Three decisions that went badly wrong for the Wallabies

The Wallabies will look back on this British & Irish Lions series as a missed opportunity.

For the first time since 1966, they lost a Lions tour inside two Tests.

Despite a stirring start in the second Test and a strong home crowd at the MCG, Australia couldn’t hold on, conceding a heartbreaking last-minute try to Hugo Keenan to hand the Lions the series.

While there were moments of promise, particularly in Melbourne, question marks hang over the hosts tactics. Key decisions in the lead-up and during the series proved costly.

Questions will be asked about the Wallabies’ preparation, selection choices and how their most high-profile player was used.

Team Form

Last 5 Games

48 - 33

46 - 19

26 - 19

25 - 7

15 - 19

22 - 12

26 - 29

19 - 24

19 - 27

0 - 48

1

Wins

4

4

Streak

1

15

Tries Scored

22

-63

Points Difference

54

3/5

First Try

4/5

2/5

First Points

3/5

3/5

Race To 10 Points

3/5

Joe Schmidt’s team did not lack effort, but at times lacked cohesion, clarity and the decisiveness needed to beat a Lions team that finished stronger in both games. With one Test still to play, the outcome is already settled, and the inquest has begun.

Here are three areas where the Wallabies were found wanting during the 2025 British & Irish Lions series.

Underdone Wallabies
The Wallabies entered the series underprepared. They had just one warm-up Test against Fiji – which they narrowly won.  It was their only match in the eight months preceding the first Test in Brisbane.  That performance alone suggested they needed more time to build combinations and adjust to Test-match intensity.

In contrast, the Lions had faced Argentina in Dublin, four Aussie Super Rugby sides, and two invitational sides brimming with internationals and as a result, were visibly more cohesive and comfortable at pace.

Most Wallabies front-liners had been cotton-woolled since the end of the Super Rugby season and it showed. The opening Test in Brisbane exposed the home side’s lack of rhythm and match sharpness.

Joe Schmidt’s side looked tentative early, failing to match the physicality and organisation of the tourists. The gap in readiness was clear and, in a three-Test series, getting caught cold in the opener puts enormous pressure on the remaining matches.

The lack of meaningful match preparation also limited the coaches’ ability to trial combinations under pressure. The Wallabies improved in the second Test, but by then they were already chasing the series.

Skelton and Valetini held back too long
While it was later revealed that Will Skelton and Rob Valetini were passed fit on the morning of the first Test in Brisbane, Schmidt had already decided not to risk them in the matchday squad. The result? The Wallabies went into that game without two of their most important forwards, and the Lions took full advantage.

The Australians struggled to win the gainline battle, particularly in the first half. The Lions were able to dictate the tempo and retain control in the contact area.

By the second Test, both Skelton and Valetini started and made an immediate impact. The Wallabies looked far more competitive up front and were dominant for much of the opening 40 minutes, building an 18-point lead.

Schmidt’s decision to hold them back for the second Test now appears overly cautious. Both players brought physical presence and experience that was badly missed in the series opener.

Given the short nature of a Lions tour, big selection gambles come with risk. In this case, Australia may have waited a week too long to bring their enforcers in. It was a dice roll Schmidt might regret not taking.

Suaalii out of position
Joseph Suaalii entered the series as one of the Wallabies’ biggest attacking weapons, but he was deployed at outside centre – a position known for its defensive complexity. Ultimately, it didn’t work.

Suaalii had just three carries in the first half in Brisbane. The Lions’ line speed shut down the Australian attack, and Suaalii found it difficult to get involved. His opportunities came too late in the second half to turn the game.

Defensively, the 13-channel proved a challenge for the 21-year-old. It is arguably the hardest position to defend in Test rugby, and Suaalii – still learning the demands of the code – was exposed at times in both Tests.

He would have been better used at inside centre, where he would have had more direct involvement and a less demanding defensive role. Surely Len Ikitau, who has played 94 per cent of his professional career at 13, should have stayed in his preferred role?

On such decisions, Lions’ series do turn.