The notion held by some media pundits and fans – not all of them Irish – that Brian O'Driscoll is a rugby martyr because he was dropped from the Lions side for the third Test against Australia by Warren Gatland is nonsense. Simply put, there are holes in every part of the shroud they are trying to drape around O'Driscoll.
The most significant ones are those concerning his form on the 2013 tour, and in the Six Nations that preceded it. O'Driscoll did not have an auspicious Six Nations, and based purely on form during that tournament rather than past laurels he was fortunate to win one of the four centre places in the Lions party.
It is also impossible for even the most vociferous BoD fan to claim that he was the outstanding centre over the course of the six weeks the Lions were in Australia, or the most influential.
Those plaudits go to Jonathan Davies. And with BOD's old 2009 Test partner, Jamie Roberts looking strong, it is unlikely, had Roberts not torn a hamstring against the Waratahs, that O'Driscoll would have added to his tally of starts on this 2013 tour by being paired with Davies in the first two Tests.
This is understandable because the most complete midfield – and backline – performance of the tour came against the Waratahs, when Roberts and Davies were paired together. After the match O'Driscoll himself proclaimed the Scarlets No.13's stellar performance, declaring: “How good was Jonathan Davies!”
This is not an attempt to put O'Driscoll down, because, as I have written previously, he has been one of the great players of the professional era. It is more an acknowledgement that there is an ebb and flow to the careers of all international players, and that – like many great players before him – O'Driscoll's was on the ebb tide before this tour.
Gatland said after announcing the third Test side, before the Twitter hysteria over O'Driscoll's omission broke, that he had made sure his head ruled his heart, and that he made the decision purely on the basis of picking a team with the best chance of winning the series. He added that he did not select with a view to currying political favour.
Dead right. That is what the head coach is paid to do, and the bile-ridden criticism on social media outlets that O'Driscoll's axing was part of Gatland having some nefarious pro-Welsh agenda is idiotic.
As for the form book on tour, O'Driscoll showed well enough against Western Force and the Combined Country XV, but both were limited midweek opponents. A clearer indication of the Test pecking order was that he was not picked for the crucial weekend wins over the Reds or the Waratahs.
After Roberts was injured O'Driscoll acquitted himself reasonably in the first Test, his dummy run helping to set up Alex Cuthbert's try – although it was the subject of a TMO review for obstruction.
However, there were also glitches, including conceding two breakdown penalties, and a failure to make any significant impact in attack.
In the Melbourne Test, O'Driscoll was equally blunt in attack, and although he tackled solidly in both Tests there were none of the skilful touches that unlock defences, or any sign of the blistering acceleration his early fame was built on.
Nor was there much evidence of the inspirational leadership that his supporters said he brought to the tourists, and in one instance he passed the ball straight to the Aussie dangerman Israel Folau.
Even Keith Wood, one of his greatest advocates, conceded that he was “quiet” in the first two Tests.
Those using a sentimental attachment to BOD's glory days to lash Gatland need reminding that no individual is bigger than the team.
No player has a God-given right to have his Lions career end on a glorious high note, as the likes of Martin Johnson and Wood know only too well after Justin
Harrison's lineout steal to clinch the third Test in 2001. As for being distraught over selection, James Hook, who is versatile enough to play inside-centre and fly-half, did not even make the tour party – or the replacements roster.
Is O'Driscoll's disappointment any greater than his, at missing possibly his last chance to represent the Lions?
It is also worth comparing Cuthbert's situation with O'Driscoll's. His brilliant finishing helped to win the first Test, but the Welsh wing lost his place in the starting line-up for the second Test, and then failed entirely to make the 23 for the decider in Sydney.
To his lasting credit O'Driscoll took his demotion on the chin, acting with utmost professionalism at the training session in Noosa after the team announcement, and then mucking in with coaching local schoolkids.
It's a pity some of his supporters failed to display the same class.
Nick Cain: O’Driscoll was lucky even to be on tour
More in Nick Cain:
-
England must take Quins pair to NZ
21 April 2024
-
Ban teams who pick reserves for knock-out stages
21 April 2024
-
Envious eyes fall on Leinster’s recruits
21 April 2024
I’d rather not let you know what I think.
All I’ll say is that it’s very opinion heavy, while also being very analysis and statistics light.
