Who was the better team, Boks or Lions?
Roar Guru
By pothale, 5 Jul 2009 Pot Hale is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- British Lions, Morne Steyn, Rugby Union, Springboks
The Springboks definitely won the series last Saturday when Morne Steyn kicked the winning penalty.
They sneaked home by 3 points – scored in the final seconds of the match.
The first test was also a close affair, with a resurgent Lions in the second half just being held in check by the indomitable Boks.
The third test – a confirmed dead rubber and the hardest match for Lions to win on a tour was a comprehensive victory for the British & Irish players who scored three tries to nil.
The Lions were without five of their key players, the Boks made 10 changes to demonstrate the depth of their squad, according to their coach. Yet, it was the Boks who finished the series looking the more bedraggled and desperate, despite the Lions having played seven more games than them on the tour.
The overall scoreline across the three tests was 74-63 to the Lions. Seven tries to five in their favour against a SANZAR team in the Southern Hemisphere where the try is treasured much more than the kick.
Except, the Boks still won the series 2-1.
Independent observers might say the Boks were the better team, since it was the Boks who lifted the trophy yesterday after the match. They had the necessary will to win.
Australia and New Zealand were, no doubt, looking on with interest across the three test matches as they prepare for their first Tri-Nations match in the next fortnight. Are the Boks the team to fear or did the Lions, despite their loss, show how they could be defeated?
——————————————–
Poll Question: Who were the better team – Springboks or British & Irish Lions?
a. The Springboks – (they won the tests that mattered 2-1 and played a second-string for the final match.)
b. The Lions – (they were unlucky to lose the second test, played most of the good rugby across the 3 series, and but for injuries, should have sneaked 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)
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW (2)
- Nathan Sharpe to retire at end of 2012 (2)
- Queensland ready for Super challenge (2)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (49)
- Foley excited about Samoan rugby challenge
- Force rugby coach praises his pack
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (58)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (26)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- 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)
- Explore:
- British Lions, Morne Steyn, Rugby Union, Springboks
sheek said | July 5th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Pothale,
As John McEnroe used to say, “surely you can’t be serious”?
The Boks were the better team, & not only because they have won both tests to date. They were tactically more astute, & more desperate to win.
They established comfortable leads in both tests before taking the foot off the accelerator. The Lions by contrast, were forced into playing ‘catch-up’ rugby.
As you say, it’s tough to win dead rubbers. Back in 1997 the Lions folded in the 3rd test after winning the first two. This time it was the reverse. The 3rd test dead rubber is a meaningless statistic, only useful for the history books.
When it mattered the most, in the first two tests, it was the Boks who prevailed.
Mr Grumpy said | July 5th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
The Boks won the series, so they were the better side.
Peter de Villiers showed a lack of respect to the Lions with his selections for the third test, which exposed the depth of the Boks.
The Lions were the more dominant side in the series – from the 50th minute in the first test to the equivalent time in the next match and for last night, but the Boks won overall.
We could apply this argument for the test period between 2004 to 2007, where the All Blacks were the best side but bottled it in Cardiff.
Sheek, the Boks had a comfortable lead in Durban but played catch up in Pretoria.
ohtani's jacket, said | July 5th 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
It’s difficult to say. If the Lions had won or drawn the second Test, then the third Test may have been a different story. Therefore, I don’t think the overall points statistics count for much.
The Boks had the better team, but I thought the Lions were more impressive. There’s a few things McGeechan may have done differently in hindsight, but it was the most impressed I’ve been with a touring NH side in a long time.
