A Cat's Chance in Hell?

Let's think of it gentlemen. For six weeks, we've worked like beasts together - blood, sweat and tears on the practice ground. We've eaten together, we've drunk together, we've sung together. All that work, together, to be afraid of this crowd? No no. The greater the challenge, the greater the response from us.

I wish I was you, boys. All that ability in here, all that individual skill, all that preparation. This is the scene you wanted, this is the stage where you perform. Don't let yourselves down. Don't make excuses. The real professional never makes excuses; because he has no excuses to make; because he's given his all.

Jim Telfer, 1997 Lions Tour

You may have guessed that I've been watching "Living with Lions" again. For all its juddering slow-motion and a slightly unhealthy obsession with Oasis' Wonderwall that unfortunately plagues many men to this day, the film has taken on a new poignancy in light of the Lions' impending return to South Africa, twelve years after their bloody 2-1 series victory.

Like the South African team of 1997, today's Springboks are World Champions. Many of their players will go down in history among the greatest of a generation - Victor Matfield, Bakkies Botha, Schalk Burger, Jon Smit, Bryan Habana, Jean de Villiers. Although New Zealand are currently ranked as the best team in the World after their Tri Nations victory in 2008, South Africa will face the Lions on the back of an undefeated Northern Hemisphere tour, and with the acrid taste of revenge on their lips.

After wining the first test in 1997, Ian McGeechan warned his players that they had wounded a Springbok. Like a frantic animal, he said, it would fight for its life in a frenzy. The Lions had the nerve to "go for the jugular", and won a famous victory. Twelve years on, and the Lions face a new creature, a beast that witnessed the savagery and has felt vengeance fermenting ever since.

So how will the Lions do in 2009?

Many believe they have a cat's chance in Hell. This is not just a convenient idiom in this case - South Africa is arguably the most difficult country to tour, with hard ground, harder fans, and a terrifying home team that will bend and break the rules at will. The Springboks are the most physical and aggressive side around, and consistently cheat at the breakdown without sanction.

This year's Lions will have to overcome one of the most intimidating forwards packs of all time, and contain the prolific try-scoring ability of players like Habana, a man who races cheetahs in his spare time.

The Lions of '97 won for several reasons.

• They had world-leading players in several key positions: Wood, Johnson, Quinnell, Dallaglio, Hill, Back, Rodber, Gibbs, Jenkins to name but a few.
  
• They had a place-kicker of ruthless efficiency in Jenkins, who punished the Springboks for their regular "misdemeanours".
  
• They had players capable of those moments of brilliance which not only seal victories but inspire those around them - Matt Dawson's infamous overarm dummy; Jeremy Guscott's quick-fire drop-goal.
• They had a team of coaches whose passion and understanding of the game was second-to-none.
  

On these criteria, you would have to concede that South Africa are slight favourites. The Springboks have a world-class pack that even the best of the home nations does not match, and the series will surely be won and lost on the forwards' battlefield. The confrontation in the backs is more even, with players like O'Driscoll and Williams offering the sparks of genius needed for success.

The Lions coaching team is formidable, with McGeechan's experience complemented by the ferocity and defensive excellence of Shaun Edwards, the proven ability of Warren Gatland, and the technical skills of a '97 Lion himself, Rob Howley.

Neither side has a truly reliable place-kicker, however. The Lions desperately need a Patersonian or Wilkinsonian kicking performance to punish the Springboks for the penalties they should give away by killing the game, but neither O'Gara or Jones delivered consistently enough in the Six Nations. South Africa had an effective place kicker in Percy "Prince Charming" Montgomery, but his retirement from international rugby last year left a hole that has not been adequately filled.

On balance, then, the Springboks have it. The Lions must play out of their skins to defeat South Africa on their home turf - as Telfer said in '97, it's going to be "fucking Everest, boys".

Is cheating still a legitimate part of the game?

Every rugby player has done it. Whether it’s going down for an ‘injury’ when your side is up by a point in the dying minutes, ‘accidentally’ running in another player’s path, or ‘mistakenly’ taking a quick tap on a penalty awarded to the opposition, rugby affords players a huge number of opportunities to stretch the laws of the game to provide their own team with an advantage – but when does stretching the law become cheating?

