The British and Irish Lions are unique in sport.
The US pick all-star teams to play one-off pro-bowl inter-conference games, but these games against similarly prepared teams are not desperate battles. ‘Plays’ and tactics are kept simple. Entertainment is the key factor.
Some players often take the opportunity to treat the trip as a holiday, won as an honour, and don’t really put in the effort they would for a regular season game. Note that the gridiron conference game is in Hawaii.
The Gaelic Football vs Aussie Rules games, although serious and often violent, are one-off jollies for the lads. These are challenges, right enough, but are way short of the intensity of the Lions tour.
Occasionally, an all-star cricket team or World XI will be assembled and play a game.
Rest of the world squads come and go, but there’s not much passion in there. No playing for the jersey. Not many put it down as their lifelong ambition to be selected, even if it is the pinnacle of their career.
No, there is nothing quite like the Lions.
It’s the ultimate accolade for a Scot, Irishman, Englishman or Welshman to be selected for the Lions. Veterans talked in hushed reverence about when they got their first red jersey. It’s awe-inspiring.
The Lions big challenge is to meld together 37 guys who’ve never played together. They won’t ever play again when the tour finishes. There’s no ‘next season’ where a team or player can improve.
It’s not an international team. There’s no promise of a fair crack next time round. Next time round is four years away, so who knows where you’ll be?
Not only that, but they have to be split into into two teams: a first XV and a second XV for the midweekers. Everyone has to stay motivated, even if they’re in the B Team.
One minute, you’re at the top of your game, selected for the elite British and Irish Lions. But in no time at all, you’re not in the side, not even on the bench.
But you’re still there, making the protein shakes for the heroes out in the battle. How do you get your head around that?
So, Gatland has to keep the squad happy, motivated and in harmony. But he’s in a situation, which although it has some precedence, is as close to unique as you can get:
– No other sport does it.
– The team have never met each other.
– The last time your team was here was 12 years ago.
– It’s all so different.
– Replacements are thousands of miles away.
– And it’s the off-season anyway.
– And they’re all beat up from a tough regular-season schedule.
Difficult to do in a far-away country with a hostile press, big tough rugby players out to get you and an angry public baying for glory from their team.
He has to win.
If he loses, there’s all the more pressure. His own press turn hostile too, his own big, tough rugby players gate him and he can feel his own public baying for glory from their team from halfway around the world.
And then he has to do the press conference, the training session and the journey to the next venue.
Not easy.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
Thanks for the heads up Steve and atawhai. Have been looking up some of the names mentioned. Very interesting subject but very complex one too. I won't go for the Lions but hope they make their supporters back home proud of being who they are.
God
Guest
so it is acceptable to say the series will be 3-0 to the wallabies but not to the lions? says it all really.
Steve
Guest
That's an understatement Atawhai! Now you obviously know your Irish history, but it might be worth readers who are less familiar with the subject taking the time to see what Eamon de Valera did to those brave men and their families. Also worth remembering that Valera sent his official condolences to Germany on learning of the death of Hitler
HardcorePrawn
Roar Guru
doublehop, I agree that care does need to be made when discussing or commenting on the Lions in regards to not referring to them as British alone. I even wrote a fiercely-worded letter to the Age in Melbourne recently complaining over their use of the Union Flag to symbolise the Lions in a recent pull-out advertising this upcoming tour. Where I have to disagree with you is that, I'm afraid to say, Ireland is very much one of the British Isles, just as Portugal is part of Iberia, New Zealand part of Australasia and so on. It's a geographical term to describe the collection of islands that make up the UK, Ireland, the Shetlands, Orkneys, Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, and so on. Should the Scots vote for devolution they'll still be seen as part of the British Isles too. While many Irish certainly don't like the term, and it has been rather consigned to history in many cases, including when referring to the Lions, it still stands. Here's a handy graphic that details the definition: http://blog.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/British-Isles-UK-and-GB-2.gif
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
Ireland was neutral throughout World War II, although many individual Irishmen from the republic made their way to Britain and joined up. Ace fighter pilot Paddy Finucane was one of these. Some of these warriors were not greeted gladly when they returned to Ireland after the war.
Atawhai Drive
Roar Guru
In reply to Colvin, yes, the All Blacks touring South Africa were all white until 1970. We've been here before, but in 1949 Maori players Vince Bevan, Ben Couch and the great Johnny Smith were left behind and the All Blacks lost the Test series 4-0. No Maori players in the 1960 team either (Pat Walsh would have been selected otherwise) and that team lost to the Boks. In 1970 we saw the bizarre innovation of "honorary whites", a dispensation that allowed three Maori players and one of Samoan extraction, Bryan Williams, to tour. The Springboks still beat them. The Springboks were all white until the 1980s, when Errol Tobias got his chance. One thing we haven't focused on is records against all opposition, not just in Tests. For example, the 1956 Springboks' tour of New Zealand got off to a bad start when they lost their first match, against Waikato, 14-10. The All Blacks have been beaten by non-Test opposition many times _ Newport, Munster, Queensland and South African Combined Services come to mind.
