Lions failed to reach their full potential in Australia

There has been no stranger end to a British and Irish Lions tour than that of last Saturday in Sydney. After a break for potentially dangerous storm weather, the Lions ended the series well beaten in a game that showed what Australia might have achieved had they had the full services of Noah Lolesio, Will Skelton and Rob Valetini. If you doubt the influence of just those three players, imagine the Lions without Finn Russell, Maro Itoje and player of the series Tadhg Beirne.

Andy Farrell and his cohorts deserve much praise for achieving what is still a rare goal in winning a Lions series, but the residual feeling for the tour is one of falling short. The heights that might have been achieved had the Lions played to their full potential were not reached. There will always be questions – what would have happened had Blair Kinghorn been available from the start of the tour? Should Ellis Genge have started all the Tests? Would he have put the Lions on the front foot and denied Australia the “go forward” possession that enabled them to take leads in the second and third Tests?

In the end, the thing that counts for the Lions’ brand is that the tour again captured the attention of their fans who travelled in their tens of thousands. They were matched by the supporters of their hosts and together they produced a record-breaking attendance for a Lions’ Test match in Melbourne. Commercially the tour has been a success, and in the end, this is the defining factor.

From an England point of view, the Lions and the Argentina tour have thrown up a headache for their head coach, Steve Borthwick. And it is not a new one.

What does he do about the No 10 jersey and, by extension how does he solve the 22-year-old conundrum of settling a centre partnership? This question has featured regularly over the years in this column but that is only because it has not been solved satisfactorily. The next World Cup will be imminent in less time than imagined. Where are England in this regard?

Owen Farrell has returned to top-flight Test rugby and George Ford has just led an England squad to an away series victory in Argentina. Marcus Smith featured for the Lions but as a dual-capacity replacement covering fly-half and full-back. Unfortunately, Fin Smith’s rise to top of the No 10 tree halted on a tour that never really fired for him. If all those possible fly-half selections are available and on form, what will Borthwick do?

To start with he must make a difficult call regarding Farrell and Ford. Without reliable evidence he has to judge whether both, one, or neither will be at their best in two years’ time. There is no doubting their quality and experience but those will only count if they are fit and firing. You could say that he should wait to see how they perform over the next two years, but what does he then do if they wane nearer to the tournament? This is one of the most difficult selection decisions; when do you say: “Thanks for all you have done, but goodbye?”

If you look at nearly all the past World Cup-winning teams and finalists, almost all of them have gone into the tournament with clarity on these questions. From two years out they have had in mind their preferred combinations at 10, 12 and 13 and have finessed this issue through occasional experimentation, but working from a settled combination.

A fully fit Ollie Lawrence looks the most likely first-choice pick in the centre, but England are still to settle on whether he will be a 12 or 13. Henry Slade is still in the frame but Borthwick must, at some point, decide whether he is Lawrence’s preferred partner and then let that combination develop. They have recently been given an extended run, but the results have not been conclusive.

This situation is set to reignite a problem that has bedevilled England selection for something approaching a decade: whether to choose Farrell for his overall contribution to the England team. His leadership skills and his Test-match credentials have been apparent for years, but so has the problem of choosing him in the centre as an adjunct to his best role at fly-half.

This comes back to the claim that two playmakers at 10 and 12 is a winning idea. If so, why do virtually no international coaches do this and why did Andy Farrell not start any of his Test teams in Australia with this sort of combination? I confess, I do not have the answers, beyond knowing that doing what England have done repeatedly and expecting different results is a form of madness.