How rare are Lions series victories?

How rare are Lions series victories?

A simplistic answer would state that in the modern era the Lions win 1 in every 3 tours (assuming the modern era being from the RWC onwards as in the last 6 tours).
Of those 6 tours, 5 have been battle royale contests with 4 going down to the wire but in many ways fortune has been on the Lions side more often than not. If you critically look back at the 89 and 97 tour victories there is no way they should have been victorious, in neither tour were they comprehensively the dominant side.
The 01 tour is the only 1 of the 6 where had everything gone to paper, the lions should have won.... even though it was mighty close, several key injuries to Dillaglio, Hill and Greenwood and a not so great team spirit broke their series chances.

The most recent victories

In terms of our victories, in 89 we were smashed in the 1st test and then went near fight club in the last 2 tests which enabled the Lions to crawl home... yet the win in the 3rd test was only secured in the dying minutes and without Campo stuffing up in a way ROG could only dream of the series would have been a plucky footnote in history.

The more I recall the 97 tour the more I am astounded that the Lions won. Smashed upfront, playing the world champs in their backyard and our pedigree at the time vs. 3N sides was not great.

Take a look at the deciding 2nd test for instance. The boks scored 3 tries to the Lions nil and yet the still won... think about that for a second....you concede 3 tries, score none and still win... when did that last happen???
I myself got interested at that stat and had a look at the fortunes of SA, ENG, NZ, AUS and NZ from 1992 onwards (the boks re-introduction and 20 years seemed like a good round number to analyse).

During this period these 5 teams lost 371 matches. In only 21 of them did they lose when

a) they prevented the opposition from scoring and
b) they themselves scored. This in itself means about 1 in every 18 losses experienced (about 1 event every year on average for the 5 sides analysed collectively... not each).

However, when you look at when these 5 teams score more than 1 try and keep the opposition from scoring the odds rapidly grow. 1 in 93 losses for 2+ tries to Nil (about 1 in every 5 years on ave.) and 1 in 186 losses for 3+ tries to Nil (about 1 in every 10 years on ave.) which would suggest if all 5 teams were equal, they would experience a single such loss about once in every half century.

Now its true that some teams here are better than others.. NZ for instance have lost precious few matches in this period, France more than most. But SA’s peaks and troughs over the last 20 years put them about in the middle, the average so we can generalise here a little.
Supported with the thought that with the boks losing 86 matches from ‘92-‘13 it would be a once in 43 years event for the boks to keep the opposition try-less, score 3 or more tries themselves and still end up on the losing side.
Obviously this is only statistics and snapshots can sometimes be misleading but in essence I think we can all say its rare.. so rare I think its potentially unlikely any of us will ever see a bok team lose in such a way again in our lifetimes.

We won the 97 tour on the back of a big defensive effort yet if you conceded 3 tries and scored nil I doubt both your attack and defensive coach would think you’ve done a good job. What the 97 Lions actually did do well was to stay in the game, stay close enough to the boks against all the above that we could make them blink first under pressure.

What does do these obstacles mean for the forthcoming tour?

Well the tour is probably similar to most... we have a talented bunch as have the opposition. Our individual record vs. AUS isn’t what we would want it to be and we have all the usual problems of being away from home, having to make a team from scratch etc.
We aren’t in a position where we should be seen as favourites.... put our players on paper vs. AUS and we wouldn’t win the 2 test matches in their backyard required IMO.

What we can guarantee is that if the Lions are to win it will take an effort rarely seen on a rugby pitch, a performance over 3 weeks which people will speak of in 30 years time and beyond i.e. we will all become like Alan (Emack.. no offence my anglo kiwi friend ).
Are these players capable? Has Gatland chosen the right squad? Will he choose the right strategy? All this will be known in good time, this squad does have potential, victory is a realistic objective but then again only in 05 was it not so. If it happens don’t get used to it but it will certainly be a tour to tell your grandkids about again and again and again....

Neil Jenkins was the reason we won in 97 with 41/59 points scored

100%beefy wrote:Neil Jenkins was the reason we won in 97 with 41/59 points scored

100%beefy wrote:Neil Jenkins was the reason we won in 97 with 41/59 points scored

It was a glorious triumph of a team vs talented players and Jenks did what Jenks does. However the failure of SA to expose him or even attempt to expose him at fullback was the strangest tactical Frak up of all time. Jenks was slow, a poor tackler and inexperienced at fullback, yet his kicking of virtually every chance his forwards earned him was indeed the decisive contribution