British and Irish Lions confirm 2017 New Zealand tour schedule

[Maverick1987]

Tbh I know it sounds a bit bad but the lions tour doesn't bother me too much . It's all played out to suit the SH, it costs us a lot of money and most of the time you get your players back injured .... About the only thing I love about it is the history

 

[nzlizard]

Neither will the Lions be able to put put there first team against the super sides so im gunna say it now. NZ should be aiming for nothing less than a clean sweep of both tests and midweek matches (other than the provincial union team although its hard to say what that will consist of).

In theory a second string lions side should be better than, a second string super 15 side, as SC pointed out a couple of the games are 2 weeks away from a test so they may get a few AB's allowed to play.

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.

Not the money conversation again, the reality is rugby needs to make money to pay the wages and retain players, while we don't agree with it lets be honest, professional sport is about money and making it.

Tbh I know it sounds a bit bad but the lions tour doesn't bother me too much . It's all played out to suit the SH, it costs us a lot of money and most of the time you get your players back injured .... About the only thing I love about it is the history

When you tour it is normally about the country you tour to tbh, I quite like the lions tours as it is different rugby from the same old rugby championship we watch every year and the end of year tour. June tests are great as we play a different team each year.

 

[Shaggy]

I get the whole "need to make money" thing, but why the Provincial XV, and the Maori games need to be played in the North Island, when they could have been hosted provincially in the South (given that there's no test matches there) seems a little short sighted to me.

The Blues match could have just as easily been hosted as the first match in Whangarei, which isn't completely stupid, given the numbers that attend Blues games during the regular season. The Hurricanes game could also have been scheduled somewhere else in their region, given that they already have a test at the Cake Tin.

 

[Kiwi_]

Not the money conversation again, the reality is rugby needs to make money to pay the wages and retain players, while we don't agree with it lets be honest, professional sport is about money and making it.

Yes. Not the money argument again. Honestly I get the desire to make money, but these capitalistic views are killing sports. What happened to even just a shred of integrity and thoughtfulness? Why has money suddenly become the #1 deciding factor in every sports?

It really would not have cost them that much more in profit having 1 test in the South Island.

 

[Shaggy]

Yes. Not the money argument again. Honestly I get the desire to make money, but these capitalistic views are killing sports. What happened to even just a shred of integrity and thoughtfulness? Why has money suddenly become the #1 deciding factor in every sports?

It really would not have cost them that much more in profit having 1 test in the South Island.

Unfortunately,it's not really an argument; it's more reality of how things are.

You only need to look to Australia to see just how beneficial hosting the B&I lions is to boosting a union's finances.

While I agree that it's unfortunate that the SI can't host a single test, the RWC 2011 was a pretty good pointer as to who would get the big games in future, and the profits should help to keep NZ players in NZ, so we have to look at the big picture I guess

 

[Kiwi_]

Unfortunately,it's not really an argument; it's more reality of how things are.

You only need to look to Australia to see just how beneficial hosting the B&I lions is to boosting a union's finances.

While I agree that it's unfortunate that the SI can't host a single test, the RWC 2011 was a pretty good pointer as to who would get the big games in future, and the profits should help to keep NZ players in NZ, so we have to look at the big picture I guess

This is the justification they spoon feed us everytime they shaft the smaller Unions and cities. "The bigger picture". So you're telling me one test in the South Island could cost us future All Blacks? Not going to buy into that logic sorry.

 

[Shaggy]

This is the justification they spoon feed us everytime they shaft the smaller Unions and cities. "The bigger picture". So you're telling me one test in the South Island could cost us future All Blacks? Not going to buy into that logic sorry.

Not really, you can see from how Australia struggle to make ends meet when they don't have a Lions tour or RWC.

This article from Tony Smith suggests that it's not too late to add an extra test for the SI

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...shouldnt-be-snubbed-for-lionsall-blacks-tests

 

[Sonic Kiwi]

This is the justification they spoon feed us everytime they shaft the smaller Unions and cities. "The bigger picture". So you're telling me one test in the South Island could cost us future All Blacks? Not going to buy into that logic sorry.

