British and Irish Lions confirm 2017 New Zealand tour schedule

[TRF_Olyy]

What's that based on? I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice for the Lions to play one of the PI nations, but I don't believe they'd put up more of a challenge than a NZ Super rugby side.

The provincial side will be a baabaas-esque side from the ITM sides, won't it?
A PI international side would put up a much bigger fight than a cobbled together side.
The ones in Australia and SA were dispatched with complete ease, from what i recall.

 

[goodNumber10]

"They cheated like buggery and good luck to them because they got away with it," was the view of Otago's captain Craig Newby I watched this game and I vividly remember Newby's comments after the game he was filthy about it to put it mildly. The lions were a friggin disgrace in this game and the ref was a joke. Newby went on to captain Leicester Tigers and was fairly well regarded over there.

don't cry, dry your eyes.

Theres nothing to complain about to the NZ union they stated in the news conference today it would of been madness to string together ITM cup sides during the super15 season which is correct..... im perfectly happy to see the lions get humiliated before the test series even starts..... Might even make them try to turn up for the test series this time. That last series was men against boys.

The only hope the lions have of beating NZ super rugby sides is forward domination which is possible but I highly doubt they will win games like they did against the NPC sides in that manner, it just wont work like that against NZ super rugby sides who play SA opponents every year.

Roff! that's been said every Lions tour since Super Rugby was invented......

 

[nickdnz]

Roff! that's been said every Lions tour since Super Rugby was invented......

Well they've never played NZ Super Rugby teams...

But for once can you not take the stupid bait and be the bigger man?

What's that based on? I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice for the Lions to play one of the PI nations, but I don't believe they'd put up more of a challenge than a NZ Super rugby side.

The Provincial union team won't be a Super Rugby franchise. At a guess I'd say it'll be something like a Heartland Championship XV.

 

[Feicarsinn]

Sorry, I misread. I thought he meant one of the super rugby sides. Nevermind.

 

[goodNumber10]

Steve Tew, South Island can't handle a Lions Test.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The NZ Rugby boss Steve Tew, has said that the South Island venues 'can't handle' British &amp; Irish Lions Tests in 2019 <a href="http://t.co/TVjNFEcoGO">pic.twitter.com/TVjNFEcoGO</a></p>&mdash; EatSleepRugby (@Eat_Sleep_Rugby) <a href="https://twitter.com/Eat_Sleep_Rugby/status/619506327522557952">July 10, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Kiwi_]

Saw it on the news tonight. In other words they just want more money, which they will get playing in Auckland.

Dunedin didn't help itself caning the construction of the Hilton on the waterfront near the stadium. If that had went up, he would have had no excuses not to give Dunedin a test.

It's still rubbish not giving the S.I one. Giving Auckland 2 is simply garbage. The NZRU can be really greedy pricks.

 

[RedruthRFC]

It's still rubbish not giving the S.I one. Giving Auckland 2 is simply garbage. The NZRU can be really greedy pricks.

It won't just be the NZRU - the home unions will want to maximise their cut. Looking at the capacities of the stadia, they must be crying into their beer already!

 

[Kiwi_]

It won't just be the NZRU - the home unions will want to maximise their cut. Looking at the capacities of the stadia, they must be crying into their beer already!

There's barely a million on the island, but the South Island has given NZ rugby twice as much as what the North Island has in the last 20 years. Also it's the big tourist card for all the Irish + UKers.

It's just rubbish.

 

[RedruthRFC]

There's barely a million on the island, but the South Island has given NZ rugby twice as much as what the North Island has in the last 20 years. Also it's the big tourist card for all the Irish + UKers.

It's just rubbish.

I'm not defending the decision, just saying that it's both sets of unions who will be to blame for the decision. Your point about tourists is a fair one - the House of Pain would have been high up my rugby ground bucket list, so if visiting NZ, I would like to at least visit the replacement. Saying that, none of this generates revenues for the unions.

 

[Kiwi_]

I'm not defending the decision, just saying that it's both sets of unions who will be to blame for the decision. Your point about tourists is a fair one - the House of Pain would have been high up my rugby ground bucket list, so if visiting NZ, I would like to at least visit the replacement. Saying that, none of this generates revenues for the unions.

Yep, my old man went to the 71 game at Carisbrook, where the Lions won 9-3. The House of Pain used to be a usual venue for them. Now it's all just about maximum profit.

 

[Tony Manx]

Typical! Rugby tradition and that must be upheld at all costs even if it means that the travelling supporters do not get to see a game!

Get real, the Lions have a huge travelling support and there are just too few grounds in new Zealand that can accommodate the number of people who want to see the game. Why would you put a game in a place when you could fill it, say, three times over when there is a ground that can just about cope?

It is not about money it is about repaying not only the home supporters but the travelling support who will have paid, in many cases, thousands and thousands and thousands of pounds just to be there!!

Get over it Kiwi, it is what it is in the Twenty First century and not the 1980's.................but it is very good that they are playing, what should be, meaningful matches against the franchises but will they, or indeed the Lions, really put out truly representative sides?

