Gatlands Errors so far this Tour?

First topic message reminder :

So far so good for the Lions although definate room for improvement and injury concerns. I think Gatland has been shown to have made some errors so far though.

Firstly I think it was a mistake not to bring 3rd number 10. Hogg just doesnt provide real cover there for a Test match environment. He should never be starting 10 for the first time in years on a Lions Tour given his experince and age. If it came down to having to start him at 10 for Test matches then the Lions are done for.

Secondly, the captaincy. Gatland has been loyal to Warburton. Maybe he felt he had to select him with the Welsh connection. Maybe the condition of BOD and POC made Gatland nervous about picking either as captain. But POC and BOD have looked good so far and very strong candidates to start. On the other hand, the backrow was immense for competition even before the tour - ask the English boys left out altogether - but seems like O'Brien and Heaslip have also returned to form that went missing in the 6 Nations. Tipuric also looks good. Gatland has backed himself into corner now. Surely he cant drop and undermine his captain? But has Warburton done enough to justify being a starter? Is it right the whole backrow balance should be to accommodate Warburton?

Any other errors Gatland has made?

I don't think he has made any huge mistakes but he has made some surprising choices.

To mention just a few...

Taking Fatt Stevens & Hartley on tour instead of Rory Best was surprising.

Taking an unfit & recovering from injury Jenkins instead of an inform Sheridan or Grant was surprising.

Taking an unfit & recovering from injury Lydiate instead of an inform Robshaw, Wood or Ferris was surprising.

Choosing his injured Captain as Captain over the vastly more experianced BOD & POC was surprising.

I could go on. But as others have pointed out they will only be viewed as errors if we lose the series.

winchester wrote:So far so good for the Lions although definate room for improvement and injury concerns. I think Gatland has been shown to have made some errors so far though.

Firstly I think it was a mistake not to bring 3rd number 10.

Secondly, the captaincy.

Any other errors Gatland has made?

Technically both these decisions were made before the tour started so they aren't mistakes by Gatland since they've been on tour. There is a much longer list than 2 if the pre-tour mistakes are included, anyway there have been plenty since the tour has started without going over the old ground again:

1. The Baabaas game was the ideal platform to practise forward play, particularly the driving maul - that opportunity was wasted.
2. Mixing up his hooker/lock combinations in every match means there is no continuity and a new group is trying to learn lineout skills from scratch again and again and again... he just doesn't have that luxury with so few games.
3. Aside from the Reds game Gatland has had ample opportunity to NOT build cricket scores but rather practice team skills in match situations. He has wasted these opportunities.
4. Warburton hasn't been to the fore in front of the cameras. He may have been injured but Gatland should have had Sam's face in the papers making statements and being the Leader that he was appointed to be.
5. Keeping Kearney on tour with no practice time or match fitness and therefore no realistic chance of a Test place smacks of desperation and lack of faith in his other fullbacks. He should have gone home by now as it just looks indecisive.
6. See 4 but substitute Bowe who if he plays is asking to be targeted.
7. Gatland's reasoning for only selecting two outhalves was that he wanted the 10's to have a straight shootout for a Test start and to familiarise them as much as possible with the team. Then he plays a game where neither are involved??? Hogg should not be anywhere near the 10 shirt as he simply has no experience of Test rugby there - has Gatland been admiring Mallett's chapter on Bergamasco?

The Great Aukster wrote:1. The Baabaas game was the ideal platform to practise forward play, particularly the driving maul - that opportunity was wasted.
2. Mixing up his hooker/lock combinations in every match means there is no continuity and a new group is trying to learn lineout skills from scratch again and again and again... he just doesn't have that luxury with so few games.
3. Aside from the Reds game Gatland has had ample opportunity to NOT build cricket scores but rather practice team skills in match situations. He has wasted these opportunities.
4. Warburton hasn't been to the fore in front of the cameras. He may have been injured but Gatland should have had Sam's face in the papers making statements and being the Leader that he was appointed to be.
5. Keeping Kearney on tour with no practice time or match fitness and therefore no realistic chance of a Test place smacks of desperation and lack of faith in his other fullbacks. He should have gone home by now as it just looks indecisive.
6. See 4 but substitute Bowe who if he plays is asking to be targeted.
7. Gatland's reasoning for only selecting two outhalves was that he wanted the 10's to have a straight shootout for a Test start and to familiarise them as much as possible with the team. Then he plays a game where neither are involved??? Hogg should not be anywhere near the 10 shirt as he simply has no experience of Test rugby there - has Gatland been admiring Mallett's chapter on Bergamasco?

I don't really disagree, but you can make a case against some of these criticisms.

At the business end of the tour, there's not a lot of opportunity to bring in players from outside and get them up to speed. However, the attrition rate is likely to be high. If you've got experienced players, who already know the squad systems, then it's well worth keeping them around if they have a chance to recover because they could end up as ready-made cover. Kearney was a 2009 tourist so he knows the ropes. Bowe is one of the best players in the squad. If he's available later, Gatland will probably call on him.

