Can the British and Irish Lions roar in South Africa?

Stuff Happens Mike Gibson forgotten in despatches???? Not round these parts. I have learned from this forum that there is a generation of Aussies who think that Mike Gibson is some wizened old Australian sports reporter. But here in God's own country we know who the real Mike Gibson is. Actually there were two. Another Michael Gibson won a few caps at number 8 for Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s. He might even have played with the legendary one. But there's only one Cameron Michael Henderson Gibson. So far as we know. :)

SPIRO,not all first girlfriends are fondly remembered sometimes its the second ones that are the crackers. and i believe the 1959 lions fit into this category .western bank perspective.

Thanks Dublin Dave & others for the memories. Feel I should mention MIke Gibson on the '71 tour , to this day the best all round midfield player I have seen.Often forgotten in despatches. The first twenty minutes or so of the 3rd Test in Wellington remains one of the Lions greatest achievements. Gerald Davies , now the manager in SA, scored one amazing try (Barry John the other). Good luck to Geech ;in the six games in three weeks before the 1st Test it will fascinating to see who 'stand up'.

Interesting take, Rugby Fan. There's great stuff coming out of people today. Was it something ye all had in your breakfast this morning?

Dublin Dave nicely points up the way that good players in under-performing national teams can thrive when they are given a big challenge and good players around them. McGeechan has been especially good at finding those qualities over the years. On that basis, you might have expected him to chance his arm with some more Scots but he only went for two in the squad originally (now up to four). I get the impression he thinks the Welsh players will feel they have underperformed recently and I wouldn't be surprised if he manages to get Powell, Williams. Hook and Phillips back to their best with the help of the Wales management boys who know them well. Geech probably wasn't convinced by England's late run and it's not difficult to think his original idea of a starting XV might not even have included a single English player. That's no bad thing because it's good for the squad if there are so many who believe they won't get picked unless they play their way into the team. On a side note, as an England supporter, I have mixed feelings about the way McGeechan used the England players to beat the Wallabies in 1989. In 1987, England were a mess. For some years, Rob Andrew had been selected as fly-half even when he had some nightmare games. Finally, he was out of favour after missing some easy goal kicks which cost England heavily in the Five Nations. However, his great rival, Stuart Barnes, had earlier thrown his toys out of the pram and refused to sit on the bench while Andrew was being picked ahead of him, and so he was ignored as a replacement. The 1987 World Cup team featured neither and the resulting mess ushered in the Carling era. England's real revival began in 1988, in particular with a festival of tries in a 28-19 win against Australia at Twickenham. We seemed to have given up the forward-based kicking game and finally trusted our backs to do the job. However, England weren't the top dogs by any measure when the 1989 Lions tour came around and it was expected that The Welsh & Scots would dominate. As it turned out, McGeechan promoted the English boys from the midweek squad and they loved playing with the likes of Calder, Jones, Sole, Evans, the Hastings brothers and Dai Young. McGeechan added to the English revival by using those English players in the series win but, crucially, he also rehabilitated Rob Andrew. At first, England swept all before them in the 1990 Five Nations with a marvellous mix of forward and back play which had always seemed the preserve of the other home nations. Andrew was under orders to pass the ball to Carling, Guscott, Underwood et al and not kick it away as he had been doing for seasons. But what McGeechan giveth, McGeechan taketh away and it was his Scottish team which beat England in the grand slam decider and left them traumatized for years to come. Geech knew what made the English boys tick and he knew how to coach a side to beat them. Consequently, England retreated into their shell and reverted to ten man "winning" rugby - which Geech had shown them how to do in Australia with Andrew - rather than the attractive play that seemed to be within their capabilities. No wonder Campese messed with their minds with the "boring" tag during the 1991 World Cup. So damn McGeechan for screwing up England for years by getting them to fall back on their forwards and Andrew's kicking game. That's slightly tongue in cheek of course. Even if there's a grain of truth, the man would deserve forgiveness for all he's done in the cause of the Lions. Not to mention the small matter of helping England to a World Cup by picking Martin Johnston as Lions captain in 1997.

Possibly. Unfortunate that his 'success' managed to manifest itself in overt racism, violence and class A drug addiction. That's a pretty heavy chip you'e got there, Jools. Why not get rid of it and take a load off?