I understand that there is no match "en route" as the time between the end of the Northern Season and first tour match is just too close to permit a representative Lions team to be picked.

 

[Kiwi_]

Typical! Rugby tradition and that must be upheld at all costs even if it means that the travelling supporters do not get to see a game!

Get real, the Lions have a huge travelling support and there are just too few grounds in new Zealand that can accommodate the number of people who want to see the game. Why would you put a game in a place when you could fill it, say, three times over when there is a ground that can just about cope?

It is not about money it is about repaying not only the home supporters but the travelling support who will have paid, in many cases, thousands and thousands and thousands of pounds just to be there!!

Get over it Kiwi, it is what it is in the Twenty First century and not the 1980's....
I

Hogwash. Eden Park is only twice the size of FSB and they could easily of scheduled another test instead of a mid week game. Not sharing the tests matches around the country just to accommodate a few more Poms is poor form and the Cake tin only holds 4000 more people than FSB.

Here's a plan. Why not in the future we hold EVERY test in Auckland, so we can make maximum profit and make sure every fan in the world can go to the game.

 

[Tony Manx]

Here's a plan. Why not in the future we hold EVERY test in Auckland, so we can make maximum profit and make sure every fan in the world can go to the game.

Sounds good to me!

 

[Jaguares]

AMI stadium? So Christchurch won't make a new stadium

 

[smartcooky]

AMI stadium? So Christchurch won't make a new stadium

Yes they will, but not by 2017. Christchurch has other priorities at the moment, such as rebuilding and repairing the mess after the earthquakes.

 

[smartcooky]

I can't see the super teams being full strength and laden with AB's though, no way that will happen when a test is only a 4 days after.

I can see a possibility of the Blues, Crusaders and Highlanders matches being near full strength, as they are respectively 17, 14 and 11 days ahead of the first test, but I can't see the Chiefs & Hurricanes matches being anywhere near top selections.

- - - Updated - - -

- it's the unions that pull them out, and it flags up that the Lions are seen as little more than one almighty cash cow to feather the home unions nest - it's massively disrespectful to the whole ethos of the Lions.

Yeah, like the full strength Munster team played the All Blacks in 2008... Oh... Wait!!

 

[goodNumber10]

I can see a possibility of the Blues, Crusaders and Highlanders matches being near full strength, as they are respectively 17, 14 and 11 days ahead of the first test, but I can't see the Chiefs & Hurricanes matches being anywhere near top selections.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, like the full strength Munster team played the All Blacks in 2008... Oh... Wait!!

What's your point SC?

The Munster vs NZ game was 2 days after the Ireland vs NZ test match, and leading into the Ireland vs Argentina test match. It wasn't 4 weeks out from a test series and it was also the first midweek game by any nation in lord knows how long, iirc.

A better example is Saracens who played as full strength side as was possible mid-week during the AI's.

I think ultimately we all want to see meaningful games, I'd personally rather the lions went down in a hard fought close game and got decent preparation for the test series then run up a cricket score against the local farmers. I'm pretty sure the lions management would as well.

 

[Feicarsinn]

I can see a possibility of the Blues, Crusaders and Highlanders matches being near full strength, as they are respectively 17, 14 and 11 days ahead of the first test, but I can't see the Chiefs & Hurricanes matches being anywhere near top selections.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, like the full strength Munster team played the All Blacks in 2008... Oh... Wait!!

That's a pretty dumb argument. A game weeks before the test matches is not the same as a game 2 days after a test match. No one is expecting the Hurricanes to put out a full strength side, but the Blues and the Crusaders could.

 

[Maverick1987]

I'm not too bothered where the tests are but it seems a bit unfair to have 2 in Auckland and none in Dunedin . I feels sorry for the locals who have waited 12 years for it to come back only to have their test match taken away . Also for local businesses that will lose money . I can understand somewhere not hosting if there are too many venues for games like in the ashes over here in England but for 1 place to have 2 and another to have none seems a pretty ****ty thing to do by NZRU

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Whilst I think it would be nice to spread the test matches across the country, what the locals in the South Island are really missing out on is the atmosphere of having the Lions in town - but then again, they'll still be visiting for the midweek matches anyway.

If we were to arbitrarily decide that 25% of the population wanted to attend a test match, that would mean roughly 300,000 people in Auckland and 30,000 people in Dunedin want to go along.

If 60,000 people attend in Auckland, that still leaves 240,000 people missing out (or 80%). In contrast, if 30,000 people attend in Dunedin, no one misses out.

Of course the numbers above are arbitrary, and you could argue that Dunedinites are more likely to go to a match than Aucklanders (though the fact that Highlanders games were sold out and Blues games weren't is irrelevant, because obviously more people attend matches when a team is winning), but I think it would be wrong to suggest that people in Otago are missing out if Auckland gets two test matches because, at the end of the day, a lot more people are going to miss out in Auckland regardless.