You think you were a little harsh? If the first game only looked close because of the departure of all the Boks best players (must check this assertion) but the second game was very good and very close, and the third game was lost by the Boks, then the statement ‘easily dismissed’ doesn’t really stand up at all.

You go on to state that but for a couple of wrong selections, the result would have been very different – and presumably in favour of the Lions.

This is somewhat contradictory with a statement that dismisses them out of hand completely had the Boks had fielded a full team for all three matches.

Besides that cavilling, the second point you should consider is that a combination team – like the Lions or Barbarians – is a lot more difficult to pull together and train, than a test team that has been together for a couple of years.

In a NH v SH match-up, that is what both teams would be faced with.

The other thing I would suggest for such a match-up is that it should be hemisphere representative so at least 6 Nations vs 6 Nations is required, using at least one player from each union.

Also, regarding the selections, Shane Williams was awful all tour and Stephen Jones had comprehensively outplayed O’Gara in the tour and was one of the Lions best players in all three tests.

The selection problems were in the pack – no Shaw/Hines, and Vickery and Mears didn’t plat well.

That said perhaps I was a little harsh on the Lions it would have been very different if a) Shane Williams was started in all three and b) If O’Gara (who cannot really be blamed for an error he made while obviously concussed and out of position) started in all three. He comprehensively outplays Jones in the Ireland v. Wales game so they decide to play Jones for the Lions (not the first time they made this error – see Wilkinson in 2005). Go figure.

Regardless I think the addition of a bunch of AB’s, Wallabies and Argentinians to this team would be more than equal to the task of outplaying the couple of Frenchmen added to the Northern team.

So you didn’t actually watch the tests or see the result scorelines then?

15.Steyn
14. Sivivatu
13. J De Villiers
12. Giteau
11. Habana
10. Carter
9. Du Preez
8. Spies
7. McCaw
6. Brossouw
5. Matfield
4. Botha (Hopefully Spiro would want him on the field under these circumstances, I wonder what he would write about him then)
3. Hayman
2. Hore
1. Robinson

PastHisBest… I look forward to one day meeting you face to face, through the GRA.

Somehow I think I could have deduced that without the games being played.

Perhaps if they developed hybrid rules it would be possible but you would have both sides screaming bias in the rules. All I can think of is to play Union rules on one half of the field (with a phase counting as a play the ball) and League on the other. Would be a nightmare to referee though.

I shunted a few players around from usual positions. Some have many standouts whereas some don’t. I’m sure players of such quality could easily adjust.

1. Random Argentinian no one (including myself) has heard of
2. Smit
3. Random Argentinian no one (including myself) has heard of
4. Botha
5. Matfield
6. Elsom
7. McCaw
8. Fernández Lobbe
9. Du Preez
10. Carter
11. Habana
12. Giteau
13. Nonu
14. Caucau (I don’t care how many issues he has – when he actually turns up the man is the greatest player I’ve ever seen)
15. Hernandez

16. Yeah, lets be honest – I know nothing of props (perhaps another random Argentinian?)
17. du Plessis
18. Burger
19. Smith
20. De Villers
21. Mortlock
22. Muliaina

Just realised I don’t have many Kiwi’s. This is not a slight on the NZ team – but more a reflection that they are an absolutely brilliant unit without any absolute standouts (McCaw/Carter excepted). The proverbial “Champion team” not a “Team of Champions”. I didn’t pick a reserve 4/5 as Elsom can cover those positions. Smith and Burger are both more than capable of covering all three back-row positions. I didn’t pick a reserve 9 because Giteau can cover it nor 10 as both Giteau and Hernandez can cover it. Picked Nonu out of position as I couldn’t possibly chose between him or Giteau at 12. Mortlock can cover 13/14/11 and Mils is brilliants at every outside back position.

Frankly if the Northern Hemisphere could come up with anything remotely near that I will be shocked. The Lions were easily dismissed by South Africa (who would have won all three if they actually bothered to play the 3rd Test) and I can’t see the addition of a couple of Frenchmen changing much (especially as South Africa is bolstered by Australia/NZ/Argentina).

That was a benefit match for the Indonesian tsunami relief. Not really the same thing

I’m gonna use that too – love it.

Try saying it out loud, without laughing or at least smiling.

Top 5? Don’t make me laugh.

It was a bit of dud in the end as it counted for nothing and coaches were worried about losing their players to injury

Could you explain that?

“Basically, I think the Southern Hemisphere combined team would smash any Northern Hemisphere team. Why? Because Argentina are currently ranked No 7 without the benefit of a worthwhile competition in which to participate. Once they become professionals, I believe they will quickly become 4th in the world, particularly if they join the Tri-Nations, and potentially could be ranked higher than the Wallabies. So once this is up and running (although I’m avoiding putting in that it might take 5 years for this to happen) they would be in the top 4 of the top eight (which neatly avoids contradicting myself from earlier by excluding Fiji)and that is why I am right.

Is it any wonder that rugby league fans think the rest of you are completely thick, when you couldn’t understand a simple thing like that?

Groaan!!! Yet another Southern Hemisphere do-gooder who wants to stuff up our already miserable winters by removing one of the few uplifiting diversions we have put in place to relieve our gloom.

Rugby (among other things) was invented to alleivate the tedium of a climate where it gets dark at 5pm, doesn’t get light again until 9 am, it pisses rain, it’s cold, the buses don’t run on time and most life forms with any sense just go to sleep for a few months. As humans though, we have been resilient enough to create diversions which keep us sane during these trying times.

That’s why rugby exists.

Next thing you’ll be saying. “Jeez. Why do the poms not move Christmas to the middle of July so they can have a barbie on the beach like we do?”

It’s a mad, mad, mad idea. Doubtless, those marketing types who see sport as just another business to be globalised and streamlined for maximum financial gain will agree with you. But then, once they’ve run the game into the ground, they just “go forward” into the next “exciting opportunity” which could be anything from novelty ring tones to lunar holidays.

But you’ve got to remember what’s important. It’s a cynic who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Anotgher reason not to hold this would be that it would perpetuate the deeply depressing NH-SH nerninerninerners which taints the “World Game”.