There's a limit to how much you want to show your hand in the warm-up matches. If you are treating one of the games as a training run, what exactly are you going to practice? Why waste moves you want to run in matches that count? It's more likely that the real effort is taking place on the training pitch. In 2001, training was a disaster. Not much has been said so far about this year, but no news might be good news.

Warburton is doing a lot of PR. For instance, he was part of the Lions visit to Bob Seddon's grave. This got good coverage in the British and Irish press but only really got a mention in the local Newcastle paper in Australia. If he started talking a lot about games in which he didn't feature, he'd come across a bit like John Terry.

maestegmafia wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:And today is not something you can decide whether Hogg could play 10 against the Wallabies or even a Super 15 on. Cipriani could have looked class at 10 today such was the menace of the opposition

Well you can say that for nearly all the games so far on this Lions tour.............. so we cannae assess any of the players apart from one game so far!!!!

You can easily assess Hoggs contribution in the fly half channel based on everyone elses' game, and IMHO he did enough not to worry in a few weeks time if he is covering the test FB/FH roles off the bench.

Gatland stated that he thought Hogg had enough skills to operate in a FH channel, I thought Hogg should have been left to fight for the 15 jersey and Biggar should have travelled

Aye and on that basis Warburton who played a full 80 minutes against the toughest opposition, had a try disallowed by the TMO, turned over plenty of ball and won plenty of penalties wasn't as good as rival players against lesser opposition...? Where as Farrell who kicked the ball to the Reds best back three player, the electric Moynahan, who scored, dropped the ball over the line and was as generally inept as in the first game vs the Baabaa's is rated higher because of the experience?

I struggle to value peoples opinions when they seem so confused.

Hogg, thankfully, had a great game today. The lack of quality opposition taken for granted he still made fewer mistakes, showed better vision and aided the fluidity of the backline in as adept a fashion as Sexton does.

An Australian mate of mine I was chatting to had a candid point about the flyhalves. He said watching the Reds game vs todays against the CCXV was that the other 14 players looked as though they lacked faith in Farrell on the weekend, where as they looked confident and excited to be playing around Hogg today.

I think he is right.

Maes, what on earth are you talking about in this section? You're rants against Farrell are getting ludicrous now, especially that lovely point at the end from your mate about them looking more comfortable around Hogg, there is nothing that backs this up at all.

Comparing Warbs and Farrell as you have done just shows how biased against the latter you are, Warbs gets a try disallowed but its brilliant play by him, Farrell gets the ball slapped out of his hand over the line yet he's rubbish?

Farrell puts up a reasonable high ball (not great but certainly not that bad) and the Reds player breaks through Cuthberts attempt at a tackle and then through Warburton as well yet again, Farrell is at fault.

"Generally inept as the first game" is frankly a baffling statement to make (he was pretty poor in Hong Kong true) but against the toughest team the lions have face he scored 17 out of the sides 22 points, 6/6 kicks, made 4 clean breaks (more than any player did that day) and beat 1 defender. However the much better hogg, against the weakest side we've seen so far, only managed 1 line break and also beat 1 defender, he also only managed 3 tackles to Farrells 10 (possession obviously plays a role in this too).

I'm also not sure about Warburton or Lydiates roles so far, they have been lacklustre imo, yes Lydiate made 13 tackles (he also conceded 3 penalties) but that alone isn't enough to make him a starter imo, SOB and Croft all make plenty of tackles themselves and offer far more around the pitch. Not sure where all these turnovers Warburton made are either? I don't recall seeing him make any, he tried once and got pinged for it and that was about it, he is a good player when fit and on form, but he is barely either of those things and i do think it may have been a mistake to name him captain (he has also struggled with that role recently as well, which makes the decision even more bizarre). I agree with whoever said that we should wait and name the test captain on the same day we name the first test side, before that we should just have a few tour captains/Lieutenants in senior roles.

belovedfrosties wrote:

I'm also not sure about Warburton or Lydiates roles so far, they have been lacklustre imo, yes Lydiate made 13 tackles (he also conceded 3 penalties) but that alone isn't enough to make him a starter imo, SOB and Croft all make plenty of tackles themselves and offer far more around the pitch. Not sure where all these turnovers Warburton made are either? I don't recall seeing him make any, he tried once and got pinged for it and that was about it, he is a good player when fit and on form, but he is barely either of those things and i do think it may have been a mistake to name him captain (he has also struggled with that role recently as well, which makes the decision even more bizarre). I agree with whoever said that we should wait and name the test captain on the same day we name the first test side, before that we should just have a few tour captains/Lieutenants in senior roles.

belovedfrosties

As Maestegs opinion of Farrell is pretty obvious, then your view of Warbs and particularly Lydiate are pretty transparent as well. I am assuming your stats are taken from ESPN: therefore you are conveniently correct on Lydiate's pens 3 but not on the tackles which are not 13 but are 15 which is a 1/3 more than anyone next to him and nearly a 1/3 more than Gray. To state that performance against the only quality side the Lions have faced is lacklustre is........... well it beggars belief really

