have been a blessing in disguise, a big one was due with the amount of rugby he plays and he missed out on a Lions tour rather than two 6 nations victories, a far more impressive achievement than beating a poor Australian side with the help of three other countries.

Your last point encapsulates my point. Why should we rely on teaming up every four years not to be an underdog? The goal should be always being the favourite as one nation, all the Lions does is add to our defeatist mentality. If The Lions has a place in the game at all that won't hinder NH rugby, it is as a Barbarian like side playing random exhibitions.
 
I think that the best option by the moment is the Pumas as a mid-week tester in the SA or Australian tour (like an invited team), until we have real contenders apart of the National Team, for a full argentinian tour.
 
I still think it's a while off, but it's a definite possibility. I think they need to win a couple of Rugby Championship ***les, for that to happen.
 
Since the last World Cup, Argentina have lost 9 out of their 11 games against the home nations. The Lions would then be another step up from any of the home nations. This Ireland result is an exception to the rule that Argentina are around, or slightly below, the home nations in terms of ability. (Which is not downplaying Argentina; it's impressive given they lack a professional league.)

I'd like to see Argentina at least have winning records against all NH teams before thinking they should be toured.
 
Last edited:
I know I have a very unpopular opinion here and I won't get what I want but the whole tour has no function or benefit for the professional rugby players and teams in Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales, if anything it has a negative effect.

So you're saying that in the absence of the Lions tour that players would get a rest? The NH players do play too much rugby, but its not the Lions tour to blame for this. If the Lions didn't come around every 4 years it would be replaced by more touring. That much is obvious.

And it is easy to romanticise because its one of the very few sporting occasions that warrants it. As an Englishman, one of my abiding memories of POC will be him in a Lions jersey. Of course he'll be more recognised for his achievements in the green of Ireland and the red of Munster, but thats what we see, week in, week out.

In terms of a selfish system, do you not think that theres some value in players from different leagues, with different playing styles, getting together? Teams like NZ can afford to be selfish, seeing as they're the best at what they do. Sharing can be of benefit, especially when we seem bereft of ideas of our own.

But again, you think that winning a 6 Nations trumps that of winning a Lions series? Really? In your opinion or that of the players?
 
It wouldn't be as commercial as the other three so it won't happen. I think the Lions should be scrapped altogeher, only adds to the "they're better than us down there" attitude. It helps the teams that play the Lions a lot but does nothing for the Lions' nations.
.


I couldn't agree more! Its high time the lions should be consigned to the dustbin of history. I think the IRFU should hand in our notice to. And instead use the Lions summer properly for Irish development building towards the following world cup. Its a wasted summer in 4 year world cup cycle.

For what its worth Argentina were robbed of a victory 2005.
 
I couldn't agree more! Its high time the lions should be consigned to the dustbin of history. I think the IRFU should hand in our notice to. And instead use the Lions summer properly for Irish development building towards the following world cup. Its a wasted summer in 4 year world cup cycle.

For what its worth Argentina were robbed of a victory 2005.

Yeah Irish players don't get any development being part of a Lions tour.....
 
Yes Irish risk extra injuries for what is basically a distraction from our National development. Make like the Barbarians exhibition games and the like if like. there's not a snowball's chance in hell they'll beat New Zealand! 3-0 All Blacks I don't need crystal ball to tell you that. Its a waste of time. Yes great drink fest all the fun and frolics great history etc etc. Time to move on. Next Topic

- - - Updated - - -
 
Last edited:
I think if you asked the players whether the Lions should scrapped, the answer would be a resounding NO!

NH players play too much rugby each season, but that has nothing to do with the Lions tour and everything to do with a season that is way too long and in which are are far too many games.

Remember also that the other tours don't stop just becase a Lions tour is on. During the Lions tour to Australia in 2013;

France went to NZ
England went to Argentina
Ireland went to Canada
Wales went to Japan
Scotland, Italy and Samoa went to South Africa

It was great for those Tier 2 teams to host the Tier 1 teams, and a chance to pick new players for the Tier 1 teams that toured there.
 
