Which is bigger achievement winning rugby world cup or playing for British lions.

[stevenp]

Some players say playing for the British lions rugby team is bigger than winning the rugby world cup.

Do you agree or disagree.

 

[Saintjay]

Some players say playing for the British lions rugby team is bigger than winning the rugby world cup.

Do you agree or disagree.

Be interesting to know how many of the England 2003 squad think that. None of the other home nations can compare it.

 

[Which Tyler]

Winning the RWC is the obvious, and correct answer.
Winning with the Lions comes higher than winning the 3rd place play-off at the RWC, and probably higher than 2nd place at the RWC.
Playing for the Lions would probably come a step lower - so behind playing a RWC final, and around the same as 3rd place play-off.

 

[stevenp]

Yes playing for the British & Irish lions and winning a test series in new Zealand 3-0 is the ultimate achievement in rugby union.

Only playing for the British & Irish Lions and beating new Zealand in a rugby world cup final could every beat that, and since the British & Irish lions don't play in the rugby world cup, playing for british & irish lions rugby team beating new Zealand 3 nil over three tests especially if all three test are at eden park in new zealand is the ultimate achievement in rugby union.

Ps currently being date of 30 april 2025 the 1971 British Lions Rugby Union test series winning team against new zealand in new Zealand is rated as the best team to ever play rugby union.

Ta

 

[stevenp]

Be interesting to know how many of the England 2003 squad think that. None of the other home nations can compare it.

Oyy because there was not a rugby world cup in the 1970s for Wales to have won.

If the rugby world cup had been started 20 years earlier in 1967 and played exactly 4 years after the previous edition then experts who know what they are talking about say wales would have won the 1971, 1975 and 1979 rugby world cups.

But they did not. Some players who won rugby world cup with England in 2003 have said playing for British lions is bigger for them than winning rugby world cup with England in 2003.

 

[Weldit]

If they announced the lions as done, I doubt most would notice.

 

[Saintjay]

Oyy because there was not a rugby world cup in the 1970s for Wales to have won.

If the rugby world cup had been started 20 years earlier in 1967 and played exactly 4 years after the previous edition then experts who know what they are talking about say wales would have won the 1971, 1975 and 1979 rugby world cups.

But they did not. Some players who won rugby world cup with England in 2003 have said playing for British lions is bigger for them than winning rugby world cup with England in 2003.

Would have, could have, should have. End of the day we'll never know.

The All blacks only lost like 4 games in the entire 60's but nobody counts world cups they could have won. Would most experts agree they deserve more world cups as well.

So the actual sample pool for the question is some players from the 2003 squad.

 

[stevenp]

Indeed it seems to come down to personal preference some saying winning rugby world cup and some saying playing for british & Irish lions team.

Personally for me (and i don't play rugby) winning a test series for the lions in new zealand would beat winning rugby world cup for me but that is just me.

Not getting of subject too much but is winning a test series against the british lions for the players of south Africa, new Zealand and Australia bigger than winning the rugby world cup for them.
I get the impression winning rugby world cup is bigger for them.

 

[McTallshort]

The Lions is something any player in Britain and Ireland can win
A world cup is currently only something England have won.

On that basis it's the World cup but as a fan I prefer the Lions.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

World cup by a mile, no one introduces any of the English players who did both as Lion's tour winners.

Ireland beating NZ in a three test series in NZ trumps any NH achievement in the pro era, Lions included, apart from England's WC win imo. Outside of a world cup, I think only a 3-0 win in NZ or SA, or back to back grand slams could beat it.

 

[ncurd]

Ireland beating NZ in a three test series in NZ trumps any NH achievement in the pro era, Lions included, apart from England's WC win imo. t.

2003 England rugby union tour of the Southern Hemisphere - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

?

6 man Scrum, games 1 week apart back when Australia were genuine world beaters.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

2003 England rugby union tour of the Southern Hemisphere - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

?

6 man Scrum, games 1 week apart back when Australia were genuine world beaters.

I'd rank a test series as a bigger achievement than one off tests. Maori doesn't factor.

 

[stevenp]

The British and Irish lions seems to have a special feeling that seems to transcend bigger than the rugby World Cup.

The British Lions 3 to 1 test win in new zealand in 1971 is held in higher esteem than England's 2093 rugby world cup win is.

Perhaps what makes the lions more special is it rarity yes a rugby world cup is only every 4 years like a lions tour is but to win in a test series in new zealand can only happen currently every 12th year. Plus it is much harder to get selected for the lions team for a home nations player than it is to get selected for the home nation that player comes from.

Gavin Hastings was the first I heard saying the British Lions was bigger than the rugby world cup and that was in 1995.

 

[ncurd]

I'd rank a test series as a bigger achievement than one off tests. Maori doesn't factor.

I agree about Maori

It's a question about 3 test series V one opponent against a 2 test series against two opponents. Especially as 2 would of been against fresh legs after you got crunched.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

The British and Irish lions seems to have a special feeling that seems to transcend bigger than the rugby World Cup.

The British Lions 3 to 1 test win in new zealand in 1971 is held in higher esteem than England's 2093 rugby world cup win is.

Perhaps what makes the lions more special is it rarity yes a rugby world cup is only every 4 years like a lions tour is but to win in a test series in new zealand can only happen currently every 12th year. Plus it is much harder to get selected for the lions team for a home nations player than it is to get selected for the home nation that player comes from.

Gavin Hastings was the first I heard saying the British Lions was bigger than the rugby world cup and that was in 1995.

I've you've come here to just repeat your opinion over and over you are wasting your time. Some people think WC, some lions.

 

[stevenp]

They are both awesome achievements and am sure most rugby players would like to achieve both but sadly few players get the chance to achieve either.

 

[Saintjay]

Must be great for a pro to be regarded as one of the best in that position of all the home nations. Lions tours are probably better fun as a pro.

Saying that would Wales players and fans prefer being in the Lions or a Wales win against the All Blacks.

No question for me that fans of Scotland, Wales and Ireland would take a world cup win above the Lions I'm sure. As an England fan I'd take the world cup win.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

The question asks about 'achievement' so winning the biggest competition the sport has to offer trumps playing for a scratch team where the result doesn't really matter by about a million miles.

If you're talking which gives the happiest memories or the most fun that might be an entirely different answer. At least for some.

 

[stevenp]

Not getting of the point to much which is harder winning the rugby world cup or a 3 test test series against New Zealand.
I think equally as hard.

The British Lions tours means more to British Lions than it does for players from Australia, New Zealand or south Africa.

Enough for now.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Siege?