Pos T/A Pts K/P/R MR CB DB OL TO Tack LO Pen Y/R
FB Hogg 0/0 0 7/6/7 49 0 2 1 3 5/2 0/0 0 0/0
W Cuthbert 0/0 0 0/3/9 94 1 1 0 2 4/2 0/0 0 0/0
C Tuilagi 0/0 0 0/3/1 0 0 0 1 0 1/0 0/0 0 0/0
C Davies 0/0 0 1/4/12 32 0 1 1 2 8/1 0/0 1 0/0
W Bowe 0/0 0 1/3/6 72 1 5 1 0 2/0 0/0 1 0/0
FH Farrell 0/0 17 7/12/7 50 4 1 0 4 10/4 0/0 0 0/0
SH BR Youngs 1/0 5 13/53/8 70 2 3 1 2 4/3 0/0 1 0/0
P Vunipola 0/0 0 0/1/9 7 0 0 0 1 9/0 0/0 0 0/0
H TN Youngs 0/0 0 0/2/8 14 0 0 0 2 8/1 0/0 0 0/0
P Stevens 0/0 0 0/4/6 1 0 0 0 1 5/0 0/0 0 0/0
L Gray 0/0 0 0/2/4 4 0 0 0 0 11/0 2/0 3 0/0
L Parling 0/0 0 0/1/3 2 0 0 0 1 9/1 3/4 0 0/0
F Lydiate 0/0 0 0/3/6 1 0 0 0 1 15/1 1/0 3 0/0
F Warburton 0/0 0 1/4/5 33 1 1 0 0 10/1 0/0 1 0/0
N8 Faletau 0/0 0 0/4/10 20 0 2 0 3 10/1 0/0 0 0/0

I think the Lions were 2nd best at the breakdown against the Reds & although Lydiate put in a lot of tackles. The performance of both he & Warburton wasn't that great & in an area of strength we need more than that.

http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/15562/8764115/Lions-ratings

FYI Sky had 13 tackles to for Lydiate. It is symptomatic of 2 players not quite up to speed & match fitness but there is no time left to make allowances based on performances a while back if they don't deliver before the first test.

Hey guys

Don't single me out as though I am the only bloke who thinks Farrell is not good enough to be on tour. There are plenty of other posters who completely agree.

I would love to see him prove me wrong, but his performances have been, not so much awful but uninspiring, un challenging and un convincing so far.

Are there better 10's who should have been chosen before him?

I didn't see anyone other than Sexton.

To me the two 10's who deserved to be on tour are on tour.

Whether the Lions should have taken 3 10's or a utility player is another argument altogether

winchester wrote:It would be remarkeably brave of Gatland to drop Warburton for the Test. Despite the cliche of all jerseys being up for grabs, the captain starts off on the teamsheet and really has to play himself out. On top of that you have Gatlands own relationship with Warburton which could suffer back with Wales. And by dropping his initial captain he would be admitting he got the pick wrong... despite everything Warburton is pretty much certain to start and the Test backrow will be selected according to who plays best alongside him with form or performances being of secondary concern.

I don't think Gatland would hesitate to leave Warburton out of the Test XV if he thought selecting Tipuric would be more likely to bring the Lions victory. He knows the pain of being on a losing Lions tour and he'll be more determined than anyone to get a series win this time round. He won't compromise that just to spare the feelings of Warburton, who I don't think is the kind of player to spit the dummy in any case.

I'm pretty sure that Gatland's already said that his tour captain won't necessarily be the Test captain, so there's no issue really.

The Great Aukster wrote:7. Gatland's reasoning for only selecting two outhalves was that he wanted the 10's to have a straight shootout for a Test start and to familiarise them as much as possible with the team. Then he plays a game where neither are involved??? Hogg should not be anywhere near the 10 shirt as he simply has no experience of Test rugby there - has Gatland been admiring Mallett's chapter on Bergamasco?

They were both injured though. Would you rather he had played one, or both, of them in this meaningless game and risked them getting injured, therefore having to rely on Hogg in the test match?

And maesteg, the reason you get singled out is that most people who think Farrell is lucky to be on tour are at least able to acknowledge that he has some redeeming qualities as a fly half. You seem to be convinced that he can't do anything at all to the required standard. It really does seem personal when you attack him as you blame him for things that are nowhere near his fault (the first Reds' try on Saturday for example - poor chase by Cuthbert, missed tackle by Cuthbert, Youngs and especially Warburton, no cover defence but for you it was all Farrell's fault). Give the guy a chance, accept it when he plays well and stop trying to convince yourself, and everyone else, that we would be better off if Charlie Hodgson was there.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:I think the Lions were 2nd best at the breakdown against the Reds & although Lydiate put in a lot of tackles. The performance of both he & Warburton wasn't that great & in an area of strength we need more than that.

http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/15562/8764115/Lions-ratings

FYI Sky had 13 tackles to for Lydiate. It is symptomatic of 2 players not quite up to speed & match fitness but there is no time left to make allowances based on performances a while back if they don't deliver before the first test.

