Warren Gatland and Wales' future.

First topic message reminder :

Warren Gatland was appointed coach of Wales on 1 December 2007. His most successful tenure as a coach was with Wasps. When he joined London Wasps in 2002 in a coaching position before taking over as Director of Rugby, He took the team from the bottom of the English championship to safety in his first few months. After this success he went on to lead Wasps to three consecutive Zurich (Aviva) Premiership titles (2003, 2004 and 2005) and the Heineken Cup in 2004.

His tenure as the Head coach of Ireland was a tough one, taking over an Irish team who had struggled to win more often than not during the preceding Six Nations. His most famous victory came against France on 19 March 2000 in Paris for the first time since 1972, but a disappointing RWC exit for Ireland was the major reason for his sacking in 2000.

When you look at the current Welsh team made up of mostly youngsters who debuted during his tenure it is clear that he knows how to build a squad. The reality is amongst most Welsh fans I have come across is that this is by far the best squad and best opportunity to progress they have had for years.

When you look at the successes of Gatland over the last two years against NH opposition and a win rate of 71% then it becomes clear that Wales have been the most successful team in the NH environment.

However, looking at those figures, although Wales have bit some daylight behind them there are 5 teams on par or ahead of them in the race to the number one ranking.

In the last two years Wales has won 2/4 against England, 1/3 against France, 0/1 against SA and 0/5 against Australia.

So we can safely assume that they are at least on par with England if not slightly ahead, France although beatable are slightly ahead, considering the number of close losses against SA and OZ, perhaps not there yet.

So something needs to change. There is a saying that says doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is not wise. But the question is what have they been doing repeatedly getting the same outcome?

Or better question, what has changed that has not allowed them to get a win over OZ or SA.

Luck?

You could possibly say they were unlucky to lose against SA in the RWC, you could argue that the penalty they got against them vs Australia at the rolling maul was unlucky.

But then it is also said, you make your own luck.

Priestland?

It is true that his RWC form has gone and even during the Six nations he didn’t seem to have the same control as he did then. The Australian series have shown his deficiencies more in the sense that he didn’t always control territory or wasn’t creating opportunities for a very good Welsh backline.
But then it could also be argued that Priestland is just tired, it has been a long season, he has had little rest and form does fluctuate.

Gatland?

Ok, let me first of all say, I am aware that he wasn’t the coach during the tour of Australia due to his injuries, however he was present and sure as there will be a sunrise tomorrow, he wasn’t twiddling his thumbs during team meetings.

That brings me to playing devil’s advocate.

There are many international coaches around the world who are class but questionably have the ability to sustain an innovative methodology for a long run with the same team.

In fact the only I can think of is Graham Henry. His forward thinking and the innovations of the All Blacks over his 8 years of coaching have shown that they were always one step ahead of any other coach and team. But then you could also argue that the talent at his disposal was second to none. It does however not detract from the methodology of their game plan.

So do you think Gatland can take this talented welsh team to the next level?

His success rate during his 5 years with wales has been 60 test matches, 31 wins, 28 losses and 1 draw and even though the last two years with the addition of some young seriously talented players have been more successful, Wales are still in search for that elusive win over one of the three top SH nations. I have no doubt that the win will eventually come. But to make the next leap forward, Wales need to do what England did in 2000, dominate the SH.

I know this is controversial, but think about it, is it not time to consider the question?

Bill that just emphasises my point all the more.

Tightheads are a rarified commodity, the hole left when they are absent and your scrum disintagrates is immeasurable. Look at the effect of Ross leaving injured in the Six Nations, it was almost ridiculous.

Yeah, it is strange though that tight heads are so rare, you would think a country would be able to call on a few at least to be good enough.

Owain, Warburton should never have been selected over Tipuric for that first Test. It sends out all the wrong messages when a player who's barely played keeps his place over another who's been playing superbly and is fully fit. It would have been the wrong call whoever we'd been playing. but against the Wallabies and Pocock, it was even worse. The Ken Owens call for the second Test as mentioned earlier was a shocker, too.

LP that's a bit far fetched, yes you are technically correct, but the selection of Warbs over tipuric was hardly unusual.

I don't think Warburton is so important to us that we have to play him at all costs. If he was Richie McCaw, of course you'd do everything to have him in the side, but Warburton's not at that level. I think some of Wales's recent success has been put down to Warburton (as player and captain) and I don't think it's justified.

I would say an inform warburton is one of the best in the business, but Wales could have benefitted from their talented number two. Tipuric is a hell of a back up. We are very lucky.

An in-form Warburton, yes - but he'd been injured and hadn't played much rugby. I thought it was a poor call and I'm worried that it indicates that Howley's a conservative when it comes to selection.

An in form and fully fit Warburton would be the second name on my teamsheet (Lydiate being first) and I think he is a great skipper.

But he wasn't fit or on form and shouldn't have started just because he was skipper, Tipuric IMO would have benefitted far more from starting at least one of those games as opposed to being used as a sub.

If also as was mentionedearlier there was indeed other T/Heads in contention for the tour the why the hell didn't we take them and see how they go rather than using a converted L/Head.

The tour result was perfect for Howley - pushed the Tri Nations Champions all the way on thier patch - he played it safe picking on reputation rather than form. Whilst I hoped we would win the series I can understand Howley's decisions from a future job point of view - pick players on form at region level and run the risk they don't step up and get stuffed by the Aussies or pick players who he knows can compete at that level and keep it close. This was the same pre World Cup - Gatland kept picking the 'regulars' before his hand was forced and the young players were brought in - Robinson up in Scotland was doing the same until he saw the light and gave talent a chance - and so too is Howley playing it safe

Conservatism is everywhere in all professional sport.

