Fast forward to Wednesday. Warren Gatland, the Lions coach, is on social media presenting his 1hr 2min video of referee Ben O’Keeffe’s decisions in the second Test loss to South Africa. He just wants clarification and consistency, you understand. He is not trying to put pressure on the officials who will take charge of the series decider on Saturday, even though the video does highlight every decision that went against the Lions, including two head-to-head tackles that could have attracted red cards, or yellows at the very least.
hope Gatland has more class than to ape Rassie Erasmus, the South Africa director of rugby – or is it water-boy, I can never remember? He would, however, be entitled to do so after World Rugby cravenly declined to sanction Erasmus and thereby paved the way for anyone to try this tactic.
I do not think O’Keeffe’s errors, and those of his officiating team, had anything to do with the pressure attempted by Erasmus but the coincidence leaves open the possibility of at least subliminal influence. Therefore, with the third Test being pivotal, why should Gatland not make his own video?
He should refuse to do this because it is wrong, but he should use a moment in one of his press conferences to mention that he considered taking this step. He should then demand World Rugby acts to ensure nobody can mimic Erasmus and put unacceptable pressure on officials without sanction. He can also point to the increasing difficulty in recruiting referees and the cliché which is nonetheless true, that without a referee you have no game.
Read More
The fact is that South Africa gave one of those irresistibly physical performances of which they almost uniquely seem able to produce from time to time.
It did not take a genius to know what was coming but knowing is very different from doing something about it and last Saturday almost exactly reversed what happened in the first Test.
Swapping penalties and yellow cards kept the score close at half-time but the effect of the respective benches gave the Boks an edge which they developed into a cliff that the Lions would not have scaled had they still been climbing now. Both set-pieces creaked and the Springboks’ driving maul gathered a pace and potency that dragged Lions players to it and under it like a runaway juggernaut.
Yes, the Boks might have had two further players in the bin for poor tackles and the Lions might have been awarded a try. But you cannot say with any certainty that those things would have reversed the result. Apart from one chance, the Lions did not threaten the Boks line, and failed to score a single point in the second half.
So where now for the Lions? Having waxed lyrical about the options last week, I left open the possibility of South Africa physically dominating the Lions. Looking forward to this Saturday, with the tables firmly turned, it is the Lions who have all the questions to answer.
The flexibility within the Lions squad remains and Gatland has to go for broke. Speed above power; creativity above power; cunning above power, though that does not mean the Lions can afford to eschew the physical challenge. Whether Finn Russell has any chance of playing is not known but, if he does, he should be given an opportunity even if just from the bench.
If he does not, I cannot see the point in having Owen Farrell replacing Dan Biggar at fly-half, whether in the starting line-up or during the game.
Marcus Smith would be a risk but a calculated one and he should at least be in the match-day squad.
The same goes for Sam Simmonds, but the problem remains in the centre partnership. None of the combinations in either Test have been compelling.
Bundee Aki and Robbie Henshaw at least are a known partnership on which to attach attacking options further out.