BigTrev mate

You cannae cherry pick a ratings off a particular site to prove a players performance, if you went onto a few more you would see Lydiate with an 8.

Its not symptomatic for a BLINDSIDE to make the most tackles that's what the position entails, also against the Reds the Lions faced for the only time a quality side so far. Gatland likes the Lydiate/Warbs combo because of Dans low trajectory tackles and Warbs turnovers as a results...... its a classic movement very much like Pocock or McCaw operates

jelly wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:7. Gatland's reasoning for only selecting two outhalves was that he wanted the 10's to have a straight shootout for a Test start and to familiarise them as much as possible with the team. Then he plays a game where neither are involved??? Hogg should not be anywhere near the 10 shirt as he simply has no experience of Test rugby there - has Gatland been admiring Mallett's chapter on Bergamasco?

They were both injured though. Would you rather he had played one, or both, of them in this meaningless game and risked them getting injured, therefore having to rely on Hogg in the test match?

And maesteg, the reason you get singled out is that most people who think Farrell is lucky to be on tour are at least able to acknowledge that he has some redeeming qualities as a fly half. You seem to be convinced that he can't do anything at all to the required standard. It really does seem personal when you attack him as you blame him for things that are nowhere near his fault (the first Reds' try on Saturday for example - poor chase by Cuthbert, missed tackle by Cuthbert, Youngs and especially Warburton, no cover defence but for you it was all Farrell's fault). Give the guy a chance, accept it when he plays well and stop trying to convince yourself, and everyone else, that we would be better off if Charlie Hodgson was there.

I acknowledged plenty, good breaks, beat a few men, but he is not a flyhalf. He is still learning far too much about the position to be in this squad. In many ways we would be better sending him home.i do not need to convince myself of anything I am very sure of my opinion.

I am still waiting to read anyone state anything convincing to favour Farrels inclusion. Part of his game that makes him special, unique, a worthwhile selection...?

All I hear in repost to my musings is that Farrell is not culpable...!

For example, it is plain as day that he is definitely the sole reason we conceded a try last weekend to Moynihan. But it is his fault that he kicked perfectly good second or third phase ball away aimlessly rather than opting to re-cycle.

This is the kind of mistake poor flyhalfs make. You will notice yesterday, Hogg a far less experienced flyhalf kicked towards spaces or played others around him into the game. That shows good rugby common sense no matter who the team around you or opposition are.

If you kick to a back three with the counter attacking ability as good as the Reds have, without extreme caution, you will concede tries.. As we did.

In Wales we all regularly criticise the aimless kicking displays by Hook, Priestland and Steve Jones, Farrell is making the same stupid mistakes and is point for criticism too.

maestegmafia wrote:For example, it is plain as day that he is definitely the sole reason we conceded a try last weekend to Moynihan.

I rest my case

It's true though, Jelly. His kick was so bad that the rest of the Lions fainted and couldn't put any tackles in.

Apparently the riots in Istanbul are a direct result of Farrell's performance agains the Barabarians. The crowd are chanting "Farrell's not a fly half - pick Hogg instead" without any hint of irony.

So far I think its impossible to say whether errors have been made.

I think it could turn out to be a masterstroke to only bring the 2 flyhalves.

Captaincy is still up in the air. Lions have had 3 different captains in 4 games. Promotes leadership throughout the squad. He has already said he is open to idea of Tour Captain and Test Captain being different people.

Until the end of the tour its much too hard to say whether these are errors or not.

maestegmafia wrote:... In many ways we would be better sending him home....

It's comments like that which get you singled out Maes. In the history of touring, players have only been sent home when they are injured, suspended, or have committed some breach of protocol.

Somehow, you've convinced yourself it's appropriate to establish a precedent and start sending players home if the coach decides he's made a mistake, or if a player isn't up to snuff.

I think you ought to take a look at your attitude towards an individual player when it makes you want to overturn the spirit of team sport just so you can put him in his place.

Gatland seems perfectly happy with Farrell. Unless of course praising his performances is a weird mind game so outrageous that even he doesn't quite know how it will pan out.

Selecting Warburton as captain was a risk.

He's very injury prone, position was under serious pressure in National team and he'd never been on a Lions tour. Plus refusing the captaincy before the England game definitely raised some eyebrows.

I'm sure he's a decent leader and seems well respected by those around him but on form he doesn't deserve a starting berth. You could even argue he was lucky to make the tour based purely on form because surely no-one could claim he's had a strong season.

And frankly, I don't think he's anywhere near as good as the media think he is, the comparison stats of open-sides for 2012 don't make for good reading.

He was poor against the Reds, don't care if he hasn't played in months, he's the Lions Captain and should be setting an example. Anyone claiming otherwise is kidding themselves.

If he doesn't have a stormer on Saturday, and I mean 8+/10, then Gatland has to show some balls and pick on form.

