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

[stevenp]

The prestige and rareness of a British & Lions tour is part of what makes it so special!

Long may they continue.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

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.

I think it is a case of splitting hairs with the increased status of a three test series and any randomness being taken out as a result being the deciding factor.

Realistically both teams did more or less the same thing, it was a rare case of a NH team that was number 1 in the world beating their closest opponent(s) from the SH away from home. Does a 4hr plane journey or being two men down elevate the standalone achievement, I don't think so. Does losing the first test or not going on to win the world cup diminish Ireland's, I don't think so either.

If you're talking the better team it was England, and had they done a test series with NZ and won it or gone and beat SA too, which they would have done it'd be a different converstation for me but it didn't happen.

I wouldn't class things like beating all the tri nation sides in the same calendar year like Argentina last year or Ireland in 2016, or even the 18 and 17 game winning streaks from England, NZ and then Ireland at quite the same level as either because all of them included a decently easy run of away games and a fair bit of randomness in there too. It's harsh, possibly doesn't make sense but everyone is agreed that the world cup is the pinnacle and SA are champions because they beat France, a weak England team and a 14 man NZ by 1 point each. There's a theoretical argument to be made that what we are arguing is more impressive than that but as an achievement, no way.

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.

Last time I really supported the Lions was 09, Leinster winning the heineken cup that year was a bigger deal to me.

I think BOD sums what the Lions currently is up. I've seen an interview with him around Lions tour time asking "green or red", he said red. On Irish TV he said it meant more to beat Australia in 01 with Ireland than the Lions the year before. (Irish TV BOD is a different person to UK TV BOD though)

The Lions takes over for about 6 months every 4 years (and this is diminishing, in previous years mods would have deleted about 15 "my Lions XV" threads from new one post and done members) but everyone cares about their own country in between, as they should. Like no way a Scottish fan would take a Lions tour win with 7+ Scots in the 23 over a 6 nations win and I reckon Leinster's current squad want the Champions cup this year over a test series win.

Also, I don't know about the UK but I've barely heard a whisper about the Lions in Ireland from fans even though we're hosting a match and Farrell's the coach who's likely bringing a large Irish contingent. Rugby fans will watch it because it's interesting but it's just not that big a deal.

 

[IT157]

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 won't be alive for England's next World Cup win

 

[Kiwiwomble]

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 would say the RWC is harder considering you might have to beat multiple top teams at the peak of their 4 year cycle

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.

i hear many more people talking regularly about 2003

so far i feel you're very much in the minority

 

[mikebrownsauce1512]

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

Pretty sure i have Dallaglio say that the best thing from his career was the 97 lions tour to SA

 

[AlRums]

There's another of looking at it, you have more chance of being capped for your respective country than being capped for the Lions.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

fro an AMA dallagio did

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

View attachment 23471

fro an AMA dallagio did

Lost to Ireland too in that period, clear imposter syndrome from Lawrence and proof that 2003 should be forgotten.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

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

Who? Who are these players you talk about?
Name names. A source would be nice.
This should be fun.

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.

It is obviously subjective, but i'll die on this hill: Nothing beats a world cup. Nothing. It's a bit like when (some) analyst do a medal count during the Olympics. 1 gold meal beats 0 gold medals + 1453254325435342 silver ones.

Competitive sports ain't just about winning. It's about winning when it matters and in rugby that means WCs. All the rest are nice to haves. You can pack containers with silverware, have endless tests wins and tours. Still not enough to match a world cup win. One slip, a missed tackle, a single mistake and that's it. And unlike the Lion's tour, you're team is not a continental greatest hits conglomerate facing a somewhat cherry picked opposition.
I know, tradition et al... sure, but let's call a spade a spade. Imagine if, dunno, an Aus-NZ-RSA combo touring Wales. And then imagine if a lunatic would compare that result to winning a world cup.

I dont particularly like the way the media presents it either: 'And now, joining us live, former Lions tour winner, scrum half legend XYZ'... as if beating NZ in 2005 would have been the same as taking Australia in 2013. Sorry, no.

EDIT: oddly enough, there is a non-trivial argument to be made from the opposite side. Example: you could argue that (i.e.) an Australian beating the Lions faced a tougher competition than an Australian winning the world cup. Keyword being 'could'.

 

[McTallshort]

Who? Who are these players you talk about?
Name names. A source would be nice.
This should be fun.


It is obviously subjective, but i'll die on this hill: Nothing beats a world cup. Nothing. It's a bit like when (some) analyst do a medal count during the Olympics. 1 gold meal beats 0 gold medals + 1453254325435342 silver ones.

Competitive sports ain't just about winning. It's about winning when it matters and in rugby that means WCs. All the rest are nice to haves. You can pack containers with silverware, have endless tests wins and tours. Still not enough to match a world cup win. One slip, a missed tackle, a single mistake and that's it. And unlike the Lion's tour, you're team is not a continental greatest hits conglomerate facing a somewhat cherry picked opposition.
I know, tradition et al... sure, but let's call a spade a spade. Imagine if, dunno, an Aus-NZ-RSA combo touring Wales. And then imagine if a lunatic would compare that result to winning a world cup.

