LOSING THE PLOT
Lions ‘brand’ on the ropes after failing to see bigger picture
THE 1974 Lions have been deified for their achievements in South Africa. After a maiden series victory in New Zealand three years previously, a talented squad were tipped for big things and they certainly lived up to the hype. Led by Willie John McBride, the visitors swept all before them across a three-month tour, winning 21 of their 22 games on South African soil.
A perfect series was derailed by a controversial draw in the fourth and final Test against the Springboks. It was a squad laced with generational talents, like Mervyn Davies. JPR Williams, Fergus Slattery, Gareth Edwards. Phil Bennett and Mike Gibson.
The achievements of the class of ’74 cannot be understated, but there is an inconvenient truth about that era and whether the Lions should have toured in the first place.
It’s a fact which is passed over a lot when the ‘Invincibles’ are eulogised, but South Africa was in the midst of the caustic era of Apartheid.
And the Afrikaner government was feeling the pressure from outside forces to the oppressive regime it was overseeing.
In 1966, the UN General Assembly labelled apartheid — which was introduced in 1948 — as a ‘crime against humanity’.
The IOC revoked South Africa’s invitation to the Olympics in 1964 and the ban would remain in place until the 1992 Games in Barcelona. In 1964, the country was also suspended indefinitely by FIFA. South Africa was also the subject of tough economic trade sanctions. Despite all of this external pressure, the Lions travelled.
There were dissenting voices, like Wales flanker John Taylor, who declined an invitation to tour.
It was a different time, of course, but some of the statements from supposed icons such as McBride and Bennett to justify the tour are questionable — you wouldn’t exactly describe them as ‘woke’, to borrow a modern-day term.
The Lions would tour in 1980 but they would not return again until 1997 when the landscape had changed drastically.
The Apartheid regime came to an end in 1994, with Nelson Mandela emerging as a beacon of hope for a country which was so bitterly divided for so long.
South Africa remains a flawed and divided country, but there has been notable progress. The Springboks, for one, are a far more reflective of the diversity of the country.
There was some huge excitement about the prospect of Warren Gatland’s Lions taking on the world champions at Soccer City in Soweto in the opening Test of the series.
The sight of Siya Kolisi leading out the hosts in front of 90,000 people in a hallowed ground which became a symbol for the anti-apartheid movement would have been powerful.
But the grand plans began to falter about 18 months ago, when the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic began to take hold.
The
logistical challenge of this tour developed into a real saga over the past 12 months or so.
A home tour — an unprecedented move — was mooted and appeared a very real possibility until it became clear that the British government would not underwrite it. Australia even moved in at one stage and offered the host the entire thing at a time when case numbers were low in that part of the world.
Eventually, the Lions and the South African authorities agreed to stage the tour as planned.
It would be a diluted version of previous tours. The ‘Red Army’ would not travel. There was a push to allow some home fans in the doors around the grounds, but that always a hard sell.
So, we have been left with the most uninspiring and bizarre Lions expedition in recent memory.
Covid outbreaks, PCR testing and cancelled games has been the major
theme thus far.
Discussing the prospective makeup of the backrow for the Test series, or Conor Murray’s suitability as a captain, seems a bit trite when you see what is unfolding on the ground in South Africa.
The country is in the grips of a deadly third wave. Cases are on the rise. Hospitals are filling up. It’s a grim landscape, especially when you consider that just three per cent of the near 59million inhabitants of this developing nation have received a crucial vaccine dose.
These are very different times to 1974 but the Lions, once again, faced a moral dilemma about agreeing to travel to that part of the world. There is a sense that they whole thing is beginning to unravel. Maintaining a bio-secure bubble in South Africa was always going to be impossible.
There’s also the optics of the whole tour in the first place. Talks of the ‘tradition’ and ‘mystique’ of the Lions wears a bit thin when you see what is unfolding off the pitch.
You’d wonder why did the Lions
even agree to this tour? They can dress it up, but this tour embodies nothing of the traditions the Lions often espouse.
No, the key driver of this whole ill-fated tour going ahead was money. Pure and simple.
The broadcasters and sponsors had vested interests.
The South African union needed a cash injection.
Why else would the Lions proceed without their fans? Why would they fulfil a fixture yesterday against a team they demolished 54-7 just four days previously?
Consider this. Why did the Lions stop over in Hong Kong for a warm-up game against the Barbarians on their way to Australia in 2013?
Conveniently, that is where the hub of HSBC — the jersey sponsors for that tour — had their central operations.
Gatland has bemoaned the commercial obligations of recent tours. It has become, more and more, about corporate interests. The Lions is a brand now.
They have tried to dress up this tour as an ‘against all odds’ odyssey but the fallout could really harm the whole concept.
Once again, the Lions have failed to see the bigger picture.