The Lions rugby team

yosser hughes

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really? What should people 'care# about then?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I find the concept pretty bizarre to be honest, but then again I couldn't care less about rugby in general.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Always like to see us Irish hold close to our English, Scottish and Welsh brethren.

They're the people that we share all our culture and customs with.

We're not European, we're the British and the Irish.

God only knows where the world would be without all the innovations and inventions of GB and Irish.

The_Kew_Tour

Billy86 wrote: »

But they're huge countries that play football at a competitive level (two with leagues attracting big stars with lots of money being pumped in) that have not won a WC, so they should be embarrassed by that criteria.

England did win a WC... over half a century ago. Meanwhile a country with less than 20% of their population are the reigning European champions.

I was talking about England rugby wc win in 2003.

To compare a Sport where it is a National Sport in 2 countries, compared to 150+ is bit crazy.

But even if it national sport in NZ its not like that's only sport they have.

ThinkProgress

The Lions coach is not even British or Irish... wait for it... yep, he's a New Zealander... lol

So even in the unlikely event that the lions do manage to win the series... they will have required a big chunk of help from a New Zealander to beat New Zealand. :P

Despite him being the Wales coach, I still think that would diminish any potential success they have!

If you can't find a decent native coach out of four rugby nations, sorry but that's a damning indictment of the whole concept for me... It's really not surprising that the lions have a losing record historically tbh.

timthumbni

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Is it not a bit embarrassing that a total population of 3.5million can get a double score over a combined population of 70+million.

That's the worst bit:)

Well to balance the population argument out nz have got the maoris.

If Adolf had to share a shower room with a few Maoris after a gym workout in the 1930s he would have cut the master race **** out pronto.

Dirty Dingus McGee

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Always like to see us Irish hold close to our English, Scottish and Welsh brethren.

They're the people that we share all our culture and customs with.

We're not European, we're the British and the Irish.

God only knows where the world would be without all the innovations and inventions of GB and Irish.

I'm not British and Irish. I'm just Irish.

ThisRegard

ThinkProgress wrote: »

The Lions coach is not even British or Irish... wait for it... yep, he's a New Zealander... lol

So even in the unlikely event that the lions do manage to win the series... they will have required a big chunk of help from a New Zealander to beat New Zealand. :P

Despite him being the Wales coach, I still think that would diminish any potential success they have!

If you can't find a decent native coach out of four rugby nations, sorry but that's a damning indictment of the whole concept for me... It's really not surprising that the lions have a losing record historically tbh.

Well that's a load of nonsense for a Sunday morning.

ThinkProgress

ThisRegard wrote: »

Well that's a load of nonsense for a Sunday morning.

Sorry if I put a downer on things for you there...

Hey look, maybe someone can give the man a British or Irish passport, and you could just pretend he's not a kiwi... :P

They're doing it with players all the time around these parts, why not coaches too!?

S. Goodspeed

It's a relatively novel concept with some history / tradition but the hype around it is absurd. I can see why players love it, getting selected elevates them above their international colleagues and they get to hang out with a new set of jocks for a few weeks. But I really don't get why some people are obsessed with it, to me it's a curiousity, nothing else. The whole "being a lion is in our blood" thing and comparing it to being a Maori (which is actually in there's) is particularly galling to me. l

LordSutch

We need George Hook on here.

He'd give all you naysayers a jolly good roasting :-)

Dirty Dingus McGee

I enjoy it.It's good fun it has a fantasy sport/combo team thing that all sports fans spend time thinking about except this actually happens with the Lions.It's simply a brilliant entertainment idea and I always look forward to it and I'm only a casual rugby fan.

Some of the hype from Sky is ridiculous like Miles Harrison on Sky saying at the start of the match yesterday that this was the pinnacle of Rugby for these players which I really doubt is true seeing as the New Zealand team have won the world cup in recent years and I'm sure the Lions players would consider the world cup/grand slam to be a greater thing than a Lions tour victory.The hype is ridiculous from Sky but I guess that helps sell it to people so the hype seems to be working.

Billy86

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

I was talking about England rugby wc win in 2003.

To compare a Sport where it is a National Sport in 2 countries, compared to 150+ is bit crazy.

But even if it national sport in NZ its not like that's only sport they have.

If you were talking about rugby, by the criteria you set out Ireland with a population of around 6mn in all four provinces has no place winning a WC and should never be expected to, and only makes it more embarrassing for so many other countries that the European champions in football have a population of just 10mn.

