GERRY THORNLEY concludes the Lions concept is well: it makes wanga, lots of it, for the four Home Unions, for the host country and for the players

IT’S FUNNY how the winning and losing colours so many perceptions, as indeed does a sense of distance. A dozen years ago, watching from afar, it seemed as if recognition of the Lions’ huge good fortune in the Springboks not picking a goal-kicker was largely overlooked within the circus.

Now 12 years on, perhaps the celebratory tone on the pitch, in the stands and within the media seemed a bit over the top back here? In truth though, the 2009 Lions vintage played more ambitious rugby than the heroes of ’97, and the challenge of winning this series was far more demanding than 12 years ago – less time, fewer games and two of the Tests at altitude.

In ’97, the Springboks outscored the Lions by nine tries to four and by 66 points to 59. This time around, the Lions outscored the Springboks by 74-63 and by seven tries to five. Admittedly, the figures are slightly distorted by the losing team winning the dead rubber by 19 points.

And this time the victorious Springboks were in experimental mode and utterly distracted. A whitewash would have been embarrassing for the Lions, but it does take some shine off the win.

Even so it underlines how tiny are the margins between success and failure. Even with the advent of a video referee, crucial tries in the first two Tests were decided by whisker-thin margins.

Like the inconclusive camera footage of Jaque Fourie’s late try in the second Test (by contrast, those camera angles were available to rule out Odwa Ndungane’s touchdown last Saturday), had Mike Phillips retained contact with the ball as it brushed the try-line in Durban?

Paul O’Connell’s honesty has shone through in his captaincy and leadership. It’s also all about perceptions. O’Connell may have looked less influential simply by dint of the lower percentage of balls thrown to him than would be the case with Munster or Ireland, simply because of the Lions’ desire to avoid Victor Matfield.

This tour could very easily have seen O’Connell hailed at least as much as Martin Johnson, and Phillips emulating Matt Dawson’s cheeky, match-winning try in the first Test in ’97.

In his column for the BBC website yesterday, three-time tourist Martyn Williams described O’Connell as the best captain he’s ever played under and, among others, the Welsh openside has played under Johnson.

Before this tour Williams had only come on once, for four minutes, in five selections on the bench in Australia and New Zealand, so no less than others of his venerable ilk (John Hayes especially) it was good to see them sign off with a win as well.

Quite honestly, Hayes could have justified a starting place last Saturday ahead of Vickery, but he doesn’t enjoy the celebrity status as the likeable English veteran.

One baulked at the selection of four Wasps players and five (initially six) from Wales, but perhaps it’s no co-incidence Saturday’s defensive display was the Lions most cohesive and efficient of the tour – albeit against comparatively toothless opponents. Indeed, it was only the second time Shaun Edwards could celebrate them keeping their try-line intact in 10 matches – the previous occasion coming against the desultory Golden Lions, who had seemingly taken their threats of strike action on to the pitch.

The rigours of a Lions tour demand greater strength-in-depth than the Lions perhaps possessed, for they used 30 players in the Test series, 25 of whom started.

Admittedly, there were many selection errors, not bringing Dwayne Peel and/or Peter Stringer, overlooking Rory Best, not bringing out Denis Leamy after Ryan Jones’ 24-hour stop-over, and most of all the tight five selection for the first Test and the selection and employment of the replacements for the second Test. In a series of tiny margins, they were significant errors.

Apart from those who went home, only four didn’t make the Test 22 – Nathan Hines, Mike Blair, Andy Powell and Keith Earls. And all green-tinted bias aside, Earls was by some distance the pick of them.

You never know, of course. Who would have thought Ryan Jones – about the only success story of four years ago – wouldn’t even make the cut this time? But, with one eye on the 2011 World Cup, the age profile of their contingents ought to make Ireland and Wales the prime beneficiaries of this tour.

The South Africans actually did more damage to the Lions’ concept than the tourists, what with Sarfu’s awful marketing and pricing (tripling prices for tour games compared to Super 14, and for the Test matches compared to Tri-Nations games); the empty seats; Pieter de Villiers’ madcap and irrational outbursts, and the withdrawal of frontliners from devalued, tour games.

Australia should learn from South Africa’s mistakes. After all, the Southern Hemisphere powerhouses need the Lions just as much, for it provides variety to their overly familiar meetings with each other.

One does live in a bubble on these “Li-ons” tours, and a day without seeing a red jersey would be bliss. (By the by, any chance of a Lions song to replace that damned chant?). But if the old brand can bring an estimated 40,000 (so claimed John Feehan in citing “official” South African government figures) in these recessionary times, then clearly the Lions concept retains its allure. To maximise the Lions’ brand further, but also to provide more warm-up matches, a pre-Australian detour to Japan or Argentina is on the cards.

The bottom line? The Lions makes wanga, for the four Home Unions (an estimated €1 million each this year) for the host country and for the players. One ventures all the stories of male bonhomie and camaraderie and revelry may grate with some, but the players regard it as the ultimate honour, and this tour has only underlined that feeling.

The Lions’ demise is imminent? No way. Not now. Maybe not ever.