So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

All things Rugby
User avatar
Jake
Posts: 5032
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Jake »

So, when all this dust has settled and all the hyperbole has unhyped it self the truth is this.

5 wins from ten.
Failed to win the series.
We led NZ for 3minutes out of 240 minutes in the whole series.
We had every chance going to win the series but didn't.

Anyone saying this was a success has simply lot the plot. It was almost a disaster and Gatland made a real hash of it time and time again.

If not a disaster it was a failure and it's had to argue otherwise.
MrBunhead
Posts: 2581
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by MrBunhead »

5 wins from 10
User avatar
JB1981
Posts: 7298
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:14 am
Location: NZ

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by JB1981 »

Five wins. Barbarians, Crusaders, Maori, Chiefs and the second test.

As a New Zealander, the Lions did far better in the tests than expected. They could have lost 3-0 but equally could have won 2-1. Thinking back to predictions, wouldn't most Lions fans rate the results (tests at least) as better than expected?
User avatar
Jake
Posts: 5032
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Jake »

JB1981 wrote:Five wins. Barbarians, Crusaders, Maori, Chiefs and the second test.

As a New Zealander, the Lions did far better in the tests than expected. They could have lost 3-0 but equally could have won 2-1. Thinking back to predictions, wouldn't most Lions fans rate the results (tests at least) as better than expected?
Not at all.

With the players we had available, I believe a series win was a fair expectation.

THis isn't quite the side of 2 yrs ago- stil a great side, but no, totally underwhelming.
User avatar
terryfinch
Posts: 5544
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by terryfinch »

Jake wrote:So, when all this dust has settled and all the hyperbole has unhyped it self the truth is this.

5 wins from ten.
Failed to win the series.
We led NZ for 3minutes out of 240 minutes in the whole series.
We had every chance going to win the series but didn't.

Anyone saying this was a success has simply lot the plot. It was almost a disaster and Gatland made a real hash of it time and time again.

If not a disaster it was a failure and it's had to argue otherwise.

Matt Dawson was talking this drivel on the radio too. Putting together scratch sides to take on the best SR teams and then 3 tests against NZ in their own backyard is as tough as it gets. In the professional era, ridiculous. Coming away with five wins, two draws and three losses and a tied series is unbelievable.
User avatar
MaccTaff
Posts: 2654
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Leafiest Cheshire (East)

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by MaccTaff »

I think most people will remember that the test series was drawn, and thus it will be seen as a relative success.

Despite the pre tour hyperbole, not many gave the Lions much chance and a 3-0 drubbing was seen as a likely outcome, particularly after the first test.

Other than the ludicrous call up of the "tackle bags" (which ended up more insulting to the players selected than those that weren't), I also think it was a success of the Lions concept.

In the professional era the Lions faces a lot of challenges and criticisms but, well, I thought it was brilliant and I enjoyed every minute, as did everyone I know. I think Gatland did a much better job than 4 years ago.

I appreciate you may not feel the same if you're Scottish, and I get that. However, let's just hope that they get more representation next time.
User avatar
Jake
Posts: 5032
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Jake »

terryfinch wrote:
Jake wrote:So, when all this dust has settled and all the hyperbole has unhyped it self the truth is this.

5 wins from ten.
Failed to win the series.
We led NZ for 3minutes out of 240 minutes in the whole series.
We had every chance going to win the series but didn't.

Anyone saying this was a success has simply lot the plot. It was almost a disaster and Gatland made a real hash of it time and time again.

If not a disaster it was a failure and it's had to argue otherwise.

