Of all the Lions series that have ever been, this, undoubtedly, was one of them.
These tours are remembered for their moments and atmosphere, I think. Those moments and the perception of the atmosphere are mostly personal to the individual. In their own right, the tours have about as much meaning as you want to give them.
I mostly remember the 1997 tour for Keith Wood. I remember being broadly confused why a guy I saw playing for Ireland was now playing with the British Lions. I asked my uncle. He clued me in. You couldn’t just Google stuff back then. Well, you could. You just had to work at Stanford University, so if you didn’t know something, you either had to ask someone who did, or happen to know where you could look it up, or, like most people, just be happy with not knowing.
Keith Wood made that tour meaningful for me, and the documentary that came out after the fact — the definitive Lions documentary — only added to that. This is your Everest, boys.
I don’t remember much of the 2001 Lions tour because I was too busy getting hammered in various pubs and nightclubs after my Leaving Cert. I remember the 2005 Lions tour because I had to get up early for it with friends of mine, drive out to Kilumney, and then watch on as Brian O’Driscoll got turned into a lawn dart, before the All Blacks, powered by what would become four or five all-time greats of the sport, tore Sir Clive Woodward’s Lions limb from limb.
I remember 2009 because (a) I had to pay for the Sky Sports myself for once, and (b) the pervading air of gladiatorial combat about that series from the first moment of the tests to the last, in a way that probably spelt the end of that era of the game. It was a dividing line between the sport I thought I could give a good rattle to, you know, if x-y-z had gone differently, to being, nope, you’d get killed stone dead.
You are not built for this.
Of course, that was always true, but the violence of the 2009 tour — that game in Pretoria in particular — was so profound as to snap even the most delusional of watchers back to reality. From there, my enjoyment of the Lions ebbed and flowed. The tour to Australia in 2013 seemed more like an inconvenience than appointment viewing, but the 2017 tour had that “big fight feel” about it that I found hard to miss.
Back-to-back World Champions vs the Lions? That’s box office. Even the cursed COVID Lions of 2021 had that same World Champions vs Lions billing to it.
Team Ranked 8th in the World for Most of 2025 vs the Lions doesn’t really have the same ring to it. And that is, essentially, the big issue with this tour and this particular stop on the Lions’ 12-year cycle. Australia are, all too often, on the downslope of a peak or on the way to a hypothetical one when the Lions come to town. That was true in 2013, it was even kind of true in 2001, and it’s certainly true in 2025. The Springboks and the All Blacks are pretty much always near the top of the test game, so those tours are different and, in essence, sell themselves. Would you bet against the 2029 tour to New Zealand being another tussle against the World Champions? I wouldn’t.
That doesn’t mean that the Lions shouldn’t tour Australia — that’s a ridiculous suggestion — but it does mean that when the Lions do tour, they need to “lead” the series. I don’t necessarily mean “lead” here in the scoreboard sense, although that does tend to follow on from that. I suppose what I mean is that if the Wallabies are on something of a down-swing, it’s on the Lions touring group to lead the energy in the cities they visit. To be an enthusiastically positive presence. It can’t just be about the rugby and the winning; it has to be bigger than that, even though it’s often only defined by the winning and the losing. It’s a tough balance to strike, but I think a good rule of thumb is less invading Rugby Borg, more gregarious rugby heels that the host nation loves to hate.
They got the balance wrong off the field this year, and that went some way to reflecting the malaise that followed the tour around online.
I consistently saw the travelling Irish journalists wonder aloud in podcasts and tour diaries about that “malaise” that they felt, either through the absence of visible excitement in their feed or through open boredom with the tour. If I were being paid to follow the Lions around on a tour, or had paid thousands of euros to do so, I’d probably wonder why everyone else isn’t enjoying it as much as I was, too.
There is no objective truth to it. You either enjoy the Lions as a concept — and I’m not sure I do — or you have enough of your guys on the tour to force that enjoyment upon you. I can’t speak for English, Welsh or Scottish fans, but I do know that a lot of the regular Irish fans I met watching these games in Kerry and Portugal were fairly non-plussed with the whole thing. Most saw it as an extension of the current Irish squad, where most people’s enthusiasm is directly tied to their current proximity to Leinster Rugby, unless the stakes are sufficiently high that that can be ignored.
This is often framed as an “online” opinion, but when you actually watch games with regular people instead of exclusively in press boxes, you’ll see the exhaustion with Ireland being, essentially, Leinster rebadged is far more mainstream than many in the Irish rugby media would like to admit. That’s a story for another day, though, but it goes some way to explaining why there wasn’t mass adulation for the number of Irish Lions on this tour. The current Irish head coach was picking them, so of course, there would be a ton of Irish players. Andy Farrell is as human as the rest of us when it comes to backing guys he trusts in 9/10 cases, despite some grown men debasing themselves on social media trying to pretend that the only unbiased man in the history of the planet just so happens to work as the current Irish and Lions head coach.