And it takes high, high priority over every other sport in NZ, much like football in Brazil or cricket in India, but arguably to a greater extent again. They don't take anything even bordering on somewhat remotely sort of, kind of, maybe close to as seriously as they do rugby.

GerryDerpy

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I enjoy it.It's good fun it has a fantasy sport/combo team thing that all sports fans spend time thinking about except this actually happens with the Lions.It's simply a brilliant entertainment idea and I always look forward to it and I'm only a casual rugby fan.

Some of the hype from Sky is ridiculous like Miles Harrison on Sky saying at the start of the match yesterday that this was the pinnacle of Rugby for these players which I really doubt is true seeing as the New Zealand team have won the world cup in recent years and I'm sure the Lions players would consider the world cup/grand slam to be a greater thing than a Lions tour victory.The hype is ridiculous from Sky but I guess that helps sell it to people so the hype seems to be working.

Sky are insufferable when it comes to promotion of sports they have exclusive rights on.

The Lions were taken down a peg or two yesterday. It shows that the best of the best from the Northern slice of our sphere are miles off the Southerners.

tommyirl

I think we need to see what the next test match holds. In terms of the population, just look at Ireland, we have often punched well above our weight internationally. The system in New Zealand for sport is massive compared to sport, just look outside of rugby and you will see that. Look towards Athletics, Triathlon, Cycling, there are some excellent athletes across the board and the all belive. Its not about size, its heart, and I belive that this is the exact problem of the lions team, not enough heart.

The_Kew_Tour

Billy86 wrote: »

If you were talking about rugby, by the criteria you set out Ireland with a population of around 6mn in all four provinces has no place winning a WC and should never be expected to, and only makes it more embarrassing for so many other countries that the European champions in football have a population of just 10mn.

And it takes high, high priority over every other sport in NZ, much like football in Brazil or cricket in India, but arguably to a greater extent again. They don't take anything even bordering on somewhat remotely sort of, kind of, maybe close to as seriously as they do rugby.

8 Countries play Rugby at any sort of level.

You are playing the Black and White card way too easily here.

tbf in England Union is really only played in The Southern Half of the country where League is the Sport in the Northern half.

all im saying is that a country like Ireland should be able to do better then a 3% winning record against countries half there size and a combination of 4 countries should be expecting to beat a country 5% its size.

The beauty of Sport is that its never that clear cut and upsets happen. That's why we watch it.

Billy86

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

8 Countries play Rugby at any sort of level.

You are playing the Black and White card way too easily here.

tbf in England Union is really only played in The Southern Half of the country where League is the Sport in the Northern half.

all im saying is that a country like Ireland should be able to do better then a 3% winning record against countries half there size and a combination of 4 countries should be expecting to beat a country 5% its size.

The beauty of Sport is that its never that clear cut and upsets happen. That's why we watch it.

The thing is NZ isn't half the size of Ireland, it's about 150k less than the Republic (4.6mn vs 4.75mn) so the difference is basically N. Ire (1.8mn) and that's ignoring that in many parts of the country, Connaught especially, it really isn't a very popular sport where it is obsessively loved across NZ.

That more countries play football doesn't help the argument that larger populations should be embarrassed about not being as good as smaller populations, if anything it means the like of Portugal and the Netherlands should be significantly less successful than they are. Same for Ireland even, and let's not forget that Wales (3mn) and Iceland (300K) each reached the quarters of the Euros as well (Iceland knocking out England on the way) and N. Ire (1.8mn) also reaching the last 16, finishing ahead of Ukraine whose population they only have 4% of. With that logic the US should be among the favourites for every single WC in football because they do play the sport competitively. But they are not, because they also focus more heavily on other sports like basketball and the NFL (just like Ireland with GAA and arguably football) - I'm just saying it's a flawed line of logic.

WinnyThePoo

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

8 Countries play Rugby at any sort of level.

You are playing the Black and White card way too easily here.

tbf in England Union is really only played in The Southern Half of the country where League is the Sport in the Northern half.

all im saying is that a country like Ireland should be able to do better then a 3% winning record against countries half there size and a combination of 4 countries should be expecting to beat a country 5% its size.

The beauty of Sport is that its never that clear cut and upsets happen. That's why we watch it.

8 countries play at any sort of level?

You must have a fairly limited knowledge of rugby.