Today's Anglo-Welsh Cup saw flanker Marty Holah of Ospreys caught on camera tripping runners, interfering with the ball at the ruck, and blocking defenders to create space for his team-mates to run, all without punishment from the referee. All in a day's work for a professional flanker, players who are effectively selected on their ability to disrupt the opposition play, even if it means breaking the rules.

Some would argue, therefore, that it’s only cheating if you get caught – the referee and his assistants have been placed on the field to regulate each match, and if you can break the laws of the game without being spotted, you have in fact played within the unwritten rules of “gamesmanship”.

Neil Back provides a famous case in point. In the Heineken Cup Final of 2002, Leicester were leading Munster by 15 points to 9. Munster won a scrum deep in Leicester’s 22 with only minutes left to play - a fantastic chance to score the converted try they needed to win the match. With the referee distracted on the other side of the scrum, Back illegally swatted the ball out of Peter Stringer’s hands before the put-in, allowing Leicester to win back possession, clear their lines and hold out for victory.

Fans and the media were in uproar, and the Munster players must have been fuming. But it seems they eventually came to accept it as a part of the game, and for all their anger some may even have felt that they would have done the same thing. Stringer even came under fire from many people for not being more savvy, especially seeing as Lewis Moody had already attempted the same thing at the previous scrum.

But just because Back’s misdemeanour went unpunished, does it mean that such blatant cheating is a legitimate part of the sport? Many will tell you without the slightest pang of conscience that in such situations you have to do whatever is necessary to win, that the end always justifies the means.

But shouldn’t this only be true of professionals, whose financial rewards and career success rely on taking whatever edge they can get? Why on earth should we, who play sport for fun, stoop to the ungentlemanly lows of professional fouls?

It perhaps because of players such as Back that most of us feel quite happy pushing the boundaries of sportsmanship, if not blatantly cheating. I would venture that relatively few, if any, have had the nerve to attempt such an audacious piece of gamesmanship as the former Leicester and England flanker, but there is not one of us who hasn’t blocked a chaser, pulled a shirt, or knocked the ball out of the scrum half’s hands as he seeks to release his backs – we accept it as a part of the game, and let’s face it, the opposition would do it if you didn’t.

There are certainly different degrees of gamesmanship, and perhaps each of us has a line at which our rugby-playing conscience allows us to sleep at night. Some are happy throwing punches at the bottom of rucks, while others feel bad kicking the ball away. For some, it seems there is a thrill to be had in gamesmanship: the knowledge that you have won a small battle against your opposite number or gained an unfair advantage for your team without being sanctioned; the knowledge that you were momentarily above the law; in Neil Back’s case, the knowledge that he turned possible defeat into certain victory.

With all the technology available, gamesmanship could certainly be removed from professional rugby – American Football, with its endless replays, challenges and “flags on the play” have proven that it is possible for the correct refereeing decision to be made each time.

It seems we do not want the same precision in our game. Of course, players should be cited for dangerous or harmful play, but we are happy to let cheating and gamesmanship stand, even when it has been caught on one of the many cameras that surround the pitch. It lends the game an unpredictability, an imperfection that pleasingly makes each match different, like the bounce of the rugby ball itself.

ELVs continue to divide rugby fans

Since the Experimental Law Variations were introduced back in August 2008, a ruck has formed between supporters of the new rules and their critics. Like so many breakdowns in the game these days, it is unclear how the referee - in this case the IRB - will call it when they decide on whether to implement the ELVs globally on 13th May.

Designed to create a faster, more flowing game, the ELVs seem only to have created angrier debate amongst fans. Some rules are sensible and should remain: the corner flags are no longer touch-in-goal if your body hits them while scoring a try; the ball can be passed backwards from a quick lineout; having the defence stand five metres back from a scrum has created more space for attacking play, even if it is not always easy to referee in games outside the professional sphere.

But some of the trial laws are more polemical, such as the legalisation of collapsing mauls. Some have supported it, arguing that the maul itself is merely an organised form of obstruction, and that there was no clear or legal way of halting its progress before the introduction of this rule. Critics have countered by saying that the whole point of the maul was that it drew in defenders to stop it moving, thus creating space out wide for attacking play - by legalising a collapse, fewer defenders are committing to mauls, and are now to be found littering the midfield area. The same goes for lineouts, now that the defending team can choose how many players to include.

