The Ashes have started and the Lions tour is over and we now have the benefit if not the wisdom of hindsight to review how the Lions could have returned victorious to the British Isles.
The tour finished with a record equalling victory for the Lions over the World Champion Springboks but it was only a consolation prize for the tourists as they had narrowly lost the first two tests. There are many reasons that could be attributed to the loss of the test series and whilst I will take some of them in isolation they are interwoven.
My first thought harks back to a post I made when the original tour party was announced and O'Connell was named as captain. At the time I wasn't sure that O'Connell was guaranteed his place in the team and that perhaps the only player before the tour started who was, was his national captain O'Driscoll. Whilst O'Connell led from the front and played well I am not sure he was one of the best two second rows on the tour and the reason he played in all three tests was because he was captain and not necessarily because he was one of the best 15 players. Perhaps in future the tour management need to either not name a tour captain or be absolutely confident that the player they do name will fully and without question justify his place in the team.
Secondly, when the tour party was announced there were not too many surprises but what appeared obvious was that the forwards in particular had been selected not necessarily for mobility but because of the power they would be able to provide in the set-piece. What then happened was that in the preliminary tour matches the set-piece was solid and the main question the forwards needed to address was the breakdown area. Part of this false sense of security lay in the approach taken by the Springbok management in not allowing any of their squad to play in these tour matches and as well as this influencing the team selection for the first test it also led to half-empty stadia as the locals were less inclined to watch their teams without the star players.
At the time of the selection of the first test team I had been succoured in as well as I had broadly selected the 22 the made up the test squad but what happened in the first half of that game showed that the set-piece was a significant weakness. This was where the management made a big error in that they should have changed the scrum after the first twenty minutes but delayed until the game was as good as lost. If earlier action had been taken (i.e. Vickery and possibly Wyn-Jones being substituted) then the Lions would not have been so far behind after 50 minutes and whilst they dominated the last 30 minutes of the game it was just too much for them to get back for the win.
There were two key factors in the loss of the second test. The first was that Burger should have been shown a red-card following his first minute eye-gouge of Fitzgerald and had the Lions played against 14 men for the whole game they would surely have won. The second factor was early in the second half when in the space of a few minutes the Lions lost both props and centres to injury. At the time they were winning and had the advantage in the scrum and at least parity in the line-out. Having to go to uncontested scrums played into the South African hands and was a definite contribution to Habana's try. What then disappointed me was the following week when both sides named 5 forwards amongst their substitutes but neither named full front row cover and as I've said before this needs to be addressed because there is no room for uncontested scrums in international rugby.
The other aspect that officialdom played in the second test was the video official awarding of the final Springbok try which could not have been 100% proved by any of the camera angles.
In these instances luck went against the Lions but unfortunately that is never a defence for losing a game in any sport as over time it will tend to equalise itself out, even in the period of a match.
In the final test pretty much everything went the way of the Lions and as I had previously suspected the back-up players in the Lions squad were better than those in the South African team.
Of course there were a number of revelations of the tour, the first and foremost being Kearney but others to enhance their reputations were Roberts, Bowe, Phillips, Croft (why he wasn't in the original squad still astounds me), Shaw, Jenkins and following his performance in the final test Heaslip. In addition O'Driscoll yet again showed his class and "pound for pound" is probably the best rugby player in the world at present and whilst he has already gone into legendary status by leading Ireland to their first Grand Slam in 60 years and as a key member of the Leinster team that won the Heineken Cup, it was a shame he couldn't finish the season as a Lions test winner.
In conclusion if the Lions can seriously challenge for a test series win in Australia in four years, the team management need to make tough decisions when needed, the hosts should be forced to make their strongest teams play in the preliminary tour matches - these are one off tours and the only true rugby tour that still exists. Finally, the rules of the game need to be adhered to even if it means sending a player from the pitch in the first minute of a game.
Roll on 2013!!
No comments:
Post a Comment