Umaga v O'Driscoll

[O'Rothlain]

Umaga or O'Driscoll: Who will go down as the greater 13?

 

[getofmeland]

I am gonna have to go for Umaga at the moment, he has achieved more on an International scale than O'Driscoll... However O'Driscoll could quite easily do something Umaga cant, and that is win the World cup...

 

[Bullitt]

Umaga, being as Kiwis will always be remembered ahead of the Irish as rugby players (excluding the flying potato).

Saying that, I still think O'Driscoll is the better player.

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

Purely as a 13, I would say O'Driscoll. He has been rated as one of, if not the best centre in the world for a long time now, and has a reputation for being a game breaker from outside centre.

Umaga started as a winger, so has not had the same impact on the game playing centre as he would have done had he been in that position from the start of his career.

 

[Dumbo]

If it's just based on being a center then... BOD for sure.
Tana is a differant kettle of fish, a leader, has played wing, played center, has captained NZ to many a win...

But for being a 13, BOD for sure

 

[The TRUTH]

BOD

 

[Serge]

O'Driscoll by a mile. Umaga has been a consistantly very good for the All Blacks, a dominant team. While O'Driscall a gamebreaker for Ireland, an average team.

End of the day, Umaga could always have been replaced and the ABs would have functioned the same. Yet If O'Driscall was out, Ireland floundered (ala the Joey Johns factor for Newcastle).

 

[ShowMe]

End of the day, Umaga could always have been replaced and the ABs would have functioned the same.
[/b]

Aww dunno bout that at the moment. Almost the end of the year and henry still hasnt settled for a centre, although muliaina is the closest to filling the void so far, the gap hes left is still quite big...his presence alone makes it hard to replace.

 

[Gavin]

I would say that Umaga will go down in rugby history as the greater Number 13.. What Tana achieved in the last few years of his international career was immense.. He won a lot of silver-wear, which included captaining the All Blacks to the Grand Slam over the four Home Nations, the Tri-Nations and the Belisdo (not sure about the spelling) and of course a 3-0 series white wash over the British and Irish Lions..
O'Driscoll on the other had has achieved a lot in his short term as Ireland Captain.. The Triple Crown, which included two fantastic wins over Englandm but unfortunately the Irish could not overturn the French..

Even though I am Irish I would choose Umaga over O'Driscoll on the playground.. Umaga seemed to be a much better Captain and a far better leader than O'Driscoll on the pitch and off..

Either way they are both amazing Captains and Number 13's..

 

[BigTen]

O'Driscoll by a mile. Umaga has been a consistantly very good for the All Blacks, a dominant team. While O'Driscall a gamebreaker for Ireland, an average team.

End of the day, Umaga could always have been replaced and the ABs would have functioned the same. Yet If O'Driscall was out, Ireland floundered (ala the Joey Johns factor for Newcastle).
[/b]

Interesting argument there, Serge. And one that I can hardly agree with it.

By saying that O' Driscoll was a gamebreaker for an average team is not really a compliment. Anyone that was a decent international player would be a gamebreaker in an average team.

Umaga was a key member of a very good All Black side and that meant that he was a superstar. Anyone that ever saw him play would always notice that the amount of work that he did off the ball was massive and he retired whilst at the top of his game - something that not many players actually do.

Check out Umaga's try rates and compare them to O'Driscoll (I believe that Umaga finished on 36 tries from 74 test matches) and by international standards that is pretty impressive. Also surely it is harder to score loads of tries when you are surrounded by other quality players then if you are the only gamebreaker. And you can't forget that Umaga also helped set up loads of tries.

Another thing to note is that no nation has a better head-to-head ratio against the All Blacks when Umaga was playing and I think that that speaks volumes. The All Blacks were simply too tough to stop when Umaga was playing making him a winner in any language.

Even though I do rate O'Driscoll as a quality centre - certainly one of the best in the business I do think that Umaga edges him (and I am biased).

However O'Driscoll is still playing and time may prove that he becomes a better centre.

 

[Bullitt]

I think you'll find Umaga is also still playing.

 

[nez]

i think what BT means is that umaga is winding down his career and doesn't have alot of time/opportunity to improve his status, whereas BOD has still got time in international rugby to raise his profile further.

 

[kick2touch]

that would be one hell of a 12-13 combination

 

[cwans]

Umaga isnt a Bunce, he's who he is thanks to his leadership and charisma.

Cp to O' Driscoll tho, at his prime Umaga will rip O'Driscoll to shreds.

O'Driscoll is only good for so long because Irish rugby depth is not as strong as any of the SANZAR teams, and really, once you're in, u tend to stay there for a while.

 

[Serge]

<div class='quotemain'>
O'Driscoll by a mile. Umaga has been a consistantly very good for the All Blacks, a dominant team. While O'Driscall a gamebreaker for Ireland, an average team.

End of the day, Umaga could always have been replaced and the ABs would have functioned the same. Yet If O'Driscall was out, Ireland floundered (ala the Joey Johns factor for Newcastle).
[/b]

Interesting argument there, Serge. And one that I can hardly agree with it.

By saying that O' Driscoll was a gamebreaker for an average team is not really a compliment. Anyone that was a decent international player would be a gamebreaker in an average team.

Umaga was a key member of a very good All Black side and that meant that he was a superstar. Anyone that ever saw him play would always notice that the amount of work that he did off the ball was massive and he retired whilst at the top of his game - something that not many players actually do.

Check out Umaga's try rates and compare them to O'Driscoll (I believe that Umaga finished on 36 tries from 74 test matches) and by international standards that is pretty impressive. Also surely it is harder to score loads of tries when you are surrounded by other quality players then if you are the only gamebreaker. And you can't forget that Umaga also helped set up loads of tries.

[/b][/quote]

I completely disagree with that.

Being on a good team makes it easier to be a better player. Look how well players do when they come and play for Canterbury. It means they get better ball to use from the forwards and more room to use and just quality players around them in general creating more confidence. Look at Rico Gear playing for Nelson Bays (last year) he was nothing for them for the fact that players around him could not supply what he needed to perform, so I do believe it is harder to be a gamebreaker in an average team.

Also it would be a lot easier to score being in the better team for the mere fact that look how many more tries the All Blacks have scored compared to the Irish. I think Umaga has been a solid player for NZ but has been majorly overated.

 

[I cant think of a username]

Got to go with O'Driscoll and coming from a leinster hating Munster fan that's saying something, he may be a bit of a girl off the field, but on it, what a player!

 

[All_Blacks_Hurricanes_Lions_Fan]

I would say Umaga mainly for his leadership and the way the players look up to him. Or maybe its coz im biased with him being a wainui boy lol, But im a big big fan of BOD i like the way he plays.

 

[ajayp]

umaga for sure

 

[O'Rothlain]

So, I came across this a few days ago (actually put it on my http://www.myspace.com/naterowlan ]mypace profile[/url]), and thought it'd make a great addition to this debate. Enjoy. Umaga & O'Driscoll Union