Another point of dispute is the decision to prevent a gain in ground from kicks where the ball has been passed back into the 22. Some claim this has led to an increase in tactical kicking and up-and-unders from players unwilling to risk losing valuable field position - it certainly seemed that way in the Six Nations, with positional kicking battles clearly a safer option for the backs than attempting to run the ball back against today's watertight defences.

The breakdown remains a mess, an area which seems to depend entirely on a referee's understanding of how long a player can hold on to the ball once tackled. We regularly see defenders grappling for possession well before support players arrive, and their hands often remain on the ball to slow it down long after. These should be penalties for one side or the other, and yet it depends entirely on the referee's interpretation. Since most infringements are committed at the breakdown, clearer rules should have been proposed here to protect fair competition for the ball.

The southern hemisphere has - ridiculously - been told to trial an additional set of laws to those we have been experimenting with here. Some infringements are penalised with free kicks instead of penalties which, while leading to a faster game, have also allowed players to cheat with relative impunity.

Whether the ELVs have affected the game significantly at grass-roots level is rarely discussed - do any of you dirt-trackers out there feel the laws have made a difference to your game?

Should English players be punished for joining foreign clubs?

When it was announced a few weeks ago that three Wasps players were leaving to join French clubs, it didn't take long for a letter from the RFU to wing its way to England's elite training squad.

Players were informed that if - like Haskell and Flutey - they intended to sign for foreign clubs, they would be putting their chances of representing their country in jeopardy. The letter began logically, advising players to check the release dates in their contracts to ensure they would be available for England training.

It became more contentious, however, when it stated that Martin Johnson and his coaching team would not be travelling to watch any foreign club matches. It went on to put uncertainty and doubt into the minds of the players by informing them that if they were in competition with a player of the same standard contracted to a Premiership side, the man playing in England would get the nod.

So, while leaving it intentionally vague, the letter from the RFU does not state that players will not be picked for England by moving abroad (as this might raise unwanted legal issues), but creates enough fear for players like Haskell to seriously consider reversing their decisions.

He and Flutey must be wondering how on earth Johnson will judge whether the overseas players are in better form than their Premiership counterparts if they never come to watch them play. They will no doubt worry about being branded as "of the same standard" as other England-based players regardless of their form for their clubs on this basis, leading to their being overlooked.

You can understand where the RFU is coming from in its desire to keep the best of British on these shores. It is good for fans, the Premiership and upcoming England players to see their national team grinding it out for English clubs during the week, but should the game's governing body be allowed to hamstring players into staying here for the prime of their playing careers?

In other countries the authorities have been far stricter. The Australian Rugby Union (ARU) has a firm policy that foreign-based players cannot represent the Wallabies. Until very recently, they also banned their four Super-14 teams from fielding players who were ineligible for the Wallabies (they can now select two foreign players if they choose).

Perhaps the RFU should have been clearer with its letter, deciding whether players would or would not be picked if they went abroad. The benefit of a strict policy like the ARU's is that the choice, while perhaps not a desirable one, is at least left firmly in the player's hands.

The RFU's deliberately vague position means that players will be left in a world of uncertainty, hampering their chances of finding confidence and success if they do choose to go abroad.

Do you think that's fair?

Irish leaders set to be Lions kings

I wouldn't be surprised if there were still Irishmen waking up in the gutters of Cardiff's back-alleys this evening, feeling as though they were on the business end of a tackle from Paul O'Connell.

Ireland's Grand Slam victory over Wales, sealed in the most dramatic fashion imaginable, was a game to remind us all why we love rugby, and will surely go down in history as one of the great matches of all time - so Irish fans would certainly have been justified in having a Guinness or two.

The players themselves can breathe a collective sigh of relief, with so much talent promising so much for so many years, but not having delivered until now. The quality of the players in the Irish side is undeniable - while their performances in this tournament have led some to question whether they were worthy of a Grand Slam, I believe they matched the Welsh in terms of pure ability, and delivered the performances that were needed when it counted.

This you must do to win tournaments, as England proved when winning the World Cup in 2003. In fact, it is rare for a team to play consistently beautiful rugby, and even rarer for such teams to win trophies. Talent counts for nothing until it is converted into victory. Everyone knows how many world-class players New Zealand produce, players who seem to understand the game better than anyone - but the have a well-earned reputation for being under-achievers, a team that cannot deliver in the pressure of the moment.