Yep, same Justin Harrison. Guess beating the arrogant LIons went to his head Jools-USA

I think the fact that Scott Johnson and the Wallaby coaches inadvertently cracked the Lions lineout calls may have had more to do with the famous lineout steal, more than any genius and playing integrity on the part of Harrison. I have to say, he was a personal favourite of mine until his behaviour really went beyond the pale.

Is that the same Justin Plank Harrison who hightailed it recently from Bath back home to Oz, and abandoned his club mates, the Barbarians, and, promptly announced his retirement from rugby as an inquiry into less than appropriate behaviour by players got underway at his club?

Ah Spiro, 'They say that "living well is the best revenge" and Harrison got his that last OZ/Lions match. Being much maligned & called a "plod" was enough to have him reach down for that extra 6 inches of leap & spoil the Lions rubber match. How sweet that was! Jools-USA

Dave, extending your theme on the value of the underdog, 2005 saw some excellent and consistent performances from Ryan Jones, Simon Easterby and as Rugby Fan notes, Shane Horgan.

Very good, Dave. Thanks. N.B. Wasn't Andrew a late call-up during the 1989 tour?

Nice one, Dave. Lots of little colourful detail in that. Thanks.

One of the key factors determining the success or otherwise of the tour will be how well players who were picked with the Wednesday team in mind step up to the plate when they are needed. In most of the successful Lions tours, people who might not have been first choice at the start of the tour played vital roles. Back in 1971, the two first choice props were Sandy Carmichael of Scotland and Ray McLoughlin of Ireland. The latter was also effectively the forwards coach as Carwyn James, for all his talents, had been a fly half and was the first to admit that his knowledge of the dark arts of scrummaging was less than first rate. Neither first choice prop made it as far as the first test; the notorious game against Canterbury saw to that. So up stepped Ian "Mighty Mouse" McLauchlan and Sean Lynch to fill the gap. They did so with such effect that the Lions won a test series for the only time in New Zealand. Also making an impact on that tour were two abrasive young forwards Gordon Brown from Scotland and Derek Quinnell from Wales. Quinnell had not been capped when he went on tour but he made the test team as part of a Lions plan to choke off the main attacking threat from the All Blacks, namely the powerful scrum half Sid Going who could run through a brick wall but couldn't pass water. Gordon Brown, who would go on to be a Lions and Scotland legend, was selected for the last two tests in place of the veteran Welshman Delme Thomas, much to the initial annoyance of his second row partner Willie John McBride. But Brown would convince him of his worth pretty quickly. In South Africa in 1974 along with some of the all time greats playing pretty close to their peak, such as .Edwards, Bennett, JPR and JJ Williams, Mervyn Davies, McBride, Cotton, Slattery, McLauchlan and Brown (now with their reputations cemented) and Uttley, were others of less certain fame. How many people would put Billy Steele and Dick Milliken in their greatest all time Lions teams? In fact, who would put them in their greatest all time Scottish or Irish teams? Not many I suspect. Yet they won six test caps between them (all victories) and were an essential part of the backline. Milliken's partner in the centre was an industrious and astute Scot called McGeechan. Neither might have been first choice at the start of the tour. Rather the places might have been earmarked for the lighting quick Geoff Evans of England who had destroyed Wales with his pace at Twickenham that season or the rather more solid Roy Bergiers of Wales, who despite slipping up that season were still the dominant team among the home nations. In 1989 in Australia the Lions had to come back from a bad loss in the first test to win the series, something they have never done before or since. They changed the team significantly bringing in many England players who would form the nucleus of the successful English side of the early 1990s. Rob Andrew, who was probably third choice fly half at the outset, played a pivotal role and so did a young centre called Guscott whose sole test appearance to then had been on England’s tour of Romania. In too came Paul Ackford, a policeman who had a late vocation to top class rugby and would quickly become world class, and Mike Teague in the back row, who many thought was lucky to be on the tour in the first place. They demolished the Australian pack and won the series. In 1997 in South Africa the Lions were something of an unknown quantity. Or at least the players who won the tests were. The opening up of the game allowed many who had gone to league such as Alan Tait and Scott Gibbs to tour as well as those who had never played top class union at all like John Bentley. They had trouble in the pack as well with injuries to first choice players like Doddie Weir and Jason Leonard. So in came Jeremy Davidson and Paul Wallace, both from what was then the crappiest team in the championship, Ireland, and played out of their skins. Davidson would be selected by his team mates as the player of the Test series. A tall rangy second row he benefited greatly from the change in the laws which legitimised “lifting” in the lineouts. As indeed did his lifters. Lighter than the average lock he was much easier to chuck into the air, and the Lions did to such effect that his opposite number Mark Andrews, who thought he was the best number 4 jumper in the world, was comprehensively cleaned out. The Springboks might have concluded logically that given the Lions’ hooker Keith Wood was not the most accurate thrower in and that the Lions’ captain Martin Johnson was easily the best jumper at two in the world that all Lions ball would go to the front of the lineout. Instead it went to Davidson who caught everything two handed and set up driving mauls to such good effect the Boks went reeling. Neil Jenkins kicked the goals and the rest was history. So when looking for signs pointing to a Lions victory, don’t look at the established stars like O’Driscoll, O’Connell, Williams (both of them) Vickery et all. You expect a certain performance from those guys. It will be the performances of some of the lesser guys who will make the difference.