I know you aren't comparing Howley to SCW's lions selection but even still at the opposite extremity you wouldn't expect him to pick Mathew Morgan as flyhalf.

There are often as many reasons to select one guy as there are to not select another.

No one knows why the lads picked were picked, some were off form and we will never know if others would have done better.

Bring on the AIs and let's hope all form improves and lessons have been learnt.

i really dont want gats to coach the lions . it be like lending churchhill to Germany . come the following six nations the lions players will know about the Welsh tactics . mainly give the ball back to the opposition all the time

Maybe not Morgan Maes but when you consider that the form 10 in Wales, Biggar didn't even make the tour you have to raise questions marks.

Especially after they expected him to go out and play against The Baa Baas knowing he had nothing to play for becuase certain players were already told they not going to Oz.

Warburton was and is the incumbent 7, and was doing well before injury. Therefore I believe he should've been picked...However, it must've been quite a long deliberation over the starting 7...

This group have entrusted the incumbents until poor performances or costly mistakes...We should always expect that from them...

So Owain, in a scenario where player A is doing a steady job for the national side and player B, an uncapped player, suddenly finds the form of his life in the Rabo, you'd argue that Player A keeps his place until he does something wrong, regardless of player B's form?

To a certain degree, but I'd argue that Warburton was doing much better than a steady job

Well actually he hadn't done much of his job for a while, he'd been on statutory sick pay.

But I can't agree with this:

This group have entrusted the incumbents until poor performances or costly mistakes...

That means that you can't play your way into the team, you have to wait until your rival plays himself out of it.

The way I see it is f you have a player pushing the incumbent for his position, put him on the bench and give him 20 minutes in his first match, then 25, 30, 35 etc.

Eventually after half a dozen games or so he will have stated his case.

100% in agreement

biltongbek wrote:Eventually after half a dozen games or so he will have stated his case.

But what if this 'new' player is outplaying the incumbent domestically? That's half-a-dozen games where you're not fielding your strongest possible side. I say if he's good enough, stick him in from the start.

He may be "outplaying the incumbent in domestic rugby, international exposure is a total different animal, and should be assessed with a little exposure at a time and to gain experience.

I don't think there's a hard and fast rule for this kind of thing, Biltong. All I know is that I wouldn't want to see a talented player sitting on the bench just because his rival in that position got capped before him. That doesn't strike me as a sensible way of deciding who to select.

Sure there is no hard and fast rule, but if I was a national coach, that's how I would do it.

fa0019 wrote:Did Graham henry really over achieve with Wales?...
His tenure at the Lions was also pretty poor. Far worse than SCW in 05 IMO as unlike SCW he had genuine world class talent on his door... it was probably the most talented side the Lions have had in 40 years.

Geez Fa

British Isles v Australia 29-13, then subsequent losses 14-35 and a tie breaker that could have seen the lions win the SERIES in the last 10 minutes of the tour.

Compared to:
British Isles v Argentina 25-25
British Isles v New Zealand 3-21, 18-48, 19-38

A draw and 3 thrashings where the Lions had no show in any of the 3 is in your opinion...

"His (Henry's) tenure at the Lions was also pretty poor. Far worse than SCW in 05 IMO "

How on earth did you ever get to that opinion?

And from memory the 2005 lions were also touted as the best ever to leave the UK shores and following Englands win in 03' so is it because of the result that suddenly theyre not good players anymore?

bedfordwelsh wrote:Maybe not Morgan Maes but when you consider that the form 10 in Wales, Biggar didn't even make the tour you have to raise questions marks.

Especially after they expected him to go out and play against The Baa Baas knowing he had nothing to play for becuase certain players were already told they not going to Oz.

Yes but Biggar is just as flakey as Rhys Priestland. Especially in the pressure games.

They are young lads it is great to have them vying for the shirt. Tovey too..!

Double post

fa0019 wrote:Did Graham henry really over achieve with Wales?...
His tenure at the Lions was also pretty poor. Far worse than SCW in 05 IMO as unlike SCW he had genuine world class talent on his door... it was probably the most talented side the Lions have had in 40 years.

What a load of rubbish.

05 lions test team were thrashed 3-0 never looking remotely prepared or ready.

01 Lions almost won the series playing great rugby against a fantastic Wallaby team.

For Wales, under Graham Henry we beat South Africa

The best lions side we have had in forty years were any of 71,74 or 97

The 2005 Lions never once had a training session under floodlights, even though they knew the Tests would be evening kickoffs. That tells you how well-prepared they were.

Is that right? Well SCW should return his gong!

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I don't think there's a hard and fast rule for this kind of thing, Biltong. All I know is that I wouldn't want to see a talented player sitting on the bench just because his rival in that position got capped before him. That doesn't strike me as a sensible way of deciding who to select.

LP

A more prominent version would be Beck not selected ahead of Scott Williams.

Beck was fantastic all season but previously injured until the first test, Williams selected ahead...!

Maes, that kind of call suggests that Howley's conservative at heart and that, given a selection problem, he'll opt for the tried and tested over the talented but unproven. It's not easy to choose between experience and promise, but the most important criterion for me would be who was in the best form.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Maes, that kind of call suggests that Howley's conservative at heart and that, given a selection problem, he'll opt for the tried and tested over the talented but unproven. It's not easy to choose between experience and promise, but the most important criterion for me would be who was in the best form.

There has to be more to an equation than form...!

Form gave us Andy Powell

And Andy Powell was superb on debut for Wales against South Africa. I don't see what point you're trying to make.