Rate it!

8 votes

With the Lions' chances of a series victory now over, Lions Watch examines a number of decisions and issues that affected the tourists' hopes of repeating their success of 1997.

After the epic contest in Pretoria last weekend, it seems somewhat self-defeating to consider what might have been had the Lions' selectors and management done things differently.

After all, we were treated to one of the most compelling Test matches of all time. It was skilful, it was brutal, it was nerve-shredding - it was pure sporting theatre.

To a man, the players can hold their heads up high for producing an occasion that will long remain in the memory - well, every player bar Schalk Burger maybe.

But that will be of little consolation to a Lions squad that came close on consecutive weekends to downing the world champions. The Lions have now lost seven consecutive Tests and that is unacceptable, no matter how many odds are stacked against them.

Whether you think the Lions could or should have won the series, the fact remains they didn't and irrespective of next weekend's outcome there are a number of issues that will be addressed in the tour post-mortem.

Selection

There is no exact science to picking squads and teams, but it is clear the Lions got it wrong on several counts. Tom Croft's exclusion from the original tour party was the first glaring mistake as he went on to play a leading role in the first two Tests, while the composition of the front row in Durban was arguably the most costly.

South Africa props on this tour have been nothing to shout about, and Adam Jones showed in no uncertain terms that Tendai Mtawarira is by no means the finished article - despite his dominations of Phil Vickery a week earlier.

Jones and Matthew Rees should have started the first Test. When they did not, they then should have been brought on earlier when it became clear Vickery and Lee Mears were struggling so badly.

Simon Shaw's exclusion from the first Test was also a mistake, as the veteran proved when he produced one of the great Lions performances last weekend. The Wasps lock was immense and got the better of his opposite number and Boks' enforcer Bakkies Botha, which is no mean feat.

Why also was Ronan O'Gara on the bench in Pretoria? Not just because he produced the clumsy challenge that conceded the crucial penalty, but because the Irishman is hardly the player to make an impact.

Ian McGeechan and co should have opted for the versatile James Hook to cover at fly-half, full-back and centre. Indeed, Hook has such an elegant running game he could probably make a decent fist of playing on the wing as well.

It is easy to point out selection errors in hindsight, but games are won and lost on such decisions and, with both Tests being so tight, they ultimately cost the Lions their chance of a series win.

Tour opposition

With the South Africa squad wrapped in cotton wool and 'saved' for the Tests, the Lions were denied a level of opposition that would have prepared them better for the Springboks.

One only has to look at the first 10 minutes of the first Test to see how shell-shocked they appeared by the increase in intensity, especially when they let Boks skipper John Smit stroll through for the softest of tries.

Had they been able to test themselves against the very best in South Africa, the Lions coaches would have had a clearer idea as to who was best able to cope with the Test challenges that lay ahead. Would, for example, Vickery have got the nod for the first Test had he come up against Mtawarira in the tour match with the Sharks?

Furthermore, would Mtawarira have been able to employ the questionable lifting tactics that allowed him to get the better of Vickery had the Lions been able to assess it earlier on tour?

Tougher opposition may have resulted in the Lions losing the odd provincial match, but conversely it would have given McGeechan a clearer idea of potential fault-lines, and in the Vickery case perhaps saved the first Test.

The weakened opposition also contributed to a lack of atmosphere and half-full stadia outside the Tests. The Lions squad and the many thousands of fans that made the trip from the UK and Ireland deserved better.

The Lions should use their clout to demand as much on future tours.

Figures from 2005 show that the Lions' 'brand' created £100 million for the New Zealand economy and will likely to do the same for South Africa. The Lions should make the most of their value and insist on a few ground rules ahead of future tours, including the home nations fielding their best players in provincial games.

Itinerary

It made no sense for the Lions to be based at sea level in Cape Town until the day before the second Test at altitude in Pretoria.

Opinions vary as the effect of altitude, but most athletes and coaches concur that it requires acclimatization and favours those used to the shortage of oxygen.

Is it a coincidence that the Lions seemed to tire in the final quarter of the second Test when the Boks bravely fought back for a remarkable win? Perhaps.

Certainly the Lions' cruel injury count did not help their chances, but where as in the first Test they finished strongly, in the second it was the Boks whose lungs seemed better equipped to see out the game.

Again using their economic value as a bargaining tool, the Lions should have had more say on their itinerary and made sure that, if anything, it was designed to improve their chances, not the home team's.

Surely it would have helped the Lions prospects to have been in camp in Pretoria for a week, rather than having to cope with a day's travel and an airport undergoing huge redevelopment for next year's World Cup. It makes no sense.

Refereeing

McGeechan said after the Durban defeat that the Lions had not had the "rub of the green" in the first two Tests. Most of the contencious decisions during the first two Tests are open to debate and will depend no doubt on whether you are a Lions or Springboks supporter.

But one incident that is beyond dispute was Schalk Burger's eye-gouging of Luke Fitzgerald.

Burger is one of the great Springboks and we must believe coach Peter de Villiers when he says the flanker is an honourable man. But cameras do not lie and when he was caught inserting his digits into the eyes of the Lions wing there is only one course of action open to the referee, first minute or not - red card.

It was a tough call for Christophe Berdos to make so early in the game and he rightly went to his assistant Bryce Lawrence, who was less than a metre away from the incident.

Lawrence and Berdos bottled it and awarded a yellow. Fact. Had Burger been given a red it is inconceivable the Boks would have been able to come back the way they did.

There is a growing belief that Lawrence also got it wrong while reffing the front row in the first Test. How can Mtawarira go from being such a force in Durban to being inconspicuous with his scrummaging a week later?

Were the Boks employing illegal tactics in their scrummaging? Lawrence did not think so and handed them nine points with his penalty count against Vickery.

It was also cruel coincidence that the video official that allowed Jaque Fourie's try in the 76th minute was the same that disallowed England wing Mark Cueto's effort against the Boks in the final of the last World Cup.

Did Stuart Dickinson have conclusive proof that no part of Fourie's body was in touch as he awarded the try? Tight lines indeed but again the Australian ruled in South Africa's favour.

- - - - - - - - -

Lions Watch is of the belief that South Africa deserved their series victory, just about. Overall, they won the physical battle and were superior when it came to finishing off their chances.

But there are a number of lessons to be learnt from the 2009 Lions tour and unless they are taken on board the Lions' chances of snapping their losing streak in 2013 will be remote.

Agree of disagree? Feel free to let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

Terence O'Rorke / Eurosport