Don't get the relentless criticism of Farrell, had a bit of a wobble against Baabaas but was no where near as bad as some made out and had a solid game against the Reds.

Taking unfit players like Gethin & Kearney. Guys like Vunipola, Halfpenny and Hogg have had to play much more game then planned.... it all adds up eventually.
Vunipola probably clocked up near 200 mins of first class rugby in 8 days.

Not taking a 3rd flyhalf whereas he took 3 rightwingers.

Mistakes are always made. McGeechan is a legend but his list of mistakes are as big as his correct decisions.

89 - 1st test played Mike Hall, Craig Chalmers, Bob Norster, Derek White. Result - disaster.

93 - 1st test played Paul Burnell, Andy Reed, Will Carling, Kenny Milne. Result - not quite a disaster but a missed opportunity.

97 - Choices such as Smith, Wallace paid off, yet the 2nd test was one of the most surreal match in rugby history and in hindsight we were lucky to have won the match... we were never going to win the 3rd either. Result - caught them cold.

09 - 1st test played Lee Mears, AW Jones, Ugo Monye. Result - disaster... at least until SA took their foot of the gas in the 2nd half.

So in 3 of the 4 series McGeechan ran he made massive selection errors and in 2 of those 3 it was key to the Lions defeat. Also shows how difficult it is to choose the right players.

Hindsight is a great thing but most of those above choices were dire even at the time. Hopefully though Gatland will make less mistakes then he makes correction decisions and has a bit of luck like we had in 89 and 97.

Gatlands biggest mistake for me so far was picking Warburton as captain:

He's put himself in an odd position, do you start your 'tour captain' in the test team if he genuinely isnt worth his starting place on playing form alone? I personally feel he should have selected a'leadship group' - its always talked about within the welsh squad, how theres a core of leaders, not just the cpatain - I have no doubt this is diferent to any other test squad either - so I think that would have been the smart option. None of the captaincy candidates were really fit and firing going into the tour so it was always a gamble on which of POC/BOD/Warburton would instantly find form and hope Gatland had picked the right one. He went with what he knows, which isn't surprising given the situation, doesnt make it the right call though.. (but I must say, since Warburton has taken over as Welsh captain, there does seem to have been a shift in mindset and motivation and this has led to unprecedented success for us in the professional era).

To me, announcing a leadership group of 5/6 players and choosing your test captain before the test with the squad would have made more sense....

..just for arguments sake I would select a group from the following BOD/POC/Warburton/Adam Jones/Heaslip/AWJ/Phillips (I just dont see where the leadership from any english/scottish players on tour would come from - Brown/Wood/Hartley would have been in that list too but the first 2 werent selected and Hartley saw red.....)

Pretty sure Australia only confirmed their captain yesterday.

Stag - he's been captain though for the last two years outside of being injured. He's been the natural leader of that side for a while now.

Think the problem with naming a leadership group is that if any of them then miss out on selection it looks like a snub. Your list of 7 could all possibly be in the first test team. If Youngs is sneaking ahead of Phillips and that would then mean Phillips is the only one of the leadership group not selected it looks even worse. You would almost need to pick a couple of players who were unlikely to play in the test but you were happy to have there as they provide good leadership qualities for the midweek team and then you get towards a 2005 situation with 2 teams developing which goes agains the ethos of the Lions.

fa0019 wrote:Stag - he's been captain though for the last two years outside of being injured. He's been the natural leader of that side for a while now.

Ah yea I know that but officially its only confirmed now.

I agree with what you are sort of saying anyhow... regardless of being captain or not... Warburton would have been a senior player with O'Connell, O'Driscoll and Jenkins and would have been in their committee for sure.

Comfort wrote:To me, announcing a leadership group of 5/6 players and choosing your test captain before the test with the squad would have made more sense

Agree with that. You would be pretty much guaranteed to have 2/3 of them starting each warm-up game then you see where you are with form, injury and combinations.
It's such a straightforward solution so nobody would ever do it though 

Jelly, I agree with what your saying, but is it worse to shoehorn your captain in to the test side at the expense of someone playing more effectively(or for your captain to not be involved in the tests) or not starting 1 of several senior players.

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:

Comfort wrote:To me, announcing a leadership group of 5/6 players and choosing your test captain before the test with the squad would have made more sense

Agree with that. You would be pretty much guaranteed to have 2/3 of them starting each warm-up game then you see where you are with form, injury and combinations.
It's such a straightforward solution so nobody would ever do it though 

I try

POC would be in pole-position for me if I had things my way.

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:... In many ways we would be better sending him home....

It's comments like that which get you singled out Maes. In the history of touring, players have only been sent home when they are injured, suspended, or have committed some breach of protocol.

Somehow, you've convinced yourself it's appropriate to establish a precedent and start sending players home if the coach decides he's made a mistake, or if a player isn't up to snuff.

I think you ought to take a look at your attitude towards an individual player when it makes you want to overturn the spirit of team sport just so you can put him in his place.

He's a player that many fans didnt think should be included and one who has done nothing to challenge for a place. Everyone agrees Sexton is first choice by a country mile.