ThinkProgress

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

8 Countries play Rugby at any sort of level.

You are playing the Black and White card way too easily here.

tbf in England Union is really only played in The Southern Half of the country where League is the Sport in the Northern half.

all im saying is that a country like Ireland should be able to do better then a 3% winning record against countries half there size and a combination of 4 countries should be expecting to beat a country 5% its size.

The beauty of Sport is that its never that clear cut and upsets happen. That's why we watch it.

We always make excuses in this part of the world, when we fail in sport.

We have a very weak mental approach to sports in general... we like painting ourselves as the plucky underdog. We don't expect to win.

The mental approach from the likes of Australia and New Zealand, is vastly superior to us! They know we have an inferiority complex.

Scotland: Kiwi coach
Wales: Kiwi coach
Ireland: Kiwi coach
England: Aussie coach
Lions... Well, you get the picture!

^^ That just SCREAMS inferior!!!

We don't back our own guys to get the job done... we always think we are inferior. And if you think you are inferior, you always will be!!

Even when those Southern Hemisphere nations go through a period of bad results.... they still never lose faith in their own people.

Instead of trying to improve our own standards in this part of the world, we just look to take the lazy shortcut by hiring an outsider to fix the problems....

It's pathetic really!!

Billy86

tommyirl wrote: »

I think we need to see what the next test match holds. In terms of the population, just look at Ireland, we have often punched well above our weight internationally. The system in New Zealand for sport is massive compared to sport, just look outside of rugby and you will see that. Look towards Athletics, Triathlon, Cycling, there are some excellent athletes across the board and the all belive. Its not about size, its heart, and I belive that this is the exact problem of the lions team, not enough heart.

It's less about heart in my opinion and more to do with technical skills and development. We're making big leaps forward and trying to be progressive on that end, but watching youth training in Australia was really interesting (and NZ apparently take it to another level again), lots of rules put in place like having to pass every 3-5 steps regardless of all else, emphasis on quick offloads and rotating the ball at all times etc... it's why NZ can play terrible for 60 minutes (rare but it happens) against even some top teams, then shred them for 20-25 points in the other 20. Lots of touch rugby type rules and schools taking it on from younger ages etc etc.

It's a bit like some of the continental countries in football, they emphasise fundamentals, technique and good instincts really young and only then look to move into playing "actual" rugby more as the kids get older. Like I said in rugby there has been an emphasis to try and copy that somewhat though there are limitations, and in football we have a mix of some trying to emulate what is done on the continent and others just picking the fastest, strongest kids to play 'hustle and bustle' football that typically doesn't translate into technically skilled players but more a bunch of workhorses when they get to senior ages (and also can limit kids' early opportunities based on what month of the year they were born in, e.g. those closest to the age cut offs will be quicker and stronger on average than those 10 months younger).

WinnyThePoo

ThinkProgress wrote: »

We always make excuses in this part of the world, when we fail in sport.

We have a very weak mental approach to sports in general... we like painting ourselves as the plucky underdog. We don't expect to win.

The mental approach from the likes of Australia and New Zealand, is vastly superior to us! They know we have an inferiority complex.

Scotland: Kiwi coach
Wales: Kiwi coach
Ireland: Kiwi coach
England: Aussie coach
Lions... Well, you get the picture!

^^ That just SCREAMS inferior!!!

We don't back our own guys to get the job done... we always think we are inferior. And if you think you are inferior, you always will be!!

Even when those Southern Hemisphere nations go through a period of bad results.... they still never lose faith in their own people.

Instead of trying to improve our own standards in this part of the world, we just look to take the lazy shortcut by hiring an outsider to fix the problems....

It's pathetic really!!

Your last paragraph gave me a hearty laugh to be fair. You haven't a notion.

ThinkProgress

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Your last paragraph gave me a hearty laugh to be fair.

Then you are clearly part of the problem!

Billy86

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Scotland: Kiwi coach
Wales: Kiwi coach
Ireland: Kiwi coach
England: Aussie coach
Lions... Well, you get the picture!

^^ That just SCREAMS inferior!!!

