British and Irish Lions: How will the South Africa tour be remembered and what next for the Lions?

[Animous]

Given the perilous state of the British and Irish Lions tour of South Africa in mid-July, with Covid ravaging the home camp and more than a dozen visiting players and staff in isolation, it is a minor miracle that the series was played to a conclusion.

The administrators and players deserve enormous credit for getting the tour finished in such difficult circumstances. For all the many obstacles they continue to face, whether in a Covid world or not, it is clear the Lions remains incredibly important to both the British and Irish players - and their hosts.

But while the series was settled in the same way as 12 years ago, with a Morne Steyn penalty goal, that is where the similarities end. The 2009 edition was played in front of bumper crowds, with the Lions playing some thrilling ball-in-hand rugby and greatly enhancing the brand and concept in the process.

So after a 2021 series full of rancour off the pitch and underwhelming rugby on it, how will this tour be remembered, and where do the Lions go from here?

An opportunity missed?

While Lions fans will be unanimous in the belief that they could, perhaps should, have won the decider in Cape Town, a lingering regret will be the unimaginative style of rugby they exhibited across the Test matches.

When naming the squad in May, head coach Warren Gatland and his coaches insisted it was a group capable of playing in a number of ways, and wouldn't be reliant on trying to beat the Boks at their own game.

But the Lions played conservatively, with their much-vaunted back three seldom given a chance to run in space. The approach worked in the first Test, with the Lions taking advantage of an undercooked South Africa, but came unstuck in the second.

It was only a twist of fate in the third, with the brilliant Finn Russell coming on early for the injured Dan Biggar, that meant the Lions actually started to play some rugby. It left fans and pundits alike wondering what might have been.

Covid and bad luck played their part in all this.

Attack coach Gregor Townsend spent time in isolation. Russell was injured for a large part of the tour. Biggar and Farrell also had their injury concerns, and were never able to form a 10/12 partnership that could have helped stretch the suffocating Springbok defence. And unlike the super-human Alun Wyn Jones, the great Johnny Sexton wasn't quite able to convince Gatland he had one more tour in him.

But if he had his time again, would Gatland have selected the skilful and versatile Henry Slade of England, or the elusive Irishman Garry Ringrose, or the great Welshman Jonathan Davies? And would he have realised that it pays to be brave against the Boks?

In 2009 there was a real sense the Lions deserved more. It is hard to argue that this time around.

Matt Dawson column: Hindsight plays havoc with the Lions

Captain Jones defends right to be 'emotional' after loss

Rugby Union Weekly: The final Test review

Erasmus antics sour the series

South Africa director of rugby Rassie Erasmus took on water-carrying duties so he could talk to his players on the pitch

For the first few weeks of the tour, the messages coming out of South Africa from both camps were full of positivity, despite the adversity.

This all changed before, during and after the first Test.

The hosts believe the Lions started it all, as they raised concerns about the appointment of a South African television match official.

While there may have been an element of opportunism and cynicism in the messages coming out of the Lions camp, their main gripe was that there wasn't a contingency plan in place for when an official - in this case the New Zealander Brendon Pickerill - couldn't travel.

They insist at no point did they question Marius Jonker's integrity. And as former Lions team manager Donal Lenihan said on a similarly rancorous tour to Australia in 2001, there is no point arguing after a match.

But argue after the match the Springboks did, with director of rugby Rassie Erasmus first taking to social media to highlight certain incidents, before releasing an astonishing 62-minute video, detailing around 30 occasions when he felt his side were treated unfairly in the first Test.

There is nothing wrong with questioning and challenging officials in public. They are professionals and are used to being, and need to be, held to account.

But what Erasmus did was crossing the Rubicon, as not only did he quibble over some areas of the game that will be forever subjective and ambiguous, but he heavily questioned the integrity of the officials, implying his team, and captain Siya Kolisi, had been disrespected, with the officials actively showing bias against the Springboks.

It was an accusation Kolisi, sadly, was happy to perpetuate.

While the brilliantly successful Erasmus will be further feted by his country, this mental and emotional manipulation of officials is a dangerous and damaging precedent for the game. Can South Africa ever lose a Test match again in a fair manner? Or will their supporters forever be convinced any defeat from now on is because of biased and disrespectful officials?

[Silent Watcher]

Avoid unnecessary posts such as 'Thank you', 'Welcome', etc. Such posts will be deleted and user will be warned if it happens again. If caught spamming, the following actions are applicable -

• First time - Warning
• Second time - 5000 Points will be deducted
• Third time - Ban for 7 days
• Fourth time - Permanent Ban

If the post helped you, reward the user by reacting to the post like this -