A quick look at Gilroy and Zebo…
Ok, here we go. Gilroy vs. Zebo.
Going back to the start of the 2011 is, frankly, too much damn work for what was the tiniest of thoughtworms.
So I’ve stuck to this season only. Here’s the season totals for tests, Pro 12 and Heineken Cup matches:
Games Played:
Gilroy 24
Zebo 17
Tries Scored:
Gilroy 4
Zebo 8
Easy win for Zebo, eh? Sure he’s played 7 fewer games and scored twice as many tries!!
It’s not that simple. Zebo’s average minutes played per game is 67 minutes, compared to just 45 for Gilroy.
Minutes Played:
Gilroy 1080
Zebo 1135
Yep, that’s right. Zebo has scored four more tries but in 7 fewer appearances he’s actually played 65 minutes more than Gilroy.
But Zebo’s still scored 8 tries in that time, right? Well, yes. And as you’ll see from his impressive minutes played per tries scored figure, it’s a good bit better than Gilroy.
Minutes played per try scored:
Gilroy 270
Zebo 142
That’s a big difference. Case closed, you might think.
But don’t stop reading just yet.
None of the above figures include the Fiji match in Thomond Park which, were it not for the ridiculous sponsorship deal in which the IRFU agreed that any full international test match played on the island of Ireland must be played at the new Lansdowne Road, would have been included in the season’s figures.
But the match was played – two real teams of large, rugby-playing humans showed up and people put in real hits and suffered real injuries.
If you add that match to the equation, a match in which Gilroy played the full 80 and Zebo the final 19 minutes, things look far more even.
Minutes played per try scored (including Ireland’s game against Fiji):
Gilroy 166
Zebo 144
In terms of an 80 minute game, that equates to:
Gilroy… one try every 2.08 matches
Zebo… one try every 1.80 matches
Zebo’s still got a better try-scoring rate, and the Fiji match wasn’t the toughest outing an Irish team’s ever had. But when trying to use try-scoring figures to separate the two there’s really not much in it. They’re both young, talented and offer different skill sets that would be admired and exploited in different ways by different coaches.
Let’s enjoy the fact that they’re both Irish.
Surely it’s not comparing like with like. Gilroy is a solid player. He was very good versus Fiji but since then hasn’t had the same impact with Ireland and when Ulster have a full complement he’s not a starter. Zebo on the other hand is a talent no matter the stage…..even after a lay-off he’s a contender for the Lions…..is Gilroy?
Well it’s probably fair to say that Gilroy had an impact against Argentina… But the post above is obviously in no way supposed to be a complete comparison of the two players and their value to a team. The genesis for posting this specific comparison came out of reading a comment over at Whiff of Cordite: http://whiffofcordite.com/2013/04/10/lions-post-5-hes-a-killer-hes-a-flash-boy-oh/
But to take you up on one point, both Luke Marshall and Gilroy were both picked for Ireland despite not being first choice up North. With only four professional teams in this country, and one of those being historically much weaker than the others, the “he’s not first choice” argument doesn’t hold a huge amount of water with such a small playing pool. For example, the “he’s not first choice at Leinster” was a central pillar of the anti-Madigan argument which is looking pretty silly right now.
Gilroy and Zebo both have one thing in common, they are both still developing. Zebo in particular is light years ahead of where he was just two years ago in terms of his all-round play. But even so can Zebo beat a man one on one like Gilroy? Probably not. Just like Gilroy doesn’t have the long left boot of Zebo. But as I said above I just enjoy the fact that these two exciting talents are both Irish.