So, the Lions finally won a match. Hooray! And the series, I think, is better for it.
But, although it's so easy with hindsight, I've said since the beginning that I'd pick Martyn Williams at open-side. In the match when they final do, the Lions get fast ball from the breakdown, clean ball from the breakdown, and even turnover ball.
Whilst in some positions it's easy to point the finger and say "they were second choice players" the Bok's open-side was the leading player who'd tormented the Lions at the breakdown in the first two tests, and Martyn Williams beat him hands down.
Vickery managed to tame The Beast, which I'm sure is a relief to him on a personal level. Shane Williams found, at long last, just enough space to run at the opposition, torment them, support his mates and score two tries. If the rest of his team-mates had been awake he'd have made one two in the first half with that chip inside after a twinkling run down the line.
After a series in which on all aggregate stats save the most important one, the Lions won, how crucial was the decision to leave M. Williams out? How crucial the decision to play ROG as a reserve and put him on in the second test? Of course we'll never know, but it would be nice to know WHY those decisions were made, in particular the Williams one. What did Wallace add that Williams didn't? What do the coaches think Williams could add that Wallace didn't, and why didn't they want to use it (particularly after the first test, when Wallace didn't stand up get counted)? I'm not a rugby coach, I never will be one, but on this Lions tour it feels like they did everything about restoring the players' faith and support in the team and concept (which I think was vital after SCW's disaster in New Zealand), but they did so at the expense of winning the series, surely also what it's all about?
-
