STATISTICS lie, damn them; based purely on statistics, the 2009 Lions should have been the winners. South Africa scored 63 points to the Lions’ 74, the Springboks were outscored by seven tries to five, but the only statistic that history will remember is South Africa 2, the British & Irish Lions 1.

Contrast with the winning series of 1997. That vintage is not recalled with the same awe as the mighty 1974 side, but the myth of Martin Johnson’s imposing pack and their looming power lives on.

Yet consider the statistics of that series. In that three-match battle, the Springboks scored 66 points and the Lions a measly 55. The losing Springboks ran in nine tries to the Lions’ three. But winning is the only statistic that matters, and the Lions won where it mattered by two games to one.

In Lions history, the past presses upon the present, mythology and fact combine in shades of grey as the men of today are judged by yesterday’s standard bearers. By such a judgment, the 2009 side should be adjudged a better team than their winning predecessors.

South Africa did not throw this series away on the whim of a team selected with no established goalkicker; for all the criticism of Peter de Villiers in terms of ineptitude, he was nothing compared with Carel du Plessis. Had the 2009 Lions met the 1997 Springboks, they would have hammered them.

It is no consolation (unlike the magnificently doughty victory yesterday), but defeat can be glorious and even though this side return home as the losers, they should never drop their heads at the memory of coming off second best in an epic pair of Tests and a convincing, vindicating third-Test triumph. Vindicating because the Lions played this game as if it was a throwback to the amateur ethos where style counted as much as the substance of the performance.

The man who orchestrated this heroic effort was the same man who steered them to the somewhat fortuitous victory of 1997. As far as ethos goes, Ian McGeechan is the Lions; in 1989, he adopted a winning approach that we described as pragmatic and the losing Australians as thuggish. In defeat in New Zealand in 1993, he sought a balance between the hard edge of Australia 1989 and this tour.

Whatever it takes to win, the Scot was always ready to do it and that makes yesterday’s win so heroic. The Lions played with a swagger in attack and, at their best, produced sensational rugby under the highest pressure because that was the only way they thought they could win at the home of the world champions.

It takes courage to throw away voguish formulas but McGeechan’s ability to cut through the nonsense of the latest theory and find the best way to win will long be remembered as proof of his highest pedigree as a coach.

That is only the start. The fiasco of the 2005 Lions tour, when Clive Woodward ripped up the lessons of Lions history and found his side bereft in New Zealand, emphasises not just the playing of the game but the traditions of the Lions. They are a return to the old days, which is why supporters from all countries hold them in nostalgic affection.

On this tour, players roomed together, mixed with supporters, took time to visit townships, orphans, all those off-field diversions that made an old tour such a rounded experience. The simple pursuit of victory and nothing else is not the Lions way. McGeechan wanted to win as much as the next man but understood that the magic of the Lions is in their traditions as much as winning.

The Lions will return better men and players, and for that, as much as the rugby, the sport should doff its collective scrum cap to Ian McGeechan.