Blood & Mud

Big-name journalists want to kill the Lions, via wrong-headed argument

In his daily column in The Guardian, chief sports writer Richard Williams has chosen this day to launch another one of his typically ill-researched and nonsensical diatribes, this time about the "fact" that the Lions cannot compete with professional international teams and are therefore doomed to lose forever.  Honestly, you would think a man of his age would be more grown up than to write such deliberately inflammatory nonsense as this wouldn't you?  It's the journalistic equivalent of playing knock and run.  Here's one classic quote:

"To an objective eye ... the facts and the statistics remain persuasive: the Lions have now lost three tours in a row ... and there is no telling when, if ever, the tide might turn."

Let's apply some modicum of analysis to this shall we? Firstly, on winning and losing.  The fact is that since the 1970s the Lions have always lost tours on a fairly regular basis, and the last time that the tourists lost three tours in a row was after the 1971 victory vs the Kiwis and the famous 1974 "Invincibles" victory in South Africa.  After that came losing tours to New Zealand (1977) where they even lost to bloody Fiji! South Africa (1980) and New Zealand (1983).  The 1983 tour was a particular low point, a 4-0 drubbing, with Clive Woodward, then just a lowly England centre, describing it years later as "an unmitigated disaster".  There was no professionalism then, so what was to blame?  The Trade Unions?  They got the blame for everything else back then

After that debacle came the fabulous victory in Oz 1989, complete with the Jones vs Farr-Jones International Scrawny Short-Arse Boxing Championship during one of the Tests. Then guess what happened?  That's right, they lost again in New Zealand in 1993, famously won in 1997 and have lost ever since.  Quickly totting up, I make that Won 5, Lost 6 since 1971, not exactly a history of rousing victory against all comers is it? 

Given the above, what Williams and his ilk are completely failing to grasp is that the enduring interest in the Lions is not about results.  Of course, we would all prefer it if they won, this is sport after all,  but to boil it down to such lowest common denominator arguments solely is lazy journalism does the players and fans a disservice. 

Secondly, on there being "no telling when the tide may turn, if ever".  This statement begs the question of whether he has actually watched any Lions Tests in the last 10 years.  2005 aside, when a criminally run tour and diabolical selection policy came up against the best team in the world playing at the very peak of their potential, the Lions have been consistently competitive and but for a few small factors - Al Pacino's famous "inches" - the results could have been very different.  2001 hinged on a poor intercepted pass, a cynical bit of nobbling of Richard Hill, and a terrible late line-out in the Third Test; and if it were not for injuries, a gutless referee and one of the most brainless pieces of last-minute play I've ever witnessed, then this tour could be going into a decider next week. That certainly gives cause for optimism from where I am sitting.

"The facts" Williams is so keen to draw our attention to simply do not support his argument.  The history of the Lions for the past 40 years has been one of regular losses punctuated by against-the-odds victories that live in rugby legend; that is why we love them and will continue to do so.

He would do well to shut his yap about rugby and go back to writing about Formula 1, or some other irrelevant shite that he may understand.

Tweet

Why not subscribe to Blood and Mud? You can get all our updates fresh in your inbox via email and add us to your favourite feedreader. You can also follow us on Twitter.

Like this this post? Why not like bloodandmud.com on facebook and tell your friends?

Comments

Big-name journalists want to kill the Lions, via wrong-headed argument

In his daily column in The Guardian, chief sports writer Richard Williams has chosen this day to launch another one of his typically ill-researched and nonsensical diatribes, this time about the "fact" that the Lions cannot compete with professional international teams and are therefore doomed to lose forever.  Honestly, you would think a man of his age would be more grown up than to write such deliberately inflammatory nonsense as this wouldn't you?  It's the journalistic equivalent of playing knock and run.  Here's one classic quote:

"To an objective eye ... the facts and the statistics remain persuasive: the Lions have now lost three tours in a row ... and there is no telling when, if ever, the tide might turn."

Let's apply some modicum of analysis to this shall we? Firstly, on winning and losing.  The fact is that since the 1970s the Lions have always lost tours on a fairly regular basis, and the last time that the tourists lost three tours in a row was after the 1971 victory vs the Kiwis and the famous 1974 "Invincibles" victory in South Africa.  After that came losing tours to New Zealand (1977) where they even lost to bloody Fiji! South Africa (1980) and New Zealand (1983).  The 1983 tour was a particular low point, a 4-0 drubbing, with Clive Woodward, then just a lowly England centre, describing it years later as "an unmitigated disaster".  There was no professionalism then, so what was to blame?  The Trade Unions?  They got the blame for everything else back then