Why shouldn't players be sent home if they aren't up to it. The only thing stopping that are coaches admitting they made a bad call on that player.


Lets just hope Farrell shows he has something to give. It is unlikely he will be usurped by a more competant players unfortunately..

He has shown nothing yet to earn praise or be considered a likely starter.

Farrell is there on merit IMO - He suffered a loss of form in a few games but he has showed he has the ability for the big time. For some reason he's easy to dislike for many, but that's largely an interpersonal thing and nothing to do with his ability.

flyhalffactory wrote:

belovedfrosties wrote:

I'm also not sure about Warburton or Lydiates roles so far, they have been lacklustre imo, yes Lydiate made 13 tackles (he also conceded 3 penalties) but that alone isn't enough to make him a starter imo, SOB and Croft all make plenty of tackles themselves and offer far more around the pitch.  Not sure where all these turnovers Warburton made are either?  I don't recall seeing him make any, he tried once and got pinged for it and that was about it, he is a good player when fit and on form, but he is barely either of those things and i do think it may have been a mistake to name him captain (he has also struggled with that role recently as well, which makes the decision even more bizarre).  I agree with whoever said that we should wait and name the test captain on the same day we name the first test side, before that we should just have a few tour captains/Lieutenants in senior roles.

belovedfrosties

As Maestegs opinion of Farrell is pretty obvious, then your view of Warbs and particularly Lydiate are pretty transparent as well. I am assuming your stats are taken from ESPN: therefore you are conveniently correct on Lydiate's pens 3 but not on the tackles which are not 13 but are 15 which is a 1/3 more than anyone next to him and nearly a 1/3 more than Gray. To state that performance against the only quality side the Lions have faced is lacklustre is........... well it beggars belief really

Pos   T/A Pts K/P/R MR CB DB OL TO  Tack LO Pen Y/R
FB Hogg 0/0 0 7/6/7 49 0 2 1 3  5/2 0/0 0 0/0
W Cuthbert 0/0 0 0/3/9 94 1 1 0 2  4/2 0/0 0 0/0
C Tuilagi 0/0 0 0/3/1 0 0 0 1 0  1/0 0/0 0 0/0
C Davies 0/0 0 1/4/12 32 0 1 1 2  8/1 0/0 1 0/0
W Bowe 0/0 0 1/3/6 72 1 5 1 0  2/0 0/0 1 0/0
FH Farrell 0/0 17 7/12/7 50 4 1 0 4  10/4 0/0 0 0/0
SH BR Youngs 1/0 5 13/53/8 70 2 3 1 2  4/3 0/0 1 0/0
P Vunipola 0/0 0 0/1/9 7 0 0 0 1  9/0 0/0 0 0/0
H TN Youngs 0/0 0 0/2/8 14 0 0 0 2  8/1 0/0 0 0/0
P Stevens 0/0 0 0/4/6 1 0 0 0 1  5/0 0/0 0 0/0
L Gray 0/0 0 0/2/4 4 0 0 0 0  11/0 2/0 3 0/0
L Parling 0/0 0 0/1/3 2 0 0 0 1  9/1 3/4 0 0/0
F Lydiate 0/0 0 0/3/6 1 0 0 0 1  15/1 1/0 3 0/0
F Warburton 0/0 0 1/4/5 33 1 1 0 0  10/1 0/0 1 0/0
N8 Faletau 0/0 0 0/4/10 20 0 2 0 3  10/1 0/0 0 0/0

Actually i'm correct on both, i didn't just use ESPNs stats, i double checked them with OPTAs and Statbunkers, ESPN get some dodgy stats sometimes so i always double check if i'm going to post them.  Flyhalf, is 13 tackles really that brilliant a stat?  If a player does very little else and makes 13 tackles are you genuinely pleased with that performance?  Most international 6s and 7s make that many as well as adding plenty more to the party, if you go as a tackler then you have to make a lot more tackles than 13 to warrant it.  Against Argentina Ksevic at 7 made 28 tackles, against the Lions the baa baas 7 made 25, those are good tackle stats, 13 in comparison IS rather lacklustre.

I saw the other day that Vunipola has made more tackles than anyone else so far on the Lions tour and hasnt missed any. Must be a shoe in at blind side then.

lostinwales wrote:I saw the other day that Vunipola has made more tackles than anyone else so far on the Lions tour and hasnt missed any. Must be a shoe in at blind side then.

I'm not saying that lostinwales, most welsh fans and pundits who are adamant about how amazing Lydiate is will cite how he makes so many tackles, that is his USP, if he doesn't fulfill that then why is he there?

Lydiates tackling works great against a team who will power through you. For example Ireland who tried on usually just try to barrel over the opposition using Sean O'Brien or Jamie Heaslip or Cian Healy or Paul O'Connell then attack off quick ball.

He'll chop them low and let another player come in to turn over possession.

However I question how effective that is against a team like Australia more likely to keep the ball alive with more offloads than most 6 Nations teams would go for.

