Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Tri Nations Tournament news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship news
- South Africa Springboks news
- British and Irish Lions news
On Saturday, the Springboks clinched the series against the Lions. Since then, we’ve heard from the Lions how unlucky they’ve been, how the refs haven’t helped them, and how Schalk should have been red carded for eye gouging.
Here’s what we haven’t heard from the Lions: congratulations South Africa. You outplayed us for 60 minutes in the first Test and held on in the last 20 minutes for the win. You showed great resilience and skill to come back from 19-8 in the second Test to win it in extra time.
As a result, they’ve left a sour taste in what is supposed to be a great Lions tour (to be fair, Peter de Villiers hasn’t helped either with some of his comments).
I’m not saying there isn’t truth in some of what they’re saying.
But I believe one should be gracious in defeat, no matter how last minute or heartbreaking it may be. All we’ve heard from the Lions (and the majority of British press) so far are excuses.
So come on Lions, stop the whingeing and offer congratulations where they are due.
On a side note, I’d like to see SANZAR suspend the Tri Nations on the years of the Lions tour and organise tours between the two SANZAR countries not playing the Lions that year.
In other words, in 2013, when the Lions tour Australia, I’d like to see Australia focus 100 per cent on the Lions and have South Africa and New Zealand have back and forth tours (maybe two Tests in each country, possibly a fifth somewhere neutral like London?)
I’d also like to see them suspend the Tri Nations in World Cup years.
At the moment we have Tri Nations every year. So what if you don’t win this year, you’ll get another shot next year. But if the Tri Nations was played only every second year, that would add a lot more weight to it.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Queensland ready for Super challenge
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (14)
- Foley excited about Samoan rugby challenge
- Force rugby coach praises his pack
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (42)
- Wales’ Davies banned for ‘tip tackle’ (3)
- Graham Henry’s rugby future confirmed (14)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (22)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (16)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
Ian Noble said | July 1st 2009 @ 3:39am | Report comment
If you bothered to listen to the full post match comments by McGeechan and OConnell you would have noted their congratulations to the Boks, in spite of being gutted by the outcome. Don’t always rely upon the edited versions for selling papers.
Kevin, Meath said | July 1st 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
Think alot of SH commentators are picking out the comments they want to reinforce their preconcieved ideas. I’ve read many comments congratulating Bokkes. However PDV has unfortunately hi-jacked what should be a celebration for SA with his idiotic comments. Do you really believe that if AB, OZ or Bokkes lost a test to the lions or whoever where a player failed to recieve a red card it that it wouldn’t be a hot topic? then if the coach denied it was an offense and then seemingly condoned serious foul play there wouldn’t be uproar?
For my part well done Bokkes, the better team won, Lions asked them series questions and they answered them.
Were they lucky? hell yes! you aint going to win anything if Lady Luck doesn’t smile now and then, Napoleon was right. It wasn’t just luck tho, it also took a good team.
Lions did well for a scratch team, especially one that many SA fans predicted would be slaughtered, some of whom I notice on posts give lions some credit but many not.
van der Merwe said | July 1st 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
The manner in which de Villiers’ defence of the character of one of his senior players (and his pointing out that neither side has any moral high ground to stand upon) has been selectively twisted to portray him vigorously approving of foul play is nauseating, but not unexpected. The indignant, stuck pig level wailing of the British (and Irish) media, most of the fans and a number of the players due to none other than the fact that they wanted to play against 14 men for 79 1/2 minutes would be pathetic if it weren’t so laughable. Actually, given that the “99 call” was, no doubt, glorified and romanticized, and waxed lyrical to no end leading up to this tour, the squealing isn’t just laughable, it’s hilarious.
Hemjay said | July 1st 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Ian is right the Lions staff did congratulate the Boks albeit begrudgingly.
The reality is PDV’s ridiculous statements have overshadowed the match completely, seems more attention has been heaped on this bloke and his outrageous statements than has actually been given to Burgers act of outright thuggery.
I guess in some ways the Boks know how to draw attention away from the actual issue at hand.
As for the blaming the ref, I don’t know that the Lions staff did blame the ref (touchie) it was some disgruntled former Lions player and roar posters. Lions punters should be happy that Lawerence even mentioned it because the incompetent Frencman certainly didn’t see it. Had it not been for lawerence the incident would have gone unnoticed until picked up by the citing commissioner after the completition of the game. Any criticism should be dumped soley in the Frenchmans lap if he had any true understanding of the laws of rugby he would have red carded the guy. Come on it’s eye gouging Lawerences words were at the least a yellow loosely translated this is the bare minimum he should receive but your the match official so you make the call. It seems this guy had to ask his assistants questions 24/7. Next time the IRB is appointing officials maybe they should make sure the guy can actually understand his sidekicks and have a proper understanding of the game.