Matt Dawson was talking this drivel on the radio too. Putting together scratch sides to take on the best SR teams and then 3 tests against NZ in their own backyard is as tough as it gets. In the professional era, ridiculous. Coming away with five wins, two draws and three losses and a tied series is unbelievable.
Sorry, plucky losers isn't a badge of honour.
User avatar
CrazyIslander
Posts: 20331
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by CrazyIslander »

Successful tour.
The best way to measure it is compare the NZ teams of Lions series in the past. The current team is the best.
User avatar
Brumby_in_Vic
Posts: 15878
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Brumby_in_Vic »

The doom and gloomers had the Lions down for zero wins on this tour. It was a success as they came to win the test series against side who hasn't lost at home in eight years.

As for the tour matches the Lions matches in 97 and 2013 and won the test series.
User avatar
MaccTaff
Posts: 2654
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Leafiest Cheshire (East)

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by MaccTaff »

Jake wrote:
JB1981 wrote:Five wins. Barbarians, Crusaders, Maori, Chiefs and the second test.

As a New Zealander, the Lions did far better in the tests than expected. They could have lost 3-0 but equally could have won 2-1. Thinking back to predictions, wouldn't most Lions fans rate the results (tests at least) as better than expected?
Not at all.

With the players we had available, I believe a series win was a fair expectation.

THis isn't quite the side of 2 yrs ago- stil a great side, but no, totally underwhelming.
Nah.
User avatar
Jake
Posts: 5032
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Jake »

Respectfully, the very fact you lot are accepting this as acceptable is what is so very wrong with UK sport and our lack of ruthless winning culture.

Not meaning to to offend and not aimed personally.
User avatar
Dobbin
Posts: 3282
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Dobbin »

what specifically do you think gatland should have done differently?
User avatar
Plato'sCave
Posts: 15390
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:36 pm

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Plato'sCave »

Jake wrote:Respectfully, the very fact you lot are accepting this as acceptable is what is so very wrong with UK spoirt and our lack of rutheless winning culture.

Not meaning to to offend and not aimed personally.
Reminds me of Welsh politics.
User avatar
MaccTaff
Posts: 2654
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Leafiest Cheshire (East)

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by MaccTaff »

Jake wrote:Respectfully, the very fact you lot are accepting this as acceptable is what is so very wrong with UK spoirt and our lack of rutheless winning culture.

Not meaning to to offend and not aimed personally.
It really isn't Jake.

It's been said repeatedly it's a ridiculously difficult tour, particularly in the professional era.

Now 2005 - yes that was a disaster.

I'm disappointed we didn't win more games, but I believed we'd get humped.

We drew the test series against the world ranked 1, double World Cup winning country with a scratch side away.

We drew a game at Eden Park for the first time against the ABs since 1994.

I wish the word "drew" was"won" but I thought we gave it a great shot. That's not being defeatist, it's just being realistic.
User avatar
Jake
Posts: 5032
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Jake »

OK, then, if NZ toured the NH and had 5W, 4L, 2D's I suspect Hansen would have been fired.

And that's entirely realistic.
User avatar
CrazyIslander
Posts: 20331
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by CrazyIslander »

Jake is probably bitter coz his article blaming Gatland for the series loss won't get printed.
User avatar
MaccTaff
Posts: 2654
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Leafiest Cheshire (East)

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by MaccTaff »

Jake wrote:OK, then, if NZ toured the NH and had 5W, 4L, 2D's I suspect Hansen would have been fired.

And that's entirely realistic.
It wouldnt be a scratch side now would it?
Rugby2023
Posts: 12259
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Rugby2023 »

Jake wrote:We had every chance going to win the series but didn't.
That's not the sentiment I recall heading into it.

It's a broadly successful tour with some low moments thrown in.
User avatar
Jake
Posts: 5032
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Jake »

CrazyIslander wrote:Jake is probably bitter coz his article blaming Gatland for the series loss won't get printed.
I've not written one, and I've got the luxury of 3 days to consider my angle.

What I'm trying to say is, we cannot accept this as success if we want to get better.

Does that make more sense?
User avatar
Jake
Posts: 5032
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Jake »

Rugby2023 wrote:
Jake wrote:We had every chance going to win the series but didn't.
That's not the sentiment I recall heading into it.