Your ignorance astounds me yet again. The fact that you are criticising bod’s decoy line clearly shows your lack of knowledge of the game. He ran a simple yet legal line. The fact that it was referred to the TMO clearly highlights it’s effectiveness in holding the defender allowing cuthbert the space to break through. The try wouldn’t have been scored without it. Maybe you should focus on quoting directly from interviews because critical analysis of the game is not your strongpoint.
Yet another piece heavily weighed in it’s after the fact analysis and attention seeking grandstanding. To suggest that Davies was the “standout” centre is frankly laughable and denigrates your position to comment on matters. Time and time again Davies showed a complete lack to timing in the first and second tests as he over ran countless passes and was easily fixed on the inside by James O’Connor. Perhaps it may be worth an article on the sudden and stark improvement of the Lions at the breakdown as a result of the injury to “Captain Invisible” in Test 2? What won the third test was the solidity of the Lions at the scrum, the fact the Lions had a proper Test standard 7 on the pitch and Australia packing it in as a result of the Lion’s dominance in areas one and two. The big selection decision at the end of the day which swung the series was the one Gatland was forced to make at 7!
Ok so lets start with you are a nonsensical idiot who has made nearly every conceivable error of judgement when writing this piece. That agreed let me explain. When describing O’ Driscoll’s errors you list among them 2 penalties at the breakdown which as any rugby fan knows is about interpretation. O’ Driscoll was legitimately on his feet contesting for the ball and the penalty sounded because he was alleged to have “gotten up”. This is a new one on me and should be a new one on you as well because there is no such rule which prevents a player getting up after making the tackle to contest for the ball as long as he is supporting his own weight. If this were being ref’d by any other ref it would have been a turnover and you would be clamouring to describe O’ Driscoll as magnificent. Yes I’m putting words in your mouth. As you seem to be having trouble putting together a logical sentence i thought i’d help.
Paragraph 2: Get comfortable. You go on to describe O’ Driscoll as blunt in attack. Do you know the reason for this? I expect you don’t so ill again oblige. Gatland is famous for a particular style of attack which puts a vast emphasis on brut force through the middle. The backs barely got the ball as it was centred around the forwards boringly barging up the centre of the park. He was told to play a game plan that didn’t suit his talents and as a coach the game plan should fit around the BEST players and not the BEST players around a game plan. The simple fact of the matter is the backs were not given the opportunity to play.
Paragraph 3: Back to you being an idiot. You said the form partnership was Roberts and Davis. Davis missed a tackle that BoD was pointing him towards to let in THE only Australian try of the second test and therefore if he had made that tackle the Lions would conceivably won in 2 tests and selection would not have been a issue. How many tackles did BoD miss in 23 attempts? None. Based on that alone Davis should have been dropped for the 3rd test. Im obviously not even taking into account that Davis missed 6 in 13!!!! Ok i am but I’m allowed because i’m not an idiot. Roberts and O’ Driscoll have been a proven partnership as seen in 2009 and that should have been the selection.
Paragraph 4: This is almost comical were it not for the fact that you are being paid to do this. You say that based on form O’ Driscoll was lucky to even get a place on the plane. I’m going to restrain myself here and assume you have had some sort catastrophic brain injury. That or you should be fired immediately. Not for slating O’ Driscoll just for….you guessed it……being an idiot. Ireland had a shocking 6 nations thanks in part to a litany of injuries but O’ Driscoll was the main attack force. Lest you forget that perfectly weighted pass to Zebo. Try saving tackles against the English(not that it mattered). The list goes on.
It’s getting late and I haven’t even gotten to the part where you question his leadership so ill just say watch the last 20 minutes of the second test again when Warburton goes off. His leadership is proven and ill bet that if you asked every Lions player on that tour to name 3 players in all of Lions history who they would want on the pitch with them Brian O’ Driscoll would be on 90% of their Lists.
I really could go on but unlike you i have a day job in the morning so ill sum up…You’re an idiot.
You know full well his ‘two breakdown penalties’ were a joke and bar george norths moment of genius the whole bloody backline wasnt given a chance to ‘show anything in attack’ do you really get paid to write this shite??!!!!
who the fuck is nick cain?
I’m afraid your all a bit hysterical Nick is spot on
Pingback: บับเบิ้ล