The Boks deserved to win what other conclusion can you have. For all the dominance of the Lions they still relinquished an 11 point lead.
Hoy said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
I read a transcript of the interview, and I don’t think it needed much selective twisting to portray him approving of foul play. I couldn’t believe what I was reading.
I have seen the “punch” from Sheridan, and don’t think there is anything in that, and I have seen the charge from Botha, and think that it is unforutnate that Jones got injured, but if he didn’t there wouldn’t be a charge. BUT, the eye gouging is not on, and it was deliberate.
I don’t care that Schalk gives all his money to an orphanage or he saves whales by giving them mouth to mouth. There is a particularly obvious and well recorded (vision wise) instance of him attacking the eyes of that player. That is inexcusable, and I would expect a longer ban than 8 weeks.
I have also seen the vision of Sergio Parrisse and his incident. I think it was completely accidental, and 8 weeks is a bit heavy. I fail to see how they match up the two instances and blanket both with 8 week penalty. They are completely different.
Jerry said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Hoy – what reason did Parrisse have for sticking his hand in Ross’ face like that? I don’t think he was setting out to gouge, but it was fairly reckless and there should be no tolerance for it. I think he got off light.
Hoy said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:40am | Report comment
I agree with you Jerry, but it wasn’t a deliberate attempt to eye gouge, that is my point. Not like Burger’s go. So my point was either the 8 weeks for Sergio isn’t right, or the 8 weeks for Burger isn’t right.
Is it reckless if you go to tackle someone and accidentally finger their eye? Not quite the same, but I don’t think Sergio meant to stick his finger in his eye.
katzilla said | July 1st 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
You could write an article with the exact opposite headline also,
Winning Graciously, a lesson for the Springboks.
Who Needs Melon said | July 1st 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
I agree with Ian. Due congratulations were given.
I haven’t heard anyone in the Lions camp bleating woulda/coulda/shoulda – it’s only been some supporters on some forums doing this.
And the fact is most of the attention has been on Burger for the reason that it was an extraordinary incident.
And I agree with Hoy that if there was any twisting of PdV words then it was done by he himself afterwards in a wain attempt to back away from what he had said and no doubt still feels. Why were SA officials apologising if there was nothing to apologise for?
Here are the actual words of PdV:
“I don’t believe it was a card at all”. What? You don’t believe eye gouging is deserving of a red OR yellow card?!?
“In the first minute already there had been a lot of needle”. This is crap. The game was 32 seconds old. How much “needle” can there possibly have been in the first 32 seconds?!?
“And if you watch the whole game you will see how many yellow cards they were let off”. Surely that’s irrelevant to what happened in the first 32 seconds of the game.
“This is sport, this is what it’s about”. No. That’s not true. Sport is not about eye gouging.
“If things were clear-cut then we shouldn’t even bother preparing for a game”. Huh?
“Everyone is entitled to their opinion”. The first true statement of the day.
van der Merwe, I don’t want to be one of your “stuck pigs” so I’m not going to go on about this. Maybe Burger should have got a red instead of a yellow. But you’re right – that’s life. No point bleating about it. Maybe he should have been suspended for more than 8 weeks but it seems about the right order of magnitude for me given precedents. So, again, no point bleating about it. You’re entitled to your own opinions of course – I value your posts on this site – and I respect your attempt at showing ‘solidarity’ but there comes a time when continuing to defend that moron of a coach of yours makes you look as bad as he does.
Colin N said | July 1st 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
I’m not sure about Parrise’s. He clearly sets out to do something to Ross. Whether he set out purposefully to attack Ross’s eye I’m not sure, as when he ‘entered’ that area, he immediately pulled away. But, it certainly looked intentional and should have got a longer ban, much like Burger.
Re: the article, I think when you get that sort of bad luck, you are going to be disgruntled aren’t you? Certainly, South Africa deserved to win, after dominating the first test for the first 60 minutes, and looking far more dangerous with ball in hand in the second test. But, had the situtation (like the gouge) and effectively the result of the second test been the opposite way round, I’m sure theren would be some fairly ‘ungracious’ South African fans, coaches and players.
Most papers in the UK have praised South Africa as being a ‘great’ side for their resiliance, but have condemed Burger for his actions. Both the Telegraph and the Times rated his ‘performance’ as 0.
“The manner in which de Villiers’ defence of the character of one of his senior players has been selectively twisted to portray him vigorously approving of foul play”
But when he says that Burger apparently ‘didn’t deserve a yellow,’ and then reiterates these comments a day or so later, rightly or wrongly, the press are going to pick up on this and condemn them, because the press will ultimately twist them to suggest he condones foul play, such as gouging. I suspect the SARU or public relations had a slight word in his ear, to tell him to explain himself. However, I believe he then once again came out with another stupid comment.