I know why they have to pretend that this is, and they do too. It’s the same reason why Andy Farrell gets all the credit for his selections that work out, but none of the blame when they don’t.
But, again, like me with Keith Wood and the Munster contingent on the 2009 Lions tour, if you’re a Leinster fan, there was a lot on the line for you on this tour. That’s something to enjoy, or dread, when you see one of your guys getting banged up in July after an entire year of professional rugby under their belt.
As I said, it’s not an objective measure.
Anything you feel about the Lions is completely legitimate, be it positive or negative.
***
On-field, the series was defined by a few key twenty-minute blocks of efficiency in the first two tests. This is how the teams rated their 22 work for the third test, which is notable in itself for the difference from the first two.
3rd Test – Net-Efficiency
| Team | Entries | Pts P.A | D. Entries | Pts Con P.A | Net | Net pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aus | 8 | 2.7 | 8 | 1.5 | +1.2 | +9.6 pts |
| Lions | 8 | 1.5 | 8 | 2.7 | -1.2 | -9.6 pts |
What the Numbers Mean;
Mirror-Image Efficiency
Australia flipped the first two-test pattern:
- They matched the Lions for entry count (8 each) but scored 80 % more per visit (2.7 v 1.5).
- Defensively, they allowed only 1.5 pts/entry, the Wallabies’ best-in-series figure so far — turning the earlier defensive leakage on its head.
- Australia’s entry volume and their tight collision work when they got there allowed them to own large blocks of time in the first half, so their higher ruck count worked for them, rather than against them.
Why the Match Swung
- +1.2 points per entry across 8 visits gives Australia a theoretical +9.6-point edge, matching the eye test that they played very well. In a game that they won by 10 points, this stacks up quite neatly.
- With entry volume equal, efficiency became the sole differentiator — exactly the scenario Australia needed but hadn’t achieved in Tests 1-2.
Series Context (per-entry averages)
| Test 1 | Test 2 | Test 3 | Series Avg | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia (net) | -0.29 | -0.10 | +1.20 | +0.27 |
| Lions (net) | +0.29 | +0.10 | -1.20 | -0.27 |
Australia finished the series positive on per-entry efficiency, but the Lions’ earlier entry-volume advantage (+4 across Tests 1-2) still delivered them the 2-1 series win. It isn’t as clear-cut as saying that the Lions won this series off the back of the opening 20 minutes of the first test, but it’s not far off it, either.
On a per-entry-efficiency basis, the first two tests were incredibly close overall, but the Lions won them with key moments of efficiency or, if you want to look at it the other way, disastrous sequence management from the Wallabies.
Key Tactical Notes
| Lever | Test 3 shift | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Entry Parity | Australia finally held Lions to 8 entries | Stopped bleed of territorial pressure |
| Finishing Quality | 2.7 pts/entry (best of series) | Converted dominance into scoreboard pressure |
| Defensive Sting | 1.5 pts conceded/entry | Lions missed chances chasing a lead. |
By levelling the entry count and winning both attack and defence per visit, Australia produced a textbook efficiency win — even if the Lions’ earlier volume control secured the series overall.
Territory strategy finally aligned with efficiency
Australia’s 4.7 passes/kick is a big shift from Tests 1–2 (6.8 and 8.8), moving them much closer to the Lions’ profile (4.1 and 6.4 previously). Yes, this was forced by the weather, but it allowed the Wallabies to hurt the Lions in the way we discussed in previous articles.
Phase load was still high, but in better areas
-
Despite 113 rucks, Australia weren’t grinding from deep like earlier; they played more of their phases in the Lions’ half, so each long sequence had a higher chance of becoming an entry.
-
Contrast with Tests 1–2: similarly high ruck counts (116, 110) but fewer entries; the phase load then was territorially inefficient. In Test 3, the kick balance fixed the field position problem.
Lions’ template unchanged; Australia solved it
-
Lions stayed in their 4–5 passes/kick lane (now 4.4), but Australia’s improved kicking and return structure blunted the territorial squeeze that yielded +2 entries in each of the first two Tests.
-
With fewer favourable starts, the Lions’ attack efficiency fell to 1.5/entry, and Australia’s goal-line defence improved to 1.5 conceded/entry. This directly correlates with the Wallabies’ kicking distance and kicking volume.
Causality chain for the win
-
Kicking parity → entry parity → Australia’s better strike & defence per visit → win.