Jerry
Guest
Jiggles - the Chiefs lost to the Reds last year and the year before that. Would you not say they were a better side than the Reds last year? In 2011 and 2010 the Reds lost the Canes - would you not say they were a better side than the Canes? I'm not saying it's clear cut, but only using head to head doesn't work either. To flip your comments - Well I don’t know about you but If I am not winning more matches and losing less than another team, I wouldn’t consider myself better. The Boks pre-isolation won less games than the AIGs but they they’re superior… got it…
doublehop
Guest
"I suspect if they got attacked like in the second WW, again they would all be in it together. Then in the Olympics it’s Britain and I think Northern Ireland not the individual nations. So this four nations thing seems to be a bit selective and the Lions as a team makes sense." Yeah, I think you should look up wikipedia. The Irish rugby team is actually already two nations but one team. So it's not four nations it's five. Also the Republic of Ireland did not fight in WWII (despite Churchill offering the end of partition to the Irish government to join in). The United Kingdom is the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is not part of the UK. Neither are we a member of NATO when it comes to fighting wars. The lions as a team makes sense as long as the traditions of all participating nations are respected. We respect both traditions when playing together as an All-Ireland team in rugby and those traditions should be equally respected when both countries tour together with the Lions.
doublehop
Guest
Come over here and tell us we're part of the British Isles and see what reply you'll get. The Irish rugby team are very careful to never refer to the team as the Republic or Ireland. They will never attend a function or match where only the tricolour is on display. The least the media in Britain and the rest of the commonwealth nations like Australia can do is to take similar care when talking about the Lions. Geographical proximity aside Australia is a lot more British than Ireland ever was.
Gavin Melville
Roar Pro
Oh absolutely! I'm sure the atmosphere is fantastic. Remember the shock the Aussies got walking at in Brisbane 2001 to a sea of Lions Red in the stadium? Were they not handing out gold shirts for the 2nd test? I'd love to be going. But, I couldn't say it was unique. Maybe in terms of it's OWN atmos, yeah. There's some fantastic spine-tingling sports contests out there generating some electrifying energy. I've been to a few sensational events - Cricket Tests at Lords, Murrayfield to beat the Auld Enemy, Soccer World Cups, Rugby World Cups - where the crowd have been fantastic. The Tartan Army create a heady mix of cacophony, bonhomie & colour wherever they go. The England Cricket Barmy Army are known for being itinerant, loyal & vocal for another example. The Aussies & the Efrikkens create their own enclave of banter over here when there's a game on. Kiwis too, even if they do take it all a bit seriously at times. (Try baiting your kiwi pals with "I don't think that Colin Meads would have looked so hard in today's game" and see what happens ...)
colvin, SA did themselves in as well, the thousands of black players weren't allowed to represent us either.
colvin
Guest
You know, when Britain goes to war, it's not England or Wales etc. it's Britain and Northern Ireland. So when it really matters they're all in it together (mostly. I think Southern Ireland may not be in ) I suspect if they got attacked like in the second WW, again they would all be in it together. Then in the Olympics it's Britain and I think Northern Ireland not the individual nations. So this four nations thing seems to be a bit selective and the Lions as a team makes sense. I think we'd need to search Wikipedia to see how it all works. .
colvin
Guest
I'm sure I'm going to raise a hornet's nest here but in all tours to SA up until 1970 the ABs were prevented from taking non-white players. Therefor every AB team to SA prior to 1970 was not the best team that could have been selected. Then, of course, neutral referees didn't exist. The ABs would return to NZ with horror stories about being refereed out of the test matches. So head to head there were issues that impacted on the results big time.
Atawhai Drive
Guest
Boks had a brief mid-1960s slump, 1963 to 1965. Lost four out of six Tests against the Wallabies and three out of four against the All Blacks. Bounced back in 1968 against the Lions, 3-0 with one draw, and a 4-0 whitewash of the 1969 Wallabies. Protests not an issue in NZ in 1965. My Christchurch high school was given a half-day so those interested could head down to Lancaster Park to see Boks' match against NZ Juniors. Later, in Dunedin, I ran into Keith Oxlee standing outside the Boks' hotel in his tour blazer. I got his autograph, then we talked rugby for a while as people walked by. Protests cranked up in UK in 1969-70 and they struggled, drawing with Ireland and Wales and losing to Scotland and England. They beat the All Blacks in 1970 and lost to the Lions in 1974 before beating the All Blacks again in 1976. But then the All Blacks had lost to the Lions in 1971. Head to head, which was all that concerned me, the All Blacks were pretty much at level pegging until the 1990s
ohtani's jacket
Guest
I was talking about their winning percentages against all nations. The Springboks fell off in the 60s possibly because of the protests they faced wherever they toured, I'm not sure, but they were nowhere near as good as the All Blacks in that decade.
Atawhai Drive
Guest
This 'debate' has been at cross-purposes. I was making a comparison between the two best rugby teams in the world in the 20th century, the All Blacks and the Springboks, and their results against each other, from 1921 up till 1996. I repeat, their results against each other. The results speak for themselves. And that's all from me. Otherwise we'll head into the 'did Izzy benefit from an obstruction?' sort of obsessive territory. Not my area of interest.
Worlds biggest
Guest
Gavin, you have missed a key feature, ingredient, benefit of the Lions tour and that is the incredible support. They will bring 20,000 odd thousand supporters plus the 10,000 off expats. It is phenomenal the atmosphere they bring to the tour, pure magic.
Jason Cave
Guest
You can be certain that if Gatland's men trail 1-0 heading into the second Test in Melbourne, and also if they lose a couple of warm-up games, plus the fact some disgruntled players who think they are good enough yet somehow can't break into the Test side get upset and start 'whispering' campaigns against the coach and also 'leak' highly sensitive info re the Lions game, then major splits would start to unravel. After all, it's not easy to try and gel players from the 4 Home Unions who are fierce rivals into a unified team.
Jiggles
Roar Guru
Well yeah head to head they have been. 2 - 0 home and away...
A Different Cat.
Guest
Who said anything about 1962? Jiggles you are one frustrating dude. Has Scotland been a better side than Australia in the last 4 years because they are 2-0 against them. If not, which is clearly the case, you can throw your theory out the window along with your "better than tho" attitude which is obviously misplaced.