What next for the Lions?

by Brendan Cole

The Lions virtually invite doubters to have a cut; the perceived ‘colonial hangover’ nature of the enterprise, the recent and tremendously strong support shift towards Heineken Cup clubs, and the fact they appear and disappear only once every four years underpins much of the negative commentary.  

For many - not all recent rugby converts, they are an oddity the end of which can't come soon enough.  

That said, the vast majority of rugby lovers feel privileged to support or play for the Lions. For the players in particular, getting the Lions jersey yields a massive sense of pride and personal achievement.

Corporations are also more than happy pay to be associated with the Lions (and their typically affluent supporters) and despite the 2-0, and possibly 3-0, defeat in South Africa, there is no indication that the Lions are anything but hot commercial property.

But there is more at stake than money or TV ratings. A part of the spirit and history of rugby union is carried in the Lions. However, that tradition needs constant renewal.

Lions need a boost - a win - soon

The Lions cannot afford to lose match after match, or series after series. With that in mind, it is worrying that the Lions last series win was in 1997. There have only been sporadic jolts – the first Test win over Australia in 2001, and Brian O’Driscoll’s stunning try in that match - in the interim. Four years after Australia, the New Zealand series was a disaster from start to finish.

Though they will survive South Africa, the Lions need to win. Soon.

It also a concern that the Lions in South Africa have been subjected to a travesty of mismanagement by the host Union. The itinerary, the failure to release the Springbok players for provincial games and the poor attendance at those games are all major concerns.

Lions have added to the tradition

Despite those hindrances, these Lions have added greatly to the legacy. The tour has been a great success in terms of restoring the traditional collegiality and spirit and The sheer quality and closeness of the Test matches – bar the first 45 minutes of the first Test – has also been heartening.

On the playing side, it has been a qualified successs.

The Lions lost the first Test at least in part because they got the team selection wrong and then compounded that error by failing to remove Phil Vickery early enough. It is not Vickery’s fault that Bryce Lawrence took against him in the scrum but once it became obvious that he could not cope with what Lawrence was allowing Tendai Mtawirara to do, he should have come off.

The next defeat was, if anything, even harder to take. Again, the Lions played some terrific rugby. South Africa’s spirit and the quality of their play with the match on the line must be applauded but ultimately, the failure of the Lions’ collective belief on the field in the second half, particularly after Brian O’Driscoll went off, cost them.

Obviously, other factors have also hindered them.

Cowardly and technically deficient refereeing has proved a huge handicap. On the technical side, in both the first and second Tests, the scrum was not satisfactorily refereed. That the cowardice continued at Schalk Burger’s citing hearing, with the South African flanker receiving a ludicrously lenient 8-week ban.

Bad luck in the form of injuries also took their toll on the Lions. Stephen Ferris and Euan Murray have in particular been sorely missed and the presence of either might have made the difference in the Tests.

South Africa deserve credit

But South Africa must be given their due. They have had some superb individuals - Brian Habana, Fourie Du Preez, JP Pietersen and Victor Matfield played honourably and with great skill. The South Africans collective power in the contact area and cohesion in the lineout have also been hugely impressive. The crucial late cameos from Morne Steyn and Heinrich Brussow in the second Test superceded anything the Lions could bring off the bench.

The Springboks will be strong contenders in New Zealand in 2011.

However, the episodes or serious and deliberate foul play – with Schalk Burger committing an obvious breach of the rules aimed at intimidating or incapacitating an opponent – and the fact that the second Test turned on injuries to the Lions props which forced the introduction of uncontested scrums mean this series win can’t be considered an unqualified triumph.

Looking ahead, victory in Australia is not quite a necessity for the Lions but it is not far off being one. But it would be a great pity – and a massive loss to rugby - if the Lions were to fail as an entity. There is also something special about seeing players from four separate but, to varying degrees, closely related nations come together to form one team though naturally, one hesitates to call it ‘uniquely British and Irish’.

Outside of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales, no other rugby nation has an outlet like the Lions in which to test themselves, away from home, against the best of the Southern Hemisphere. In general, meaningful Test match series in which both sides are at full intensity are themselves rare enough in rugby. All four nations will benefit from the experience gained, and the knowledge shared, over the next few years. 

The Lions may be endangered, and a bad defeat in Australia would certainly threaten their existence with New Zealand up next. All the more reason for those in a position to do so to strain every muscle to strengthen and improve them before the next tour departs.

The game - particularly the game here - needs them.