Ireland relied upon their key players in the final match of the tournament more than ever. O'Connell soared at the lineout and surged in the loose, leading with the tempered aggression of a future Lions captain. O'Driscoll seems to sense instinctively when he should leave the open space of his back line and burrow over from the back of a maul - his intervention on Saturday kick-started the Irish comeback, and he, perhaps more than any player who has played in this tournament over the years, deserved the adulation and the place in history that will come with the Grand Slam.

Ian McGeechan's Lions notebook will no doubt have these two names written in permanent ink next to their respective numbers, and many of their team-mates made powerful arguments for their inclusion (Tommy Bowe should start with Shane Williams on the wing, Jerry Flannery will link up well with O'Connell in the lineout, and David Wallace was outstanding in the loose).

With no more under-achievement to worry about for another 60 years, the Irish fans can turn their attention to a new pub debate. Who should lead the Lions, O'Driscoll or O'Connell?

Wales and Ireland take Lions share

Lions fans will be salivating at the prospect of tomorrow's rugby feast in Cardiff. Aside from the obvious exhiliration of watching the best two sides in the northern hemisphere battle it out - the one seeking a first Grand Slam since 1948, the other attempting to steal the Championship at the death - we will be treated to what is effectively a training match for the Lions summer tour to South Africa.

Apart from one or two players from England and Scotland, who battle for the Calcutta Cup tomorrow, the 2009 touring party will be formed from those taking the field at the Millenium Stadium. And there are some very tasty confrontations to wet your appetite.

Full Back
Lee Byrne seems to have won the hearts and minds of most rugby fans with consistently outstanding performances, but Rob Kearney will be hoping to make Ian McGeechan's job a bit more difficult tomorrow. Armitage also has a shout.

Wing
Williams is a shoo-in having won World Player of the Year, but the Irish wingers Bowe and Fitzgerald have a good shot at pairing up with him and relegating the likes of Cueto and Tom Evans to the dirt tracks.

Centre
A very exciting one this, with Henson and Shanklin undefeated in Six Nations games when they have played together squaring up to O'Driscoll at his electric best and the trucking Gordon D'Arcy. Flutely is surely the only other contender.

Fly-half
O'Gara has been playing reasonably well, but is weak in defence and usually relies on assistance from his flankers in the 10 channel. Stephen Jones probably has the edge, and with Hook poised to replace him at some point we can expect a dynamic attempt from the younger player to prove the selectors wrong.

Back Row
So many to choose from... Welsh skipper Ryan Jones and Martyn Williams should make the flight, with Andy Powell perhaps blowing too hot and cold to have a decent chance. Ireland's Wallace and Heaslip are probables, although another good performance from Tom Croft could throw a spanner in the works.

Second Row
O'Connell is looking odds-on to lead the Lions in South Africa, and O'Callaghan will want to be next to him holding his shirt. Alun Wyn-Jones has been consistently good for Wales, and might just get the nod.

Front Row
With England's usual scrummaging prowess having subsided somewhat, it's likely that some combination of Horan, Hayes, Jenkins and Jones will make up the Lions front row. With props and hookers always taking a battering they'll probably change around a bit, while Flannery and Rees will be looking to impress with their lineouts.

What are your predictions for the big match tomorrow?

Has Johnson wasted an opportunity?

Martin Johnson has named an unchanged side to face the Scots at Twickenham on Saturday. Toby Flood and Joe Worsley both passed fitness tests this morning, so the manager was able to stick with the starting line-up that began so explosively against France on Sunday.

Johnson has also announced an unchanged bench, perhaps wasting an opportunity to see how those players who have not had much game time for their country would fare in an England shirt.

The match against Scotland is by no means a friendly - Johnson knows that he must deliver a repeat of last Sunday's performance, or an improvement, to stave off further criticism. The players themselves will want to prove that it wasn't a one-off, that their five tries had more to do with their skill and the team finally gelling than luck or an out-of-sorts French team.

But, with due respect to a Scotland team that is on its way up, England should win this match at Twickenham, as they have done for the last 26 years. This should have been a good opportunity to see one or two younger faces on the bench, to let some fresh blood have a go before the international season closes.

Andy Goode's inclusion takes up a space that could have been filled by Geraghty, Cipriani, or Barkley to name but a few (and really any English fly-half would have been better), players who will likely represent their country in the future - Goode surely will not return next year.

Who else would you have liked to see given a chance against the Scots?