That doesn't scream inferior at all, it screams that the fact that the Aussies and Kiwi's have a better technical and tactical approach on average, and that's just the fact of the matter. It also results in getting some very good coaches earlier in their careers which can lead to huge successes... just look at Michael Cheika at Leinster, who later turned Australia from struggling into WC finalists in 2015. Should Leinster have passed up on the guy who wound up getting them their first European Cup on the basis of where he was from? The same with England and Eddie Jones, who brought them from an utterly humiliating WC exit in 2015 to within one game of beating the all time record for most consecutive wins earlier this year. The same with England getting three SN titles, two grand slams and within one point of a WC final under Gatland. Which Irish, English and Welsh managers should these teams have gone with instead?

You might as well argue that English teams in the Premier League often looking at continental managers screams of an inferiority complex, and they should all go and back their own guys like Alan Pardew and Gareth Southgate because they're English. The aim is to get the best you can, and those guys tend to come from the southern hemisphere.

The_Kew_Tour

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

8 countries play at any sort of level?

You must have a fairly limited knowledge of rugby.

You're right its 9

ThinkProgress

Billy86 wrote: »

That doesn't scream inferior at all, it screams that the fact that the Aussies and Kiwi's have a better technical and tactical approach on average, and that's just the fact of the matter. It also results in getting some very good coaches earlier in their careers which can lead to huge successes... just look at Michael Cheika at Leinster, who later turned Australia from struggling into WC finalists in 2015. Should Leinster have passed up on the guy who wound up getting them their first European Cup on the basis of where he was from? The same with England and Eddie Jones, who brought them from an utterly humiliating WC exit in 2015 to within one game of beating the all time record for most consecutive wins earlier this year. The same with England getting three SN titles, two grand slams and within one point of a WC final under Gatland. Which Irish, English and Welsh managers should these teams have gone with instead?

You might as well argue that English teams in the Premier League often looking at continental managers screams of an inferiority complex, and they should all go and back their own guys like Alan Pardew and Gareth Southgate because they're English. The aim is to get the best you can, and those guys tend to come from the southern hemisphere.

The Aussies and All Blacks are better, because they back their own people to succeed. (even when things are going bad)

In the long run, that's what improves standards.

Bringing in hired guns like Gatland, Cheika, Jones etc... That will improve results in the short term. But underneath the surface, the cracks will get bigger and bigger. Because the real problems are not being addressed. The pool of talent will get smaller and smaller, because there is no real motivation to improve when you can just hire in foreign talent.

And not just coaches either btw - we are seeing more and more cast offs from other nations getting passports to play for our nations. They are being preferred, rather than putting in the hard work to develop home grown players!

I'm glad you mention English soccer - it's a great example of what I'm talking about.

Back in the 60s, 70s and 80s... English football was very powerful. They had top players and coaches. The best in the world actually!

Then they started taking the quick route to success, by bringing in foreign players and managers. Now look at how **** the england national team is... they are the worst they've ever been! (and the english coaches too)

The pardews and southgates are the result of all that foreign talent being brought in. The hired guns have completely destroyed and dried up the talent pool of England and the rest of our nations in this part of the world.

Just look at the complete and utter muck that O'neill is working with in the Ireland set-up. That is the worst pool of talent our national team has ever had in living memory.

Don't be fooled by how powerful the English premier league is.... that league is basically now just an international super league. It just happens to be located in England.... it could easily be located anywhere else in the world. It is no longer the ENGLISH league.... it does not serve as any kind of great platform for English players to flourish, because clubs do not have the time to wait for local talent to develop. They are forced to enter the market and buy in ready made stars... or else they will get killed by everyone else!

You might say that the cream will rise to the top, and the foreign talent should raise standards, right?? Well that's clearly NOT what's happening in England... Standards among British and Irish talent are dropping rapidly... because they are not getting enough opportunities. It really is that simple!!

It's only going to get worse... and we appear to be committed to replicating the same things in other sports - like Rugby etc.

Yourself isit

ThinkProgress wrote: »

The Aussies and All Blacks are better, because they back their own people to succeed. (even when things are going bad)

In the long run, that's what improves standards.

Bringing in hired guns like Gatland, Cheika, Jones etc... That will improve results in the short term. But underneath the surface, the cracks will get bigger and bigger. Because the real problems are not being addressed. The pool of talent will get smaller and smaller, because their is no real motivation to improve when you can just hire in foreign talent.

And not just coaches either btw - we are seeing more and more cast offs from other nations getting passports to play for our nations. They are being preferred, rather than putting in the hard work to develop home grown players!

I'm glad you mention English soccer - it's a great example of what I'm talking about.