Compare your logic "compared" with playing Manu Samoa IN Samoa. CHCH aren't where the money's at esp after the earthquake.
I't's pro rugby now.

I'm not having a dig mate but maybe the games bigger than YOU

 

[nzlizard]

Yes. Not the money argument again. Honestly I get the desire to make money, but these capitalistic views are killing sports. What happened to even just a shred of integrity and thoughtfulness? Why has money suddenly become the #1 deciding factor in every sports?

It really would not have cost them that much more in profit having 1 test in the South Island.

I don't agree with it but I accept it, I would rather see Aucks get every test to maximize profit if it meant some rugby was shown free to air.

This is the justification they spoon feed us everytime they shaft the smaller Unions and cities. "The bigger picture". So you're telling me one test in the South Island could cost us future All Blacks? Not going to buy into that logic sorry.

1 test a year might not, but a couple a year not maxing out profits over a few years adds up, again not justifying it for them.

I spent a few years working for very profit conscious bosses and was given a deep understanding about compounding profits and how to maximize every cent, not just in the current year but years down the track as well, some off these numbers can add up and you would be surprised how much it can actually be worth 5 years down the track.

Thing to remember is while they are our national team, they are still a business that is profit driven to succeed.

I hate the fact that rugby is not free to air, as I don't believe we should have to pay to watch the AB's on TV, it should be part of our rights, but until we get another way of generating income outside of TV rights it just won't happen.

 

[Kiwi_]

Compare your logic "compared" with playing Manu Samoa IN Samoa. CHCH aren't where the money's at esp after the earthquake.
I't's pro rugby now.

I'm not having a dig mate but maybe the games bigger than YOU

Because we ask for one test, just ONE, we apparently think the games bigger than us?

Listen I get all your points. But it's one bloody test guys and they can't even grant that. No matter how you look at it, it's pathetic. It's kinda sad seeing people jump to the defence of this obviously poor and unfair decision.

I hope they add another test, I really do.

 

[Sonic Kiwi]

Because we ask for one test, just ONE, we apparently think the games bigger than us?

Listen I get all your points. But it's one bloody test guys and they can't even grant that. No matter how you look at it, it's pathetic. It's kinda sad seeing people jump to the defence of this obviously poor and unfair decision.

I hope they add another test, I really do.

C'mon mate......sit by the fire with me and let's have a group hug and sing



I'm just joking mate

 

[Kiwi_]

C'mon mate......sit by the fire with me and let's have a group hug and sing



I'm just joking mate

Bring the beer and bongs m8.

 

[Sonic Kiwi]

Bring the beer and bongs m8.

I don't smoke weed but I'm more than happy to bring the beers but on one condition.......I don't drink Speights

 

[austingtir]

In theory a second string lions side should be better than, a second string super 15 side, as SC pointed out a couple of the games are 2 weeks away from a test so they may get a few AB's allowed to play.

How did you figure that? Look at the results from the last lions tour of NZ those are generally not big scores on NPC sides and near all of those points were the result of forward dominance. Super sides are a significant step up from NPC! I honestly think all the NZ sides are more than capable of rolling these guys and id like anyone to explain to me why they think they wont?

If the Brumbies beat them theres no reason why a NZ side cant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW9Bjmw_69U

 

[goodNumber10]

How did you figure that? Look at the results from the last lions tour of NZ those are generally not big scores on NPC sides and near all of those points were the result of forward dominance. Super sides are a significant step up from NPC! I honestly think all the NZ sides are more than capable of rolling these guys and id like anyone to explain to me why they think they wont?

If the Brumbies beat them theres no reason why a NZ side cant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW9Bjmw_69U

I'm not sure the Lions from 2005 is a particularly good indicator, it wa s apor squad with a lot of guys at the end of heir career - some even coming out of retirement for the tour.

2009 & 2013 have both seen the Lions step up in a similar way to 1989 and 2005, so i think it's safe to say it will be a very different tour to 2005...