Rugby fan, I believe in theory Woodward was right. But there was a really buzz around the All Blacks camp following their destruction of France in Paris but 6 months earlier. Would love to get the inside word on what was said to the team prior (and, based on my position, I think I might try to dig deeper on that), but me thinks that Umaga and Henry would have stressed that a strong Lions tour by NZ would catapult them to bigger things. It ended up to be very true, but unfortunately, the momentum couldn't carry through to 2007.

Personally, I think Lions will take first test. So much emotion and feeling in my experience is often to great to overcome, no matter how strong the rugby team. But, despite my mixed opinions of De Villiers as a coach, there is far too much class in the Boks for them to go down. Even second test. Lions thumped in the third.

wannabprop, First lady experience is nothing to do with any US statewoman, rather than with a lass who I genuinely thought was a lady..... Until later in the evening. But even that insane experience did not match the thrill of seeing so many Lions jumpers, many of who crooned at me as I proudly strutted down the street in a skin tight All Black jumper. I wasn't going to have an ale tonight, but now I must.

Yes they can roar and I expect a few surprises along the way. But the Lions would be foolish to take the Royal xv lightly, they have 11 players that defeated the Blue Bulls in the Vodacom Cup FINAL 2 weeks ago and their halfback pairing have Super 14 experience this year and I saw a Springbok Sevens player there as well. No club side this. I do not however foresee a fight as this is the professional era and players now understand the financial implications of a fisticuffs. South Africa was made for Lions tours, all this out of Africa stuff is beautiful and we Saffas can't wait for kickoff. Welcome Lions!

Yes, really looking forward to the Lions tour too. I think the Boks will be too good. Spiro, I have fond memories of Springbok French and Wallaby tours of NZ too. Disappointing that the Lions tour is the only surviving remnant. Hemjay & David, not sure about a sanzar lions team (what would be there challenge or 'test'?) but the B&I Lions could have a go at a SANZAR grand slam. Play three tests, one against each country. How about that? I doubt any national team (or combined team) in the world would be capable of achieving a SANZAR grand slam but it would be something to aspire too that's for sure.

Mind you, those Bulls did a great job against the Crusaders and it’s hard to disagree with Spiro’s view that they looked “20-points better than Leinster”. Apples and pears, Rugby Fan. One game was a final, the other a semi-final. Leinster and Leicester are both experienced knock-out competitors, the young and inexperienced (a fact that has largely been ignored) Crusaders are not. Further, the game was played in SA which means a day less travelling for the Crusaders. The odds were stacked in the favour of the Bulls and still they conceded heavily as they have done for the last half of the season. To that extent I agree with Fred. It's highly unlikely that some of the best backs in Europe would not score heavily against the Bulls. A more appropriate and intelligent comparison might have been the HC QF Munster demolition of the Ospreys - a home again in which one side showed multi-dimensional ability. What if the Super final is low scoring and boring? What does Mr. Zavos conclude then? Please, eh?!