It's a broadly successful tour with some low moments thrown in.
OK- if this was a report card, I'd just about give it C-

Fair?
User avatar
MaccTaff
Posts: 2654
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Leafiest Cheshire (East)

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by MaccTaff »

Not fair at all, but, but you've obviously made your mind up on this one!
Rugby2023
Posts: 12259
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Rugby2023 »

Jake wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:Jake is probably bitter coz his article blaming Gatland for the series loss won't get printed.
I've not written one, and I've got the luxury of 3 days to consider my angle.

What I'm trying to say is, we cannot accept this as success if we want to get better.

Does that make more sense?
The Lions is a one-off, there is no "getting better" as such because they'll never play together again. If it was England I would agree, but it isn't, there is no second bite at the cherry or improvement to come. It's over, and that's part of the beauty of it.

The question you have to ask is whether pre-tour a drawn series in New Zealand is an acceptable result for this particular group of players. I think most would have hoped to win, but expected loss, perhaps even 3-0. So against that background, it has to be deemed a successful return (imo anyway).
User avatar
Plato'sCave
Posts: 15390
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:36 pm

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Plato'sCave »

Jake wrote:OK, then, if NZ toured the NH and had 5W, 4L, 2D's I suspect Hansen would have been fired.

And that's entirely realistic.
Lions only exist for 6 playing weeks every four years. Lions only have to wait 18 Lions-Rugby-weeks for revenge in NZ, NZ have to wait over 200 NZ-Rugby-weeks for revenge. It'll eat away at them more.
User avatar
MaccTaff
Posts: 2654
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Leafiest Cheshire (East)

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by MaccTaff »

Rugby2023 wrote:
Jake wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:Jake is probably bitter coz his article blaming Gatland for the series loss won't get printed.
I've not written one, and I've got the luxury of 3 days to consider my angle.

What I'm trying to say is, we cannot accept this as success if we want to get better.

Does that make more sense?
The Lions is a one-off, there is no "getting better" as such because they'll never play together again. If it was England I would agree, but it isn't, there is no second bite at the cherry or improvement to come. It's over, and that's part of the beauty of it.

The question you have to ask is whether pre-tour a drawn series in New Zealand is an acceptable result for this particular group of players. I think most would have hoped to win, but expected loss, perhaps even 3-0. So against that background, it has to be deemed a successful return (imo anyway).
Pretty much this.
User avatar
Jake
Posts: 5032
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Jake »

Rugby2023 wrote:
Jake wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:Jake is probably bitter coz his article blaming Gatland for the series loss won't get printed.
I've not written one, and I've got the luxury of 3 days to consider my angle.

What I'm trying to say is, we cannot accept this as success if we want to get better.

Does that make more sense?
The Lions is a one-off, there is no "getting better" as such because they'll never play together again. If it was England I would agree, but it isn't, there is no second bite at the cherry or improvement to come. It's over, and that's part of the beauty of it.

The question you have to ask is whether pre-tour a drawn series in New Zealand is an acceptable result for this particular group of players. I think most would have hoped to win, but expected loss, perhaps even 3-0. So against that background, it has to be deemed a successful return (imo anyway).
I think for the supporters, they'd have taken it.
Players, I think not.
It's not successful, but I'll revise my view on totaly failure

In any case, draws means I don't get to use my Ladybird Book of Rugby Hyperbole which is irking me.
User avatar
MaccTaff
Posts: 2654
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Leafiest Cheshire (East)

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by MaccTaff »

No I agree with what you say about the players.

They have to approach with the attitude that they can, nay must, win or they're fcuked before they take the field. Anything but a win will certainly feel disappointing.

I suspect in the future they will look back at this tour with a lot more pride and fondness than they imagine right now.
User avatar
Wendigo7
Posts: 12493
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Wendigo7 »

Jake wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:Jake is probably bitter coz his article blaming Gatland for the series loss won't get printed.
I've not written one, and I've got the luxury of 3 days to consider my angle.