It was a pity that the series didn’t go the distance, but the game was lost in that period in the second Test where there were uncontested scrums and the Lions couldn’t mount a platform from which to attack. Still, a hell of a lot more players will leave South Africa knowing they had a great Lions tour than on the last outing.
mart said | July 5th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
I thought Boks would win comfortably 3-0 and was impressed with the Lions….2-1 about right. Great 3 Tests, can’t wait for Aus in 4 years. Boks obv have the spoils but veeery little in it for me. I think personally Lady Luck played a big part…Boks had it in 1st 2 Tests, Lions 3rd one. All the slightly marginal decisions seemed to go the Lions way yesterday (including the disallowed TMO try). Consider one incident, the intercept try. Moyne intercepts with one hand, nearly drops the ball but it manages to stick in his other hand around his knees whilst he was trying to sprint. So much could have gone wrong there but the ball stuck and the try probably sealed the game. Contrast that to the luck (yes, good Bok defence too) the 2 times Moyne crossed the line in the 1st Test and didn’t ground. In all 3 fantastic Tests and hugly enjoyable – only spoiled for me by the France / NZ officials bottling of the Burger gouge incident in the first minute of game 2. These guys seriously did rugby a disservice by not acting upon an incident plainly seen by them (the lino). It was also an incident that, reflecting on the series score, in hindsight turned the series given the impact a sending off would hav had at that point of the 2nd Test. Shameful. I did wonder when watching the French lino recommend a yellow for the Bok 6 late in the 3rt Test for not much in particular whether he was trying to somhow make amends !
Hemjay said | July 5th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Blame the player Mart stop blaming the officials.
I guess also your choosing to ignore the fact that the citing commission didn’t charge Burger for eye gouging it was down graded to reckless play as somehow they seemed to think he had no intention to cause bodily harm. If the refs could have a look at the replays like we could then you could guarantee the decisions would be more inline with your thinking. But reality is mart they don’t.
pothale said | July 5th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Sheek – surely you can’t be serious?
Did you actually watch the tests, particularly the second test? The Boks did not establish a comfortable lead and then take their foot off the accelerator. If anything, the reverse happened, except that it was injuries to the two props and the two centres that lost the momentum for the Lions.
The match see-sawed, with the Lions drawing level in the last minute, before O’Gara threw it away with his mindless upfield kick and clattering into the Bok player to give away the penalty.
The Boks got lucky with a succession of penalties from Vickery’s collapse at the scrums. Lucky in the sense of they were allowed to keep doing it for so long without the Lions management doing anything about it by subbing him. The Boks backline got creamed in the second half – it was the forwards who dragged them through it. Hardly tactically astute.
pothale said | July 5th 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
Eh Question to Ed:
Your submit article section suggests an option: “Asking a poll question. We’ll embed the poll into the article – just ask your question and suggest some options for responses.”
How does this work then? Thought the embedding bit meant it would turned into some kind of click option with a % count for A or B.
The text as I wrote it has just appeared as is. Did I miss something obvious?
Harry said | July 5th 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
The Boks Pothale.
The Lions had a rolled gold chance in the 2nd test but if you go back and dispassionately watch the crucial last 20 minutes they couldn’t hold their lead, and nerve, and have only themselves to blame for the loss – they started “hanging on” for victory with 30 minutes to go instead of continuing to play. They lost that test when the cente pairing went off and the replacements proved inadequate. Boks shouldn’t have been able to score those last 10 points.
Great series and games, and there is no doubt Ireland, with players like Bowe and Kearney still young, have a great future.
pothale said | July 5th 2009 @ 11:05am | Report comment
I didn’t intend for the article to be simply about a declaration on which team was better. (I thought the poll thing would be a separate bit to the article but I obviously messed that up.) I purposely did not state which was my viewpoint as I didn’t want to polarise it around what I thought.
But I am curious too about the wider implications of the series in the context of the Boks going into the 3 Nations as per my question in the last line of the article. There was a running assumption that Mart refers to above that the Boks would comfortably whitewash the Lions 3-0. They demonstrably didn’t. However, maybe they have been suitably battle-hardened for the 3N more than the ABs and Aus have with their matches against France and Italy. On the other hand, the strength in depth of their squad as claimed by PdV has been shown up somewhat. Etc, etc.
Hope that makes sense.
sheek said | July 5th 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Pothale,
I’m not serious, & stop calling me shirley (boom-boom).
Okay, you got me on a technicality. Firstly, I only ever saw highlights of the tests. As for the 2nd, the Boks came from behind to lead late in the game.
From memory, the Lions leveled twice, only to eventually lose.
Based on their performance in the first two tests, the Boks must be favs for the 3N. But things can change quickly, & it appears all 3 nations will want their best players on deck for every test.