Lions or Kiwis - divided loyalties
The Lions tour has come to an end and even the postmortems in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are getting thin. Rugby365's guest columnist Michael Marnewick gives us a South African perspective on the event of the year and tell us about his divided loyalties.
The 2005 British & Irish Lions tour of New Zealand will be remembered as one of the most vocal rugby campaigns on record, but can you match mouths to men?
When the third and final Test between the All Blacks and the touring British & Irish Lions took place last Saturday I, for one, wasn't quite sure who I was supporting! With the Test series already won by New Zealand, all the Lions had to play for was a bit of pride, to rescue what has to be seen as a failed tour.
The Lions is a tradition you have to love. The Barbarians has a similar aura to it, one where you can't help but support them.
The Lions have traditionally been powerful sides, representing all that is good about touring – rugby players from different regions, in this case, countries, banding together for a common goal.
So it was at the start of the Test that my loyalties were divided. For that reason, and the fact that they were 2-0 down, it was a case of supporting the underdog, in a not too close resemblance of the biblical battle between David and Goliath.
But were the All Blacks the schoolyard bullies, and were the Lions the biblical David? You almost wanted the Lions to win, almost, but not quite.
Southern Hemisphere dominance of world rugby is about pride, and that's something you can't forget when pledging allegiances.
I feel that Sir Clive got this one wrong. When over 50 players are selected, each one given his own single room, how is the team spirit and camaraderie supposed to be built?
And bring on an assortment of baggage-masters, technicians, video specialists, coaches, masseurs, to take the touring party past the grand total of 100 pax, then something is seriously rotten in the state of Denmark.
One gets the impression that what Sir Clive wanted, Sir Clive got.
To the extent that for every player, there was a member of the bloated management.
One has to wonder if New Zealand did not pay a dear price for this tour? They may have won the series, but at what cost?
This whole tour has soured the ethos of the Lions, and one has to hope that future tours are different.
What should be fondly remembered, will instead be a 3-0 series white-wash, and a touring team that broke the record books.
Churchill's famous speech comes to mind: "At no time, have so many, done so little!"
Then we look at the opposition.
The All Blacks scored an incisive and emphatic 12 try to 3 series victory, and in the third and final Test, won by 19 points, scoring five tries to just one.
The aura has gone. At least until the end-of-year tour when, just what the French brought up and what the Southern Hemisphere sides will claim to their disadvantage in November, fatigue following a long season will play a crucial role.
The IRB Rankings show New Zealand, Australia and South Africa as the top three sides, but will that change when our three countries tour the Northern Hemisphere at the end of the year? Will the aura be lost.
When will a global season be implemented, one that embraces the differences between hemispheres, where countries will start and end their seasons at the same time?
One where there can be no retort: "You may have won this time, but wait until the end of YOUR season!"
Who did you support – Lions or All Blacks?