What I'm trying to say is, we cannot accept this as success if we want to get better.

Does that make more sense?
3 takeaways from me:

1. Speed of play in the northern hemisphere must increase whilst keeping it's accuracy and intensity.
2. We must run onto the ball as carriers and be more imposing to get over the game line and get space for the backs to work.
3. Savvy game management and breakdown work.

3 main areas where it's crucial if the lions want to kick on and win in NZ, these must be addressed.
Croft
Posts: 5141
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: NZ, but England fan.

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Croft »

Jake wrote:OK, then, if NZ toured the NH and had 5W, 4L, 2D's I suspect Hansen would have been fired.

And that's entirely realistic.
It was 3 losses not 4.

But the fact is it was the Lions touring the country of the most succesful rugby team in history. And people aren't happy with them being plucky losers. Because they aren't losers. They drew not lost the series and won 5 games and lost 3 on the tour. And whenever they lost they bounced back. The wins against the Crusaders and Maori mean't Lions fans always had something to cheer.
Again it was a 5-3 with two draws winning tour in the toughest rugby country in the world.
I'm dissapointed we didn't win just like the AB fans are for their team but I'm happy overall with the Lions, they showed more class than I realised they had before the tour.
User avatar
CrazyIslander
Posts: 20331
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by CrazyIslander »

Jake wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:Jake is probably bitter coz his article blaming Gatland for the series loss won't get printed.
I've not written one, and I've got the luxury of 3 days to consider my angle.

What I'm trying to say is, we cannot accept this as success if we want to get better.

Does that make more sense?
Then you're not talking about the Lions specifically.
But if you are a rugby person you would've put the result in perspective.
- NZ are back to back RWC champions with all time greats in the team. The new guys have had great SR season.
- the 5 NZ SR are the best 5 teams in SR. Equivalent or better to the Champions Cup semi finalists.
- the Lions played twice a week

To come out of NZ with a drawn series is a great achievement. Especially when the ABs were threatening to run away with it but somehow the Lions held on. So many series saving moments.
User avatar
Jake
Posts: 5032
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Jake »

MaccTaff wrote:No I agree with what you say about the players.

They have to approach with the attitude that they can, nay must, win or they're fcuked before they take the field. Anything but a win will certainly feel disappointing.

I suspect in the future they will look back at this tour with a lot more pride and fondness than they imagine right now.
I think at times it was sublime but hell I gen think we blew a chance!

What was your lot take on OF going for that last penalty instead of the corner? I was gen in two minds about it at the time and still am.
User avatar
Jake
Posts: 5032
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Jake »

CrazyIslander wrote:
Jake wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:Jake is probably bitter coz his article blaming Gatland for the series loss won't get printed.
I've not written one, and I've got the luxury of 3 days to consider my angle.

What I'm trying to say is, we cannot accept this as success if we want to get better.

Does that make more sense?
Then you're not talking about the Lions specifically.
But if you are a rugby person you would've put the result in perspective.
- NZ are back to back RWC champions with all time greats in the team. The new guys have had great SR season.
- the 5 NZ SR are the best 5 teams in SR. Equivalent or better to the Champions Cup semi finalists.
- the Lions played twice a week

To come out of NZ with a drawn series is a great achievement. Especially when the ABs were threatening to run away with it but somehow the Lions held on. So many series saving moments.

Here's the thing- NZ 2017 are nowhere near 2015. Maybe 10/15% away from that side.

WWe had ten weeks together. THats not a scratch side.
iarmhiman
Posts: 43666
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by iarmhiman »

I think the B&I Lions underachieved. They went there to win and didn't so while there are a lot of positives to take away, the objective failed.
Rugby2023
Posts: 12259
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:05 pm

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Rugby2023 »

Jake wrote:Here's the thing- NZ 2017 are nowhere near 2015. Maybe 10/15% away from that side.