Back in the 60s, 70s and 80s... English football was very powerful. They had top players and coaches. The best in the world actually!

Then they started taking the quick route to success, by bringing in foreign players and managers. Now look at how **** the england national team is... they are the worst they've ever been! (and the english coaches too)

The pardews and southgates are the result of all that foreign talent being brought in. The hired guns have completely destroyed and dried up the talent pool of England and the rest of our nations in this part of the world.

Just look at the complete and utter muck that O'neill is working with in the Ireland set-up. That is the worst pool of talent our national team has ever had in living memory.

Don't be fooled by how powerful the English premier league is.... that league is basically now just an international super league. It just happens to be located in England.... it could easily be located anywhere else in the world. It is no longer the ENGLISH league.... it does not serve as any kind of great platform for English players to flourish, because clubs do not have the time to wait for local talent to develop. They are forced to enter the market and buy in ready made stars... or else they will get killed by everyone else!

You might say that the cream will rise to the top, and the foreign talent should raise standards, right?? Well that's clearly NOT what's happening in England... Standards among British and Irish talent are dropping rapidly... because they are not getting enough opportunities. It really is that simple!!

It's only going to get worse... and we appear to be committed to replicating the same things in other sports - like Rugby etc.

Neither Australia nor south Africa are that strong these days. NZ are at the top of their game.

And rugby isn't run like soccer. There are strong incentives to stay in the country you want to play internationally for

Billy86

ThinkProgress wrote: »

The Aussies and All Blacks are better, because they back their own people to succeed. (even when things are going bad)

In the long run, that's what improves standards.

It really doesn't. If it did, England would have continued to improve and improve from Roy Hodgson to Gareth Southgate.

Bringing in hired guns like Gatland, Cheika, Jones etc... That will improve results in the short term. But underneath the surface, the cracks will get bigger and bigger. Because the real problems are not being addressed. The pool of talent will get smaller and smaller, because their is no real motivation to improve when you can just hire in foreign talent.

And not just coaches either btw - we are seeing more and more cast offs from other nations getting passports to play for our nations. They are being preferred, rather than putting in the hard work to develop home grown players!

I'm glad you mention English soccer - it's a great example of what I'm talking about.

Back in the 60s, 70s and 80s... English football was very powerful. They had top players and coaches. The best in the world actually!

Then they started taking the quick route to success, by bringing in foreign players and managers. Now look at how **** the england national team is... they are the worst they've ever been! (and the english coaches too)

The game passed the English managers by, by and large, and they did little/nothing to address it. Let's not forget the state they were in in by the early 2000s that led to them bringing in Eriksen, failing to get out of their group in the Euros under an English manager (and previously in '94 failing to reach the WC, as well as in '08 - both of which were under English managers), and at that time they had arguably the worst depth of talent I've seen personally, though it's close with today. Through much of the 2000s though unbalanced, the English team had tonnes of great talent.

England across those three decades absolutely did not have the best players and coaches in the world by the way, you'd want to overlook Italy, Germany, Brazil and the Netherlands just for a start. They had some great ones yes, but simply not on the same level as those other nations.

The pardews and southgates are the result of all that foreign talent being brought in. The hired guns have completely destroyed and dried up the talent pool of England and the rest of our nations in this part of the world.

Just look at the complete and utter muck that O'neill is working with in the Ireland set-up. That is the worst pool of talent our national team has ever had in living memory.

And that is in large part because youth football in Ireland has failed to adopt new changes and move with the times, still resembling what it was in the 1980s. If we're not including the likes of Charlton or McCarthy as 'foreign' due to the very similar footballing cultures of the UK and Ireland historically, then the first truly 'foreign' manager we have had was Trappatoni. Let's not pretend that things were exactly peachy in the years before that under the likes of Brian Kerr and Staunton.

Don't be fooled by how powerful the English premier league is.... that league is basically now just an international super league. It just happens to be located in England.... it could easily be located anywhere else in the world. It is no longer the ENGLISH league.... it does not serve as any kind of great platform for English players to flourish, because clubs do not have the time to wait for local talent to develop. They are forced to enter the market and buy in ready made stars... or else they will get killed by everyone else!

You might say that the cream will rise to the top, and the foreign talent should raise standards, right?? Well that's clearly NOT what's happening in England... Standards among British and Irish talent are dropping rapidly... because they are not getting enough opportunities. It really is that simple!!

