Probyn: Lions needed to challenge Boks’ backs
What we hoped would be a successful Lions series turned into a loss that’s still hard to believe. In all three Tests the Lions showed a commitment and drive to match the Boks forwards but only then did they attempt to outplay their backs.
The Third Test showed the Lions getting closest to their best performance on the tour, dominating possession and field positions and playing some fast hands rugby.
The loss of Dan Biggar early in the game before he was able to get into his stride gave Finn Russell a chance to show what the Lions had been missing in the first two Tests and posed the question: why wasn’t he given a chance before?
Truth is I doubt it would have made much difference had Russell started in either of the first two Tests and may have even made things worse if that were possible.
It was always inevitable that whoever replaced Biggar was going to have the game of his life trying to prove the selectors/coaches wrong for leaving him out.
For all the praise lavished on the Lions players they never really hit their stride and failed to command when they needed to.
A three-Test series with just six tries scored hardly shone a light for the game, with even ‘die hard fans’ finding it difficult to say anything positive about the series when it came to the big games.
The problem appeared that the strategy of beating the Boks at their own game took over the mindset of the team during the games. A mindset which must have been chosen and agreed by the coaches with no voice of dissension being heard from the players at any time.
As I have said many times, all coaches use the water carriers to update the team on the field with directions and tactical play advice, so the mere fact the ball was constantly kicked for the corner rather than taking the points indicates agreement from on high.
It’s unlikely that the players on the field would have gone against Warren Gatland’s instructions and despite having Alan Wyn Jones as captain, the ‘on-field’ decision making was appalling, appearing to choose the option that best suited the opposition than the style of play touted to the media.
For all the talk about wanting to play open attacking rugby, the Lions failed to deliver on that promise and scored just two tries in all three Tests – both by hookers at the back of a far from an exciting rolling maul from a five metre lineout. Simply because it worked once it seemed the Lions were hell bent on keep trying to beat the Boks forwards, rather than challenge their backs.
Of the two sides it was the South Africans who played using their backs and outscored the Lions by four tries to two, all scored by their backs. One from scrum-half Faf de Klerk in the First Test, one by wing Makazole Mapimpi and one by centre Lukhanyo Am in the Second Test, and finally, wing Cheslin Kolbe in the Third. Ultimately, the Lions lost the series for one reason, they failed to take the points on offer, choosing to go for a try rather than kick the points.
However, the disappointment of the result and the way the games were played should not take away from the achievement of actually completing the series against all the odds.
The only sad thing is all the usual excuses are being wheeled out about not enough preparation time and blame is being passed on to the Premiership clubs for not releasing their players early enough, as if an extra week or two would make a difference.
As the great Willie John McBride said, the RFU don’t own the players and therefore can’t dictate if and when players can be released unlike Wales, Ireland and Scotland ‘s regional teams players.
What also has to be remembered is the Lions income goes to the Unions not the clubs, so the RFU has to negotiate fair compensation for the use of the clubs’ players. Some have suggested that because of the difficulty in staging these tours during these professional days and an ever growing demand for a global season and player welfare, that this may be the dying days of the Lions – but I doubt it.
A Lions tour is one of the biggest events in the rugby calendar and in normal times generates a vast sum of money for both the tourists and the host country.
With financially strapped Australia the next named venue for the Lions I have no doubt they will not suffer the fate of Public School Wanderers, and to a certain extent the Barbarians, of becoming irrelevant in the modern game.
On the player welfare front, the one thing I find annoying is the constant referral to the increase in size and strength of modern professional players.
Statistically, players now are around two stone heavier than those who played in the past, but as the average weight of an average man has increased by over a stone it should be no surprise that rugby players have increased in weight.
BMI statistics specifically exclude international rugby players as most are judged as clinically obese despite being fit athletes.
Every generation has got bigger so it is obvious that players at all levels would show an increase in size but to blame an increase in the number of injuries on that one factor is naive.
There have always been bigger players in rugby but as a game for all shapes and sizes, certain positions were the domain of the smaller players. That has changed.
It is the selection of the bigger players for all positions that has seen the overall increase in size as coaches have sought to play a power game rather than one based on skill like in previous years.
“For all the talk about wanting to play open rugby, the Lions failed to deliver”