He has a skill set no question there but so did Joe Worsley. A similar kind of player IMO.

Rugby Fan wrote:At the business end of the tour, there's not a lot of opportunity to bring in players from outside and get them up to speed. However, the attrition rate is likely to be high. If you've got experienced players, who already know the squad systems, then it's well worth keeping them around if they have a chance to recover because they could end up as ready-made cover. Kearney was a 2009 tourist so he knows the ropes. Bowe is one of the best players in the squad. If he's available later, Gatland will probably call on him.

Bowe arrived late to the squad and wouldn't have had any more time to learn the "squad systems" than his replacement - if he had been replaced immediately. With Gatland dithering over a replacement, the opportunity is lost and Gatland can only put his faith in Bowe being ready (without any match evidence). This puts undue pressure on Bowe to play even if he's not fit and that could be really bad for him and the team.
Kearney wasn't fit before going on tour, so he can't have practised any squad systems and cannot be in anyway match fit even if passed fit - knowing the ropes from a different tour doesn't mean he stands any chance of untying the knots in this one.
Due to the historically high attrition, maybe Gatland allowed for losing a player in his squad selection, but when two go down at least one should have been replaced immediately.

Rugby Fan wrote:There's a limit to how much you want to show your hand in the warm-up matches. If you are treating one of the games as a training run, what exactly are you going to practice? Why waste moves you want to run in matches that count? It's more likely that the real effort is taking place on the training pitch. In 2001, training was a disaster. Not much has been said so far about this year, but no news might be good news.

I'm not suggesting that any special moves be wheeled out, just basic ones. Forming a driving maul takes practice, defensive systems need to be organised and practised, going through phases builds teamwork etc. The Lions would have been far better suited purposely giving possession away in the opponents 22 rather than scoring yet another try, or taking off BOD to go down to 14 men with about 15 minutes left! They needed to put some pressure on themselves to test their squad systems, and the players' mettle. If the tour is really all about the Test series win then Gatland should have extracted far more from these warm-up games.

Rugby Fan wrote:Warburton is doing a lot of PR. For instance, he was part of the Lions visit to Bob Seddon's grave. This got good coverage in the British and Irish press but only really got a mention in the local Newcastle paper in Australia. If he started talking a lot about games in which he didn't feature, he'd come across a bit like John Terry.

Fair point!

[quote="maestegmafia"][quote="Rugby Fan"][quote="maestegmafia"]... In many ways we would be better sending him home....[/quote]







It's comments like that which get you singled out Maes. In the history of touring, players have only been sent home when they are injured, suspended, or have committed some breach of protocol.

Somehow, you've convinced yourself it's appropriate to establish a precedent and start sending players home if the coach decides he's made a mistake, or if a player isn't up to snuff.

I think you ought to take a look at your attitude towards an individual player when it makes you want to overturn the spirit of team sport just so you can put him in his place.[/quote]




He's a player that many fans didnt think should be included and one who has done nothing to challenge for a place. Everyone agrees Sexton is first choice by a country mile.

Why shouldn't players be sent home if they aren't up to it. The only thing stopping that are coaches admitting they made a bad call on that player.



_________________________________



Who would you have chosen instead of Farell?[/quote]

Allty wrote:

...

Who would you have chosen instead of Farell?

I'm guessing it might be a Welsh player who didnt get picked originally even though all of his team mates were..

I have never known any rugby tour at any level from amatuer rugby to international rugby where a coach would actually send a player home from a tour for not being good.

If he doesn't rate Farrell he don't pick him.

It would be an incredibly divisive move to order a player to return home for not playing well. I can not imagine it would be popular with players or fans. I think it would lead to a very sour atmosphere in the camp which would be likely to affect performances on pitch.

red_stag wrote:I have never known any rugby tour at any level from amatuer rugby to international rugby where a coach would actually send a player home from a tour for not being good.

If he doesn't rate Farrell he don't pick him.

It would be an incredibly divisive move to order a player to return home for not playing well. I can not imagine it would be popular with players or fans. I think it would lead to a very sour atmosphere in the camp which would be likely to affect performances on pitch.

Stag, I assume you haven't read PDV autobiography then??? Its actually a good read, like him a little bit mental.

Anyhow he sent home Steenkamp & Jannie Du Plessis home under the cover of injuries after they got scrummaged off the park by Leicester in the midweek game in 09. He was disgraced by their attitude.

Will Carling was close to being sent home in 93 also.

Very interesting FA0019. I wasn't aware of that.

I also wasn't aware Peter de Villiers could write a coherent book 

Ghost written, worryingly he was a teacher by profession! I wonder how the kids he taught ended up???

He had premier rugby cretin Mark Keohane write it for him.... this was the man who said he was a genius in the making on his appointment... also the man who said the Southern Kings this year would beat the bulls at home... the lost 40-0.

I reckon its worth a read if you can find it... may not be published in Europe but there is always ebooks I guess.

Thing is though, Gatland does rate Farrell, both by selecting him and praising him in the media.