I dont particularly like the way the media presents it either: 'And now, joining us live, former Lions tour winner, scrum half legend XYZ'... as if beating NZ in 2005 would have been the same as taking Australia in 2013. Sorry, no.

EDIT: oddly enough, there is a non-trivial argument to be made from the opposite side. Example: you could argue that (i.e.) an Australian beating the Lions faced a tougher competition than an Australian winning the world cup. Keyword being 'could'.

See above

 

[Which Tyler]

See above

Care to link?
I can only see the Dallaglio AMA where he doesn't remotely say that Lion '97 > RWC '03
And NB, that's WINNING a Lions tour, as opposed to PLAYING in one, as per the question.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Who? Who are these players you talk about?
Name names. A source would be nice.
This should be fun.


It is obviously subjective, but i'll die on this hill: Nothing beats a world cup. Nothing. It's a bit like when (some) analyst do a medal count during the Olympics. 1 gold meal beats 0 gold medals + 1453254325435342 silver ones.

Competitive sports ain't just about winning. It's about winning when it matters and in rugby that means WCs. All the rest are nice to haves. You can pack containers with silverware, have endless tests wins and tours. Still not enough to match a world cup win. One slip, a missed tackle, a single mistake and that's it. And unlike the Lion's tour, you're team is not a continental greatest hits conglomerate facing a somewhat cherry picked opposition.
I know, tradition et al... sure, but let's call a spade a spade. Imagine if, dunno, an Aus-NZ-RSA combo touring Wales. And then imagine if a lunatic would compare that result to winning a world cup.

I dont particularly like the way the media presents it either: 'And now, joining us live, former Lions tour winner, scrum half legend XYZ'... as if beating NZ in 2005 would have been the same as taking Australia in 2013. Sorry, no.

EDIT: oddly enough, there is a non-trivial argument to be made from the opposite side. Example: you could argue that (i.e.) an Australian beating the Lions faced a tougher competition than an Australian winning the world cup. Keyword being 'could'.

Agreed yeah. I was talking about Ireland's win in NZ. A World Cup trumps it but nothing I've seen another team do in a singel test window.

 

[stevenp]

Winning the rugby world cup is like an achievement while playing for the British and Irish lions is more of an honour.

An achievement is a success or accomplishment, often the result of effort and skill. An honor is a formal recognition of someone's achievements, often given through an award or public praise

 

[stevenp]

Care to link?
I can only see the Dallaglio AMA where he doesn't remotely say that Lion '97 > RWC '03
And NB, that's WINNING a Lions tour, as opposed to PLAYING in one, as per the question.

Playing for the British & Irish lions rugby team seems do special. All the best.

 

[Which Tyler]

Playing for the British & Irish lions rugby team seems do special. All the best.

So that's a "no" then?


If it's the same AMA above he says (and I actually quote)

If I had to list my top 5 achievements, in no particular order, because I can't rank them, I'd say:
3. Winning the Rugby World Cup in 2003 against Australia, after a long journey for that England team.
4. Winning the Lions Series in South Africa in 1997 - to be the first team to win there since John McBride's Lions in 1974 was unforgettable.

Now, that explicitly does NOT state Winning Lions > Winning RWC. It doesn't get remotely close to Playing for the Lions > Winning RWC

Now, if there's a different quote that I've missed, feel free to provide it

 

[stevenp]

How many players have played for the British lions as well as won the rugby world cup. I do not know the answer perhaps you you could list as a many as you know.

Plus how many have won both a test series with the British and Irish lions plus won the rugby World Cup.

 

[Which Tyler]

The information is easy to find - given that precisely 1 RWC has been won by a team that makes up the Lions
I'm not your google
And it won't prove anything either way

In this thread, the claim is that PLAYING for the Lions (~850 players) is a bigger achievement than WINNING a rugby world cup (~250 players) less than 30 have done both.
The claim is... brave - as shown by the poll here, and acknowledgement of history. The burden of proof is upon the person making the claim.
So far, the only "proof" has been the above quote by Laurence Dallaglio - which... didn't prove what was claimed.

 

[Saintjay]

How many players have played for the British lions as well as won the rugby world cup. I do not know the answer perhaps you you could list as a many as you know.

Plus how many have won both a test series with the British and Irish lions plus won the rugby World Cup.

Lions who've won a RWC probably most of the 2005 NZ tour English players.

 

[AlRums]

Lions who've won a RWC probably most of the 2005 NZ tour English players.

And those Lions lost 3-0

 

[stevenp]

Is winning a British lions test series mean more, the same or less for players in the British & Irish team than it does for the players in thier opponents team?