It's only going to get worse... and we appear to be committed to replicating the same things in other sports - like Rugby etc.

It is increased competition though, simple as that - and if the English or Irish players cannot compete at that level then they need to go to the likes of Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium etc to get playing time. Of course they'd rather not, and that's to their own detriment. The increase in foreign players started in the 90s, and yet the English team of the 2000s based on pure talent alone was one of their best in decades... so the argument really doesn't ring all that true. It's not as if Spain or Germany's leagues lack in foreign players either, yet they've probably been the best two national teams of the last decade (and Spain 08-12 arguably the best of all time). France has also seen an uptick in foreign players in their league, and have a team coming through now that look like they could well be the ones to take the mantle of world's best.

The difference is those teams develop their players better from long, long before they enter the first team and look to adapt and change with the times (The Klinsmann/Loew experiment in Germany being perhaps the best recent example) to do so. In England the concern seems to be on winning at youth level far more than developing the actual youth players, and that's a much bigger problem.


Anyway we've gone way off topic on this.

WinnyThePoo

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

You're right its 9

Solid reply.

ThinkProgress

Billy86 wrote: »

It really doesn't. If it did, England would have continued to improve and improve from Roy Hodgson to Gareth Southgate.

Neither of those clowns would have got anywhere close to the England job in past generations!

Someone like Bobby Robson, for example, was in a different class to those guys. But there are no more Bobby Robsons around anymore.

The game passed the English managers by, by and large, and they did little/nothing to address it. Let's not forget the state they were in in by the early 2000s that led to them bringing in Eriksen, failing to get out of their group in the Euros under an English manager (and previously in '94 failing to reach the WC, as well as in '08 - both of which were under English managers), and at that time they had arguably the worst depth of talent I've seen personally, though it's close with today. Through much of the 2000s though unbalanced, the English team had tonnes of great talent.

The England national team was underachieving... but they still had lots of talent. Both in the dugout, and on the pitch.

The squad that England brought to the 2002 world cup, was a million times better than the current one.

England always had plenty of talent. They came close at times, like in 1990 and euro 96... there was nothing major wrong with English football when Germany knocked them out on penalties in euro 96. They played great football, but came up a bit short... that's sport sometimes!

The English media overreacted to those failures, and actually that acted as a major catalyst for the invasion of foreign talent. That inferiority complex drove them to think that foreigners were superior...

England across those three decades absolutely did not have the best players and coaches in the world by the way, you'd want to overlook Italy, Germany, Brazil and the Netherlands just for a start. They had some great ones yes, but simply not on the same level as those other nations.

They were certainly among the best. They had teams full of British and Irish talent, winning european cups... From 1974 until 1984, it was almost exclusively English teams in the European cup finals... only for the euro ban, that probably would have continued.

Those club sides had very few foreign players or managers.

I never said they were the only nation with talent.

And that is in large part because youth football in Ireland has failed to adopt new changes and move with the times, still resembling what it was in the 1980s. If we're not including the likes of Charlton or McCarthy as 'foreign' due to the very similar footballing cultures of the UK and Ireland historically, then the first truly 'foreign' manager we have had was Trappatoni. Let's not pretend that things were exactly peachy in the years before that under the likes of Brian Kerr and Staunton.

Nope, if our players were still getting the opportunities with top clubs in England, we would still have decent quality squads.

Irish players are not making the grade over there anymore. Just like English players, they are not getting enough opportunities... and it's showing in the extreme lack of quality in our national team!

The squad McCarthy brought to the 2002 world cup was pretty good.

It is increased competition though, simple as that - and if the English or Irish players cannot compete at that level then they need to go to the likes of Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium etc to get playing time. Of course they'd rather not, and that's to their own detriment. The increase in foreign players started in the 90s, and yet the English team of the 2000s based on pure talent alone was one of their best in decades... so the argument really doesn't ring all that true. It's not as if Spain or Germany's leagues lack in foreign players either, yet they've probably been the best two national teams of the last decade (and Spain 08-12 arguably the best of all time). France has also seen an uptick in foreign players in their league, and have a team coming through now that look like they could well be the ones to take the mantle of world's best.

Young players need opportunities in order to develop and succeed. If the path to the 1st team is crowded with foreign players, they will simply never get there!

Not every player develops fully at the same stage in their lives/careers.

The argument does make sense. The quality of the England team took a while to drop off... but it has definitely been massively affected now. It does take a while for the negative effects to emerge.