Re: the Brumbies game, - yeah the brumbies beat them and throughly deserved it but you have to present the true perspective in that it was a Lions side that was a scratch side with 4 of the players only having flown in in the days preceding it as injury replacements for the squad.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Lions get turned over in New Zealand in a couple of the provincial games - that's why it and SA are such great tours because he provincial games are traditionally incredibly hard.

 

[nzlizard]

How did you figure that? Look at the results from the last lions tour of NZ those are generally not big scores on NPC sides and near all of those points were the result of forward dominance. Super sides are a significant step up from NPC! I honestly think all the NZ sides are more than capable of rolling these guys and id like anyone to explain to me why they think they wont?

Ok so my opinion, the current squads of Wales, Ireland and England(I don't follow it hard so my opinion) seem quite young and have a lot of upcoming talent and actually have a lot of talent now also that will last to the next Lions tour, in a couple of years that talent should come to bear fruits, and those fruits will be a 2nd string Lions side that will still contain real firepower and make it one of the better looking squads to tour.

I think NH rugby is in a good place at the moment and expect the next Lions tour to actually deliver some great rugby.

I expect that the games against the Super sides will be close and the Lions may lose a couple, but in 2 years time I expect them to field one of the stronger Lions teams we have seen.

 

[Jerry Blue]

A full strength Samoa or Fiji or Tonga would definitely be a better challenge for the Lions than a provincial XV. Even a full strength USA or Canada would have given them a better warm up match.

- - - Updated - - -

It was a weak side against the Brumbies and this Lions side will be a lot better than the one from 2005. I can see a clean sweep of the Super 15 sides or at least 4-1 to the Lions and maybe even a test match won. Though i would be surprised if they won the series it is not impossible.

 

[psychic duck]

I'm not sure the Lions from 2005 is a particularly good indicator, it wa s apor squad with a lot of guys at the end of heir career - some even coming out of retirement for the tour.

2009 & 2013 have both seen the Lions step up in a similar way to 1989 and 2005, so i think it's safe to say it will be a very different tour to 2005...

Re: the Brumbies game, - yeah the brumbies beat them and throughly deserved it but you have to present the true perspective in that it was a Lions side that was a scratch side with 4 of the players only having flown in in the days preceding it as injury replacements for the squad.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Lions get turned over in New Zealand in a couple of the provincial games - that's why it and SA are such great tours because he provincial games are traditionally incredibly hard.

NZ would have won regardless, but still, Clive Woodward completely ****ed up that last tour. It completely ruined his reputation and standing in the game.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure the Lions from 2005 is a particularly good indicator, it wa s apor squad with a lot of guys at the end of heir career - some even coming out of retirement for the tour.

2009 & 2013 have both seen the Lions step up in a similar way to 1989 and 2005, so i think it's safe to say it will be a very different tour to 2005...

Re: the Brumbies game, - yeah the brumbies beat them and throughly deserved it but you have to present the true perspective in that it was a Lions side that was a scratch side with 4 of the players only having flown in in the days preceding it as injury replacements for the squad.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Lions get turned over in New Zealand in a couple of the provincial games - that's why it and SA are such great tours because he provincial games are traditionally incredibly hard.

NZ would have won regardless, but still, Clive Woodward completely ****ed up that last tour. It completely ruined his reputation and standing in the game.

 

[Maverick1987]

NZ would have won regardless, but still, Clive Woodward completely ****ed up that last tour. It completely ruined his reputation and standing in the game.

- - - Updated - - -



NZ would have won regardless, but still, Clive Woodward completely ****ed up that last tour. It completely ruined his reputation and standing in the game.

It didn't ruin his reputation or standing . When people mention SCW name the first thing that comes to their mind is the 2003 World Cup not the lions tour 2 years later ... SCW would have won the last lions tour had he been the coach . Gatland had a far better group of players to pick from in 2013 than in 2005 imo

By the way I agree he did **** it up though ..

 

[Kiwi_]

I revisited the BOD "tackle" lastnight. They were clearing the ruck, but it was still very illegal and we saw no punishment. Real shame, it put a huge dampener on the tour.

But there was never any intent. Tana and Kevy are great guys and fair players, they wouldn't do something like that on purpose at all.