-
The heavy ruck count shows they didn’t abandon phase rugby; they just played it in the right parts of the field, which they earned through longer, more voluminous kicking, and a proper focus on the Lions’ scrum and lineout. All of that was empowered by the change in kicking strategy.
Series Lens
-
Tests 1–2: Lions +4 entries cumulative and small per-entry edge → two close wins.
-
Test 3: Entry count was level, Australia won both sides of the per-entry ledger → clear efficiency win.
-
Net effect: Lions 2–1 series, Australia finishes positive on per-entry efficiency after the Test-3 correction.
The Players
It isn’t that tough to pick the standout players on this Lions series. There wasn’t a whole slew of players who drove consistently excellent team performances, so, for me, the three standouts were the guys who managed to do that in the tests — the only games that mattered.
Those players were Dan Sheehan, Tom Curry and Tadhg Beirne.
Both Sheehan and Curry showcased game-altering physicality across the three tests. That’s been Tom Curry’s calling card since he made his test rugby debut at just 18 years of age. He just wins collisions on both sides of the ball, is a constant threat at the breakdown and brings a grittiness and bite to the Lions’ back five that they’d have badly missed without him.
Dan Sheehan was the main driver of the Lions’ collision, winning in core areas. In the absence of a traditional heavy ball carrier — when Genge wasn’t on the field — Sheehan gave the Lions the kind of go-forward ball they needed in those bursts of efficiency that won them the series, as well as being an impact defender in the tight exchanges. He’s playing with the confidence of a guy who knows he’s the best hooker on the planet right now.
As for Tadhg Beirne? You could easily run out of good things to say about this player, but I think the ultimate compliment is that he’s the best floor raiser in the game. Whatever your pack doesn’t have, he brings it to a high level to allow others to play a simpler role. Need a second row with a tight focus on rucks, tackling and lineout? He can do that. Need a guy to just hit rucks to keep a janky pack together and showcase others? He can do that. Need an edge forward to win collisions and create linebreaks outside? He can do that. Need a guy to truck the ball up the middle and act, essentially, like a heavy #10 with his passing game into the layers? He can do that. Need him to code a website on a Nintendo Switch? Don’t ask. You know.
On this tour, he found his elite Swing Lock traits used in the back row to try and get more size in the front five for the tests, because Beirne is so good and so vital to the smooth running of this system, that you can use him like that without losing anything at all.
He is the modern back five player in every description. Not a unicorn, the unicorn. The original hybrid. The best in the world. At this stage in his career, we’re probably looking at his peak performances as a player. He’ll be 34 this season, and heading to the point where both Ireland and Munster have to start thinking about a future post-Beirne, which is a scary thing to consider after this tour. Australia weren’t even the toughest side Beirne has played or will play this calendar year, so it’s not like the tour itself is legacy-defining, but this tour, in combination with his body of work since he broke through at the Scarlets in 2016/17, is the kind of thing all-time greats of the game are known for.
What’s the legacy of this tour?
It’s whatever you want it to be.
The Lions won the series; ergo, it was successful by default. In the grand scheme of the sport, it was an underwhelming, over-commercialised let-down, on and off the field, with none of the drama, tension or high-stakes that I have come to associate with these tours. Your mileage may vary. But that doesn’t matter. In a year, all that will matter is the result.
I can’t help but feel that the real value of this tour will be assessed after the Rugby Championship, where I feel Australia will be doing well to win two games. Does that affect the value of this tour win? It does, yeah. In the same way that this Wallabies side going on to beat the All Blacks and Springboks would increase the value, but, realistically, I don’t see that happening.
The one fact that dogs this tour now — and likely why noises inside the Lions camp indicated they needed the 3-0 sweep — is that the Wallabies aren’t very good. That they are a mid-level team, at best, and that the series being as close as it ultimately was — one penalty decision given or not given in the 79th minute of the second test decided the entire thing — says more about Farrell and his system and this Lions group as a whole than it does the Wallabies. Essentially, if the Wallabies aren’t very good, then beating them isn’t all that much of an accolade.
What would make it an accolade? Winning the series 3-0. Doing what nobody this century has done. Failing in this aim is far from criminal, but it is notable in its own right given how average Australia are. Is it churlish to say that the Lions just needed to be above average for slightly longer than the Wallabies to win the series? Yes, it is. But I think it’s true, too.
My long-held belief is that Andy Farrell’s system dominates teams early in a series or tournament, but becomes easier to defeat as opponents spend more time together. That will become meaningful for Ireland going forward,
That only applies to the now, though, and will be unimportant context in the future. The Lions won, everyone got paid handsomely, the IRFU came out on the positive side of the ledger, and nobody has come out of it with a career-altering injury or with their reputation stained with something they can’t wash off. That, alone, is a big win.
How meaningful will that be outside of this summer? That is what remains to be seen.