All those nations you mention, their national leagues are not as multinational as the Premier League. Local talents still get opportunities... a lot more than in England.

Like I said, the English Premier league is basically a world fantasy league. It's not really the English league anymore. Those other leagues have not lost their national identity like England.... yet... but it may also happen to them too in the near future!

The difference is those teams develop their players better from long, long before they enter the first team and look to adapt and change with the times (The Klinsmann/Loew experiment in Germany being perhaps the best recent example) to do so. In England the concern seems to be on winning at youth level far more than developing the actual youth players, and that's a much bigger problem.

You are correct, in that their underage development is more comprehensive.

But I would still maintain that, given more first team opportunities, England would still be producing plenty of talents. It is the predominant factor!

Anyway we've gone way off topic on this.

I'll blame YOU for that so.... since you're the one who first brought soccer into a rugby thread. :p

The_Kew_Tour

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Solid reply.

It was

cause its the truth

WinnyThePoo

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

It was

cause its the truth

It clearly isn't. I'd suggest typing rugby into Wikipedia and reading about the game and the nations that play it.

"Home Nations" to include Ireland. Ugh. They're taking their time getting over that terminological hangover from colonial days, but in fairness to them they did finally scrap the "British Lions" and "British Isles Lions" name for something more inclusive/less political.

Yourself isit

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"Home Nations" to include Ireland. Ugh. They're taking their time getting over that terminological hangover from colonial days, but in fairness to them they did finally scrap the "British Lions" and "British Isles Lions" name for something more inclusive/less political.

The home nations terminology in soccer and rugby comes from epoynmous competitions that included the first internationals between any Football associations or unions. Those competitions were called home as in they were the home of rugby and soccer. The home nation championship in rugby become the 5 then the 6 nations. In soccer it died out. The fai was never part of the home nations as it broke away from the IFA, which was. So the republic of Ireland isn't a home nation, but ireland in rugby is


Bog all to do with empire.

dfx-

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't watch as I have no interest, it is a nice holiday for them with a bit of rugby.

I don't watch it as it's a bit of an artificial construct, a fantasy XI/team GB-ish challenge against otherwise superior teams. It stands out from the usual standard nation v nation stuff which you know the result of largely before you start. It's not a sport that lends itself to shocks easily.

New Zealand don't lose in Eden Park, so they beat the Lions. I think the final test is there too, so they will lose that one too.

Junkyard Tom

Should be named after a native species.

'The British and Irish Badgers'.

'The British and Irish Hedgehogs'.

'The British and Irish Common Pipistrelles'.

'The British and Irish Squirrels'.

The_Kew_Tour

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

It clearly isn't. I'd suggest typing rugby into Wikipedia and reading about the game and the nations that play it.

Ireland plays Water Polo but are they really any good or any interest here?

Honestly if you can't get your head out off sand then no point arguing

WinnyThePoo

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Ireland plays Water Polo but are they really any good or any interest here?

Honestly if you can't get your head out off sand then no point arguing

What has Water Polo got to do with the lions?

Rugby obviously irks you.

The_Kew_Tour

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

What has Water Polo got to do with the lions?

Rugby obviously irks you.

No, im just telling it like it is.

Rugby is only played in about 2 handful of countries to any decent level and after that its only played by select few.

Bar the 6 nations and maybe Romania where would there be any decent level of interest in Rugby in Europe,?

Bar New Zealand, Oz, South Africa, Fiji and Argentina where in World is the same?

Even most of Italy dont even give hoots about it having been there when games were played but I put them in there anyway

Billy86

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

No, im just telling it like it is.

Rugby is only played in about 2 handful of countries to any decent level and after that its only played by select few.

Bar the 6 nations and maybe Romania where would there be any decent level of interest in Rugby in Europe,?

Bar New Zealand, Oz, South Africa, Fiji and Argentina where in World is the same?

Even most of Italy dont even give hoots about it having been there when games were played but I put them in there anyway

Outside of football is there a team sport that that isn't true about?

Georgia are pretty big into it though, and it's popularity in Canada (particularly at school ages) caught me off guard.

Tsipras

WesternZulu wrote: »

I agree completely! I just don't get what the hype is at all about it. Firstly, it's a hiding to nothing because as the OP mentioned they're only together for a few weeks before meeting a top international side.