WWe had ten weeks together. THats not a scratch side.
With 45+ players and a constantly rotating line-up. With due respect, this is not a seasoned outfit.
User avatar
terryfinch
Posts: 5544
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by terryfinch »

Jake wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Jake wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:Jake is probably bitter coz his article blaming Gatland for the series loss won't get printed.
I've not written one, and I've got the luxury of 3 days to consider my angle.

What I'm trying to say is, we cannot accept this as success if we want to get better.

Does that make more sense?
Then you're not talking about the Lions specifically.
But if you are a rugby person you would've put the result in perspective.
- NZ are back to back RWC champions with all time greats in the team. The new guys have had great SR season.
- the 5 NZ SR are the best 5 teams in SR. Equivalent or better to the Champions Cup semi finalists.
- the Lions played twice a week

To come out of NZ with a drawn series is a great achievement. Especially when the ABs were threatening to run away with it but somehow the Lions held on. So many series saving moments.

Here's the thing- NZ 2017 are nowhere near 2015. Maybe 10/15% away from that side.

WWe had ten weeks together. THats not a scratch side.
Don't think this line works Jake. Of course we should try/expect to win. Now it is over, on reflection, we exceeded expectations. Bookies had ABs 1-5 on to win the series remember.
User avatar
terryfinch
Posts: 5544
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by terryfinch »

I think you'd be better off doing a 'rugby was the winner' article.
User avatar
Jake
Posts: 5032
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Jake »

We will have to beg to differ.
User avatar
Willie Falloon
Posts: 9584
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Willie Falloon »

Jake wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:Jake is probably bitter coz his article blaming Gatland for the series loss won't get printed.
I've not written one, and I've got the luxury of 3 days to consider my angle.

What I'm trying to say is, we cannot accept this as success if we want to get better.

Does that make more sense?
Correct.

A lacks of Henderson in the tests is a big negative. As well as some quality players having poor mid week games (North, Henshaw etc).

Lions got very lucky in the tests, some strange calls went their way and the ABs lost some world class players like Crotty, Smith and Coles.
User avatar
CrazyIslander
Posts: 20331
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by CrazyIslander »

Jake wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:
Jake wrote:
CrazyIslander wrote:Jake is probably bitter coz his article blaming Gatland for the series loss won't get printed.
I've not written one, and I've got the luxury of 3 days to consider my angle.

What I'm trying to say is, we cannot accept this as success if we want to get better.

Does that make more sense?
Then you're not talking about the Lions specifically.
But if you are a rugby person you would've put the result in perspective.
- NZ are back to back RWC champions with all time greats in the team. The new guys have had great SR season.
- the 5 NZ SR are the best 5 teams in SR. Equivalent or better to the Champions Cup semi finalists.
- the Lions played twice a week

To come out of NZ with a drawn series is a great achievement. Especially when the ABs were threatening to run away with it but somehow the Lions held on. So many series saving moments.

Here's the thing- NZ 2017 are nowhere near 2015. Maybe 10/15% away from that side.

WWe had ten weeks together. THats not a scratch side.
The NZ 2015 only beat a shit Boks side by 2 points in the semis. NZ 2017 did not look good at times simply because the Lions hit them hard in tackles and in the breakdown. The Lions from 1-15 held their own. You watch guys like Laumape, Ioane and Jordie go on to destroy other teams and you'll realise how good this ABs side is.
User avatar
SamShark
Posts: 20522
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by SamShark »

I thought the class of 2017 were pretty good actually Jake.

3-0 wouldn't have been a massive surprise so 1-1 is pleasing.

Let us know what Cozza or Wints think, but I'm ok with it.
User avatar
Jake
Posts: 5032
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Post by Jake »

terryfinch wrote:I think you'd be better off doing a 'rugby was the winner' article.
There's a lot of truth in that.
Post Reply