The new Lions—a 1966 or a 1971 side?

Press, 25 May 1977, Page 24

The new Lions—a 1966 or a 1971 side?

By

KEVIN McMENAMIN

Gisborne Before they t6ok the field at Napier on Saturday, the 1977 Lions were very conscious of the comparisons they faced with the highly-successful 1971 team. After the dismal showing against Hawke’s Bay it is not so much the 1971 side they are being compared with, but the abysmal 1966 side. It remains to be seen which of these two earlier teams the 1977 Lions are most going to resemble. So divorced has been the standards produced in the two games to date that the side appears to be suffering from a bad case of rugby schizophrenia. But from the New Zealand viewpoint, Hawke’s Bay, by its tremendous performance. proved a number of things, not the least of them being that the Lions can be beaten in the test series, and, possibly, also at the provincial level. There were any number of weaknesses exposed in the side’s play. Their towards. on the day, were too big and cumbersome to regroup quickly when the ball was behind them, the wings showed little liking for the high ball and that for all their coaching advances the British have still much to learn about rucking and driving off the maul. The Lions’ biggest problem at Napier, of course, was lack of possession. The line-out play was a disaster and if a couple of not particularly tall provincial locks can outjump them two-to-one what will the likes of Andy Haden do to them? Former New Zealand tourists in the party knew that the crunch had to come some

time, it was just a little earlier than expected. There has been a good deal of talk in the last few days about the side “learning what New Zealand rugby is all about.” It was a predictable line and one with just the names of the countries changed, which New Zealand coaches could take up. The Lions need ball and space if they are to succeed and when denied both, as they were at Napier, they are left toothless.

Two of the New Zealand selectors (Messrs Jack Gleeson and Eric Watson) were at Napier and while the locals hoped that the close result might improve the chances of Hawke’s Bay getting a man into the All Blacks, the pair was probably intent more on studying the visitors’ playing patterns. It would be dangerous for them to read too much into what may prove to be

one bad game early in a tour, but at the same time a first five-eighths who can do the sort of things that Hepa Paewai did for Hawke’s Bay must have risen high on the list of priorities. Paewai handled beautifully and it was his kicking, particularly high punts towards the blindside wing, that caused the Lions the most panic. The first five-eighths tailor-made to fill this role would be Canterbury’s Doug Bruce. This may sound suspiciously like a return to 10-man rugby, although if the 1977 Lions are anything like the 1971 variety then it would be foolhardy for New Zealand to try to beat them at their own running game. Hawke’s Bay found plenty for its outside backs to do and there was nothing unattractive about the way it used the backs as the first wave in an assault that bore dividends Once the Lions’ forwards

were forced into retreat. New Zealand has plenty of forwards capable of doing to the Lions’ pack what the Hawke’s Bay forwards did and the outcome of a series so vital to the rugby pride of a country with three lost series in six years could hinge on the tactics employed by the backs. A style built around kicking might prove an unpopular way of taking on a team which delights in running the ball. But then both sides would be playing to their strengths, and this, surely, makes good sense. Moreover, the 1971 Lions got plenty of mileage out of Barry John’s boot. New Zealand, of course, still was Phil Bennett and the vexed goal-kicking question to worry about. But Hawke’s Bay replaced pessimism about the All Blacks’ chances with optimism, even if thg Lions do have seven more games before the first test to alter this mood.