Deserve’s got nuthin’ to do with it: Why Scotland's Lions snub isn't the end of the world

Lee Calvert explains why Warren Gatland is like Clint Eastwood – and why Scotland can’t complain about their meagre Lions representation.

When the Lions squad was announced last week there was much chagrin that only two Scots were named in the party.  Scotland fans pointed to the fact their team beat both Wales and Ireland in this year’s Six Nations, and yet both of those vanquished sides have far greater representation (12 Welsh and 11 Irish, along with 16 English).

The objection to the squad is twofold. First, Scotland deserve more players in the squad based on performance. Second, that the ethos of the British & Irish Lions is sullied by not having balanced representation from each nation. Let’s deal with each of these in turn.

Does Scotland deserve more players based on performance?

In the denouement to the film Unforgiven, Clint Eastwood’s character William Munny goes on a killing spree with his target being Gene Hackman’s sheriff, Little Bill. When facing Munny’s gun, Little Bill pleads, “I don’t deserve this!” To which Munny coldly replies: “Deserve’s got nuthin’ to do with it.”

This is the same attitude Warren Gatland takes when it comes to other people’s opinions. It is worth remembering that the Lions squad is not made up of the best players – Gatland picks people to do a job. This is why Ben Te’o, a bit-part player for England, is in there to do the crash-ball 12 role in the midweek team. Scotland’s Alex Dunbar played 12 well throughout the Six Nations, which would suggest he warrants inclusion ahead of the Worcester man. But Dunbar is not as powerful a runner as Te’o, so he’s out.  Deserve’s got nuthin’ to do with it.

Scotland are arguably greater than the sum of their part – something that becomes clear if you consider which Scottish players could replace those selected. Jonny Gray has had a good season, and arguably deserves his place, but Iain Henderson is in ahead of him because he can also play blindside and gives flexibility for the long, arduous tour.

Finn Russell is mercurial but defensively frail, and Gatland hates defensive frailty more than changing his haircut. Sean Maitland is a decent winger, but no real argument can be made that he is a much better option than those back three players in the squad. Hamish Watson is a promising talent at seven and has enjoyed a great international start, but he’s not a very Gatland-like player and not at this time a better shout than Sean O’Brien’s grunt or Justin Tipuric’s pace and class.

Exciting young centre Huw Jones is injured, as is quality tighthead WP Nel. Beyond this, there is no case to be made for the rest of their team.

Player by player, selecting more of their squad doesn’t stack up either on ability or, more specifically, as part of the Gatland gameplan. Deserve’s got nuthin’ to do with it.

[rugbypass-ad-banner id=”1473306980″]

Is the Lions ethos damaged by lopsided national selections?

The opprobrium that Warren Gatland has received in both the regular and social media has led me to spend a great deal of time looking over previous Lions teams.

Every tour since 1971 proves that selecting large number of players from one nation, or largely ignoring a nation, is very common and certainly does not “disrespect the ethos of the Lions.”

In the seventies, when everything was shades of brown and made of nylon, Wales were the dominant force in rugby.  1971 vs the All Blacks saw nine Welsh in the starting lineup for the first Test and eight for the second.

1974, arguably the most famous of tours, saw Wales with six players start the first Test, which would definitely had been seven had Gerald Davies ignored his conscience and toured.  1977, another trip to New Zealand, another eight Welshman starting both of the first two tests

Moving into the next decade. 1983, another hiding against The Blackness, saw Wales and Ireland dominate the Test team, with six Welsh and five Irish pulling on the red jersey for the first Test. This then shifted to six Irish for the other three Tests. Ireland were the top B&I team in that year’s Five Nations.

1989, and victory in Australia saw that Ian McGeechan, a man who attacked Gatland for dropping Brian O’ Driscoll in 2013, wasn’t too keen on the Irish back then. The first Test, included five Welsh, five Scots, one Irishman and four English. The second outing had eight English, four Scots, three Welsh and no Irish in the fifteen. The third Test was the same starting lineup and there wasn’t even an Irishman on the bench – not a single emerald islander anywhere in the match 21!

Funny that no-one mentions this or accuses Geech of destroying the Lions ethos while they wax in orgasmic tones of that glorious tour victory.

The 90s began with NZ in 1993, where eight English started the first Test and 11 (ELEVEN!) started the second and third run-outs. Good job there was no Twitter around then as the internet might have imploded and sucked the world into an irrational, whingeing black hole. 1997 in South Africe was admittedly a very good mix of nations, but still with a bias towards England.

2001 saw eight English starting each Test, and in the second Test, if you count the bench, there were 13 England players in the match squad. 2005 is too painful and Woodward took the two-thirds of the population of the country on tour, anyway. 2009, the epic battle in the Republic, saw a decent mix of players, most of whom got injured.

So there you go. Many tours have had lop-sided selections, including the legendary 1989 outing, and somehow the Lions have survived. Scotland’s disappointment is understandable – but let’s have some perspective.

Watch every game of the Lions Tour of NZ streaming live on rugbypass.com, home of the best online rugby coverage including news, highlights, previews & reviews, live scores, and more!