Injury (or poor form by Sexton aside) Farrell always looked to be the understudy. He's played well enough to perform that role. The bench is going to be very important.

He'll be fine. The Reds game showed that.

Farrell will play too.. I can't see him not getting game time in all 3 tests either.

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:Thing is though, Gatland does rate Farrell, both by selecting him and praising him in the media.

Injury (or poor form by Sexton aside) Farrell always looked to be the understudy. He's played well enough to perform that role. The bench is going to be very important.

He'll be fine. The Reds game showed that.

+1

I also think people need to chillout a bit with Farrel, he's suffering a dip in form at the end of a long season, hes a young 10 learning the ropes. He has natural talents you cant coach and overall has had a very good season.

The only other 10 (Sir Johnny aside) I'd want there is Biggar (who ironically enough had a very similar 6nations to Farrell, 4 good games and 1 bad one) but Gatland doesn't (and never has) seemed to really plump for the lad or give him a solid shot.

Comfort wrote:

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:Thing is though, Gatland does rate Farrell, both by selecting him and praising him in the media.

Injury (or poor form by Sexton aside) Farrell always looked to be the understudy. He's played well enough to perform that role. The bench is going to be very important.

He'll be fine. The Reds game showed that.

+1

I also think people need to chillout a bit with Farrel, he's suffering a dip in form at the end of a long season, hes a young 10 learning the ropes. He has natural talents you cant coach and overall has had a very good season.

The only other 10 (Sir Johnny aside) I'd want there is Biggar (who ironically enough had a very similar 6nations to Farrell, 4 good games and 1 bad one) but Gatland doesn't (and never has) seemed to really plump for the lad or give him a solid shot.

I agree. I think he is quality. Not sure he is even suffering a dip. Thought he has been alright so far.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

winchester wrote:It would be remarkeably brave of Gatland to drop Warburton for the Test. Despite the cliche of all jerseys being up for grabs, the captain starts off on the teamsheet and really has to play himself out. On top of that you have Gatlands own relationship with Warburton which could suffer back with Wales. And by dropping his initial captain he would be admitting he got the pick wrong... despite everything Warburton is pretty much certain to start and the Test backrow will be selected according to who plays best alongside him with form or performances being of secondary concern.

I don't think Gatland would hesitate to leave Warburton out of the Test XV if he thought selecting Tipuric would be more likely to bring the Lions victory. He knows the pain of being on a losing Lions tour and he'll be more determined than anyone to get a series win this time round. He won't compromise that just to spare the feelings of Warburton, who I don't think is the kind of player to spit the dummy in any case.

I'm pretty sure that Gatland's already said that his tour captain won't necessarily be the Test captain, so there's no issue really.

Nah I dont agree. Gatland might say that stuff in the media to try and insunuate all positions ae up for grabs and on merit but its all cliches. Not all jerseys are up for grabs and when he picks his captain he does so intending to start him. Warburton would have to seriously play himself out of the test team rather than play his way into it. Gatland has been loyal to Warburton. Too difficult a decision to leave him out now. If Warburton wasnt captain and it was a straight fight for the jersey then Id have Tipuric in front at the moment. Not because Warburton is bad, I just think Tipuric is better right now. But it wont happen.

well, we have another player who covers 10 called up, that's something

GunsGerms wrote:

Comfort wrote:

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:Thing is though, Gatland does rate Farrell, both by selecting him and praising him in the media.

Injury (or poor form by Sexton aside) Farrell always looked to be the understudy. He's played well enough to perform that role. The bench is going to be very important.

He'll be fine. The Reds game showed that.

+1

I also think people need to chillout a bit with Farrel, he's suffering a dip in form at the end of a long season, hes a young 10 learning the ropes. He has natural talents you cant coach and overall has had a very good season.

The only other 10 (Sir Johnny aside) I'd want there is Biggar (who ironically enough had a very similar 6nations to Farrell, 4 good games and 1 bad one) but Gatland doesn't (and never has) seemed to really plump for the lad or give him a solid shot.

I agree. I think he is quality. Not sure he is even suffering a dip. Thought he has been alright so far.

Sorry Guns, I meant at the end of the regular season I feel he was suffering a dip. I think hes improved over the tour and Gatlands the kind of manager who will back a player into confidence. Agree he's done well enough so far and he'll be a good back-up to Sexton but hes done nothing to make me think Gatland will start him in the tests.

As far as Warburton goes - I think Gatlands put himself in an odd position. I cant call the 6 position between SOB/Croft/Warburton (I cant bring myself to leave Tipuric out of the 7 shirt - he just doesnt let attacking ball go to waste; whether thats protecting it at rucktime, ball in hand or running support lines. Not to mention his pace...)

Croft is the lineout option with real pace.
SOB the bulldozer.
Warburton the captain and groundhog (but not hitting top gear).

I should say I think they all do the basics pretty damn well and those are just my perceived strongpoints for each.

Well by adding Billy Twelvetrees to the party I guess Gatland has admitted to making a mistake and not touring with enough midfield cover.