Page 1 of 4

So, how did we rate the Class of 2017?

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:52 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:56 pm
by MrBunhead
5 wins from 10

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:02 pm
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?

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:08 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:10 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:10 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:11 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:11 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:12 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:12 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:16 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:17 pm
by Dobbin
what specifically do you think gatland should have done differently?

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:20 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:20 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:23 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:23 pm
by CrazyIslander
Jake is probably bitter coz his article blaming Gatland for the series loss won't get printed.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:23 pm
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?

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:25 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:25 pm
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?

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:26 pm
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?

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:27 pm
by MaccTaff
Not fair at all, but, but you've obviously made your mind up on this one!

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:30 pm
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).

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:32 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:34 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:34 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:36 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:37 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:38 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:38 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:39 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:41 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:42 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:45 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:47 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:48 pm
by terryfinch
I think you'd be better off doing a 'rugby was the winner' article.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:50 pm
by Jake
We will have to beg to differ.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:51 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:53 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:57 pm
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.

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

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:58 pm
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.