Marshall's Anzac tour is a good idea, but let's think bigger

"But the beauty of the British and Irish lions is the history of their unity… The English, Irish, Scots and Welsh may venomously deny it, but they have a long and intertwined history as British people." I'm not sure you'll find everyone in agreement with that statement. The fact that the name was belatedly changed to British and Irish Lions to reflect the separate national identities is an indicator of that. By the way, does anyone have quotes of what Marshall actually proposed? I thought he had proposed a team only made up of former All-blacks and ex-pats i.e. a team only made of New Zealanders. Or is that the same thing as Australians since NZ have a long and intertwined history as Australian people. ;)

An Empire team would be interesting, but they'd probably be too good for the opposition (French, Argies, Italians, Afrikaners).

I would absolutely love to see an ANZAC team giving it to the mother country. Bring us back to the days of yore and put a bit of grunt and poke back into rugby. While we're at it, couldn't we organise a game against the hun, the nip and the azzuri (did we call them that back then??)? Boy, I'm licking my lips.

Fear not Melon, agreeing with me isn't dangerous, generally. Maybe it just means we're both wrong ;-) I was going to suggest that if you're worried about agreeing too much though, you could join the chorus of dissenters today to my thoughts on a positional shift for one S.Mortlock, but I see you're not in total disagreement there either!!

Brett, I find myself too often agreeing with you. I'm going to have a an absolute humdinger with you soon - just to keep things interesting and so people don't think we are the same person. Having said that I'm never sure if I'm agreeing with you or misinterpreting your thoughts. An extra game or two every 2, 3 or 4 years surely wouldn't be 'too much' and, if it's done right, I think it would be fascinating to see how many aussies versus how many kiwis made the team - what an honour for any players selected. And, as Lions teams of the past were, you've got your new Everest right there I would have thought. I don't agree with selecting Japanese or Argentinian players for the reasons Nick has outlined but we DO have a special connection with our ANZAC brothers and I'd love to see the brothers stop fighting each other and unite against all comers once in a while. ANZACs vs. the Lions? ANZACs vs. the Barbarians?

Some things in life are great just because they are unique. The Lions are unique in sport and unique in Rugby. Replicating this would only begin to dilute the brand of the Lions. On that note, i am looking forward to seeing the Baa Baas play in Sydney this weekend, however, we need to tread carefully here also not to over expose this commodity. Like the Lions, the strength of the Barbarians is their relative inaccessibility and rarity. There is such a conundrum as too much of a good thing!

I think timing would be the main issue with an ANZAC tour, as has been suggested. The Lions tour every four years, and I don't think you could just throw an ANZAC tour on a similar four-year rotation in between. So perhaps the only way to do it might be for the Lions to not tour on one rotation, and send the ANZACs north to play them. It's a great concept, but logistically I'm not so sure...

In general I love the idea but I am concerned that not all the important elements for its success are in place. One of the Lions' great attractions is the size of the travelling crowd that they bring with them. That is they are not just a touring team but a touring audience as well. The question is whether an ANZAC team would draw a similarly huge passionate travelling crowd from Oz and NZ. I can't see it myself. Having said that it would certainly end any debate about the strongest hemisphere, with the exception of SA, France, Argentina, Italy. Still maybe France, Italy and Argentina could form their own side and have a "tri-combo" tour. Though I can't see how we could leave the Saffers out........

Instead of trying to manufacture a new entity, why not embrace the old tradition of actual proper tours by the ABs, Boks and Wallabies? While a combined ANZAC team or SANZAR team would make money, I'm sure SA, Aus & NZ could all make decent coin with tours of their own, so I don't really see the need from a monetary point of view. Likewise player depth and strength - each of the TN team is capable of a successful tour anyway, so why the need to combine? I'm sure any tour would be well met, part of the reason the last couple of Lions tours have been so successful (financially) is that they are the only proper tours we see these days. The last team to do a proper tour of NZ was SA in 1994 and the last time the AB's did a proper tour was to SA in 96.

It's a dumb idea. I do not want to see more rugby. We already have the Barbarians if we want to see star SH players play together. There's just a lack of stars in the SH. I do hope that when the All Blacks play the Barbarians later this year that Jerry Collins fronts for the Bar-bars.

The ANZAC idea is nothing new and has been thrown around for years. I guess with Marshall backing the concept it has highlighted it a little more. Everything in History has a starting point so I can't see why they couldn't go ahead with it. My only question is who is good enough to actually give an ANZAC team a worthy challenge aside from the Boks but why would we want to play them considering we already play them 3 times each everyyear. That in turn opens up the idea to a SANZAR team but I doubt any team in the world would come close to beating the best from south of the Equator a combination of the top three rugby nations in the world.

I cant see the merits in an Anzac side whatsoever. In an age of Pacific Islanders, Barbarians and British Lions, we do not need any more composite sides. The All Blacks brand is strong enough as it is, and Im sure the ANZAC would only diminish that brand? Do we want the Bledisloe Cup to simply become a trial for the ANZAC side???? And while it pains me to say this, the squad would be overwhelming be New Zealanders with only a few Aussies - in which case shouldnt it be NZAAC?

Don't know if I agree with your logic here Cope. The British and Irish Lions are just that - they do not represent the Northern Hemisphere. If they did you would have to include players from France and other Northern Hemisphere nations. The tradition of Lions will never be given away. Personally I couldn't give a rats about the Saffers but the Anzacs do have a tradition and being an old digger I would just love to see this tradition carried on, on the Rugby Field.

But the beauty of the British and Irish lions is the history of their unity... The English, Irish, Scots and Welsh may venomously deny it, but they have a long and intertwined history as British people. What is Australia's long and intertwinded history with Argentina? Or Japan (other than a war sixty years ago). There are not significant cultural unifications, language, unified government etc. The ANZAC idea appeals because of our shared history and culture... Finally what Japanese players would even make it into the squad? The Scots can barely field a player in the Lions and they are much stronger (and only competeting for spots against the English, Welsh and Irish... not two of the three bests teams in the world). To give more players a go, maybe the North v South fixture should become a regular on the calendar... or a unified Asian team could tour (Japan, HK, Sri Lanka, China, South Korea, Kazakhstan)... it is still arguable how strong it would be (or how 'unified' they would feel) but at least it would be more fair. Finally, if the ANZAC's toured, they'd tour in November, like the Lions tour in June. NZ and Aus would split any profit made...