Last edited:
Since the last World Cup, Argentina have lost 9 out of their 11 games against the home nations. The Lions would then be another step up from any of the home nations. This Ireland result is an exception to the rule that Argentina are around, or slightly below, the home nations in terms of ability. (Which is not downplaying Argentina; it's impressive given they lack a professional league.)

I'd like to see Argentina at least have winning records against all NH teams before thinking they should be toured.

As a counter, since the last World Cup the home nations have lost all but one of their matches against New Zealand. That doesn't mean we wouldn't want to see the Lions playing New Zealand.

I think it's also arguable whether the Lions actually are a step up from the individual teams. England, and to a lesser extent Ireland and Wales, tend to do just as well against the SANZAR teams as the Lions do. The are obviously a better team player for player, but due to the nature of the squad assembly this isn't necessarily reflected in team performance.
 
Mr. Fish is correct I've rarely felt the lions are a side that are step up from England. Even the last edition didn't perform better against Australia than England had at the same point in time.

Technically that shouldn't happen and think it's about the coach more than anything else but all too often they bring national bias into it too much. Woodward and selecting past it England players, Gatland picking a Welsh player on every marginal call. Not sure how you fix that at all really.

Not that I'd scrap the Lions at all I love it.
 
The Lion's is a money maker, it used to play a purpose when touring wasn't all that feasible and used to end in complete failure for the four nations but we don't need that now. It's a pretty empty honour especially when you play a team that three of the four countries would have underachieved had they not won the series like last time.

In a time where most the NH discussion on this forum is how to get ourselves to the level of the NH, I really think we should be looking at this regarding it's purpose or lack thereof. The Lions is simply a hindrance to the development of a team in a vital stage of the four year World Cup cycle where teams should be expanding on the foundations they have built in the previous 18 months, instead they go on a worthless and amateurish tour which lacks identity other than videos of Martin Johnson, Willie John MacBride etc... It's a good idea but bad for rugby in the four nations involved.

Without anything to base it on, I'd warrant that those involved in 2013 would rather have won that test series wearing white, green, blue or with a leek on their chest. At the very least I'd want the tour to be moved to the year after the RWC.

This is absolutely correct. The Lions is right in the centre of the 4 year cycle and far from ideal, and leaves a lot of tired players at the start of the next season. From Wales' point of view, it heavily disrupted the 2012-13 international season, then afterwards many of the players had little rest and were tired and not on best form.

Also from a fans point of view. The last Lions tour was utterly boring until it got to the test matches. The Lions tour serves as a major payday for the SH big 3, and disrupts all the building of the home nations.
 
Too many Welsh players were picked by Henry in 2001 and Geech picked a useless Scottish front 5 in 1993 but as you said I also still love it!
 
As a counter, since the last World Cup the home nations have lost all but one of their matches against New Zealand. That doesn't mean we wouldn't want to see the Lions playing New Zealand.

I think it's also arguable whether the Lions actually are a step up from the individual teams. England, and to a lesser extent Ireland and Wales, tend to do just as well against the SANZAR teams as the Lions do. The are obviously a better team player for player, but due to the nature of the squad assembly this isn't necessarily reflected in team performance.

True as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Mr. Fish is correct I've rarely felt the lions are a side that are step up from England. Even the last edition didn't perform better against Australia than England had at the same point in time.

Technically that shouldn't happen and think it's about the coach more than anything else but all too often they bring national bias into it too much. Woodward and selecting past it England players, Gatland picking a Welsh player on every marginal call. Not sure how you fix that at all really.

Not that I'd scrap the Lions at all I love it.

Doing that won the Lions their first series for 16 years though. He picked the players who were best suited to his system which was the most sensible thing to do with short time and a scratch side. If he'd developed a new system from scratch he would have lost 3-0.
 

Latest posts

Top