That's before getting into the concept of The Lions! The team itself has no identity, I mean how can you feel passionate about a team made up of multiple nations?
The fact that the team was called The British Lions up until 2001, and had God Save The Queen as their anthem up until the 90s, makes it even harder to identify with as an Irish supporter.

"multiple nations" ha ha what nonsense. If you can't enjoy the Lions you're a bitter person, i think it's great that Ireland play once every 4 years with our cousins from across the water, if you want to live in 1956 good luck to you

bmwguy

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

No, im just telling it like it is.

Rugby is only played in about 2 handful of countries to any decent level and after that its only played by select few.

Bar the 6 nations and maybe Romania where would there be any decent level of interest in Rugby in Europe,?

Bar New Zealand, Oz, South Africa, Fiji and Argentina where in World is the same?

Even most of Italy dont even give hoots about it having been there when games were played but I put them in there anyway

How many countries have won the soccer world cup? About 8 or 10 I would guess since 1930. And I can close to guarantee one of the previous winners will win the next one.too.

How many countries have won rugby world cup since 1987? 4 I believe.

Every sport is dominated by a few nations, rugby is no different.

WinnyThePoo

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

No, im just telling it like it is.

Rugby is only played in about 2 handful of countries to any decent level and after that its only played by select few.

Bar the 6 nations and maybe Romania where would there be any decent level of interest in Rugby in Europe,?

Bar New Zealand, Oz, South Africa, Fiji and Argentina where in World is the same?

Even most of Italy dont even give hoots about it having been there when games were played but I put them in there anyway

Telling it like it is? What a funny sentence.

Didn't you say only 9 countries played to a level, yet you've named 13. You've forgotten about a few though....USA, Canada, Georgia, Russia, Japan, Tonga , Samoa, Uruguay, Namibia.

I don't understand what irks some one so much they have to put people down for liking it.

The_Kew_Tour

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Telling it like it is? What a funny sentence.

Didn't you say only 9 countries played to a level, yet you've named 13. You've forgotten about a few though....USA, Canada, Georgia, Russia, Japan, Tonga , Samoa, Uruguay, Namibia.

I don't understand what irks some one so much they have to put people down for liking it.

Japan could not fill out the stadium at weekend. Been to Russia and Uruguay and never even saw a sniff of interest in rugby. They get to World Cups and get hammered for a reason

Your bog standard rugby fan could not tell you a player from USA or Canada.

The_Kew_Tour

bmwguy wrote: »

How many countries have won the soccer world cup? About 8 or 10 I would guess since 1930. And I can close to guarantee one of the previous winners will win the next one.too.

How many countries have won rugby world cup since 1987? 4 I believe.

Every sport is dominated by a few nations, rugby is no different.

Oh of course. Im not disputing that. But they're domination and they're out of world domination

Dirty Dingus McGee

bmwguy wrote: »

How many countries have won the soccer world cup? About 8 or 10 I would guess since 1930. And I can close to guarantee one of the previous winners will win the next one.too.

How many countries have won rugby world cup since 1987? 4 I believe.

Every sport is dominated by a few nations, rugby is no different.

Difference is each step from number 1 down to number 200 in soccer is a similar drop down the ladder.

In rugby the drop from around number 10 down the next group of teams is massive.

Rugby world wide is like hurling in ireland.

WinnyThePoo

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Japan could not fill out the stadium at weekend. Been to Russia and Uruguay and never even saw a sniff of interest in rugby. They get to World Cups and get hammered for a reason

Your bog standard rugby fan could not tell you a player from USA or Canada.

D.H Van de Merve & Jaime Cudmore are playing at the highest level.

Chris Wyles plays for the European Champions..don't forget Samo Manoa

The_Kew_Tour

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

D.H Van de Merve & Jaime Cudmore are playing at the highest level.

Chris Wyles plays for the European Champions..don't forget Samo Manoa

You know your stuff no denying, but your average fan wont know all them I bet.

They are good players no denying that

Junkyard Tom

Sports arguments are spirit-crushingly tedious, almost as bad as the interminable analysis.

Playing sports>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>watching sports>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sports analysis>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sports arguments

WinnyThePoo

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

You know your stuff no denying, but your average fan wont know all them I bet.

They are good players no denying that

What's does your average rugby fan supposed to know?

Billy86

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

What's does your average rugby fan supposed to know?

Just enough to fit the agenda, but no more.

Kew, when it comes to rugby you remind me of times of AIG and Madrid.