Was Clive Woodward Right?

Let's just say "no", straight away, just in case anyone's blood has started boiling. It was thoroughly depressing to watch the Lions in 2005. The tour party seemed desperately unhappy, and we played poor rugby.

However, for all his faults as a Lions coach - McGeechan tore his hair out that Clive seemed to have no game plan - Woodward was usually good at logistics. In Japan, when Wales discovered, belatedly, that there was no TMO, and found themselves trying to negotiate drinks breaks at the last minute, it occurred to me that SCW would have known about those details well in advance.

Woodward was eviscerated for taking a huge tour party of 45 alongside 26 back room staff. The decision to shrink the playing staff down to 37 in 2009 seemed to work, even though the series was lost (interestingly, there were still 23 coaching and support staff that year).

This year, Gatland also named 37 players. Given the expanded replacements bench compared with four years ago, that was always open to the accusation of being a bit light, even without focusing on his selection of only two number 10s.

As we stand today, seven players have been called up to the Lions as full time replacements but only three players are off the tour (Healy, Jenkins and Hartley). That makes the current squad 41 strong (42, if you include William's part-time cameo).

After the Brumbies match, Gatland explained the dilemma. Take too many players and it's much harder to build a good squad spirit. However, if you give everyone a game, then you risk going into the Tests undercooked, because you haven't been able to give players a proper run in settled combinations. If you take a more brutal approach, relegating some players early to the supporting cast, then you can split the camp. For various reasons, splits took place in 1993, 2001 and 2005, so it's not uncommon.

If Gatland does succeed this year, then we won't necessarily be any clearer on the right strategy because he's started small and gone large with late call-ups. Gatland points out that he has suffered disproportionately in the backs but it's not obvious how that would have changed his planning. As it stands, if want to protect your entire likely First Test squad from playing in the preceding midweek match, then you need 46 players. That was the rationale behind Woodward's choice in 2005.

Arguably, the Brumbies match was lost today because Gatland didn't want to risk his bench for too long. They made a difference when they did arrive but it was just too late to affect the result.

Is it all, then, just down to luck, with a compact starting squad as a prerequisite, and then fate takes its course? Do we just have to hope that key players stay fit and that any late arrivals can be charmed by the whole experience to muck in successfully?

We don't want to base planning in four years time just on the basis of how the cookie crumbled on this occasion. Woodward came up with the wrong answer in 2005 but he understood the problem. What is the right answer, then?

Interesting bit from Jake White in the Telegraph the other day:

As for the Lions’ preparations, White said he would have followed the blueprint used by Sir Clive Woodward in 2005 by bringing a squad of 44 players and having two clearly defined sides.

“I am surprised they didn’t bring two teams and then you are able to control the workloads of all the players. When you have 36 or 37 players and then you lose two or three in a game, all of a sudden some guys have to double up on a Tuesday as opposed to having the week off.

“My way, and I am not saying is the correct way, would be to pick 44 players. Tell them, ‘You are the A side, you are the B side, your job is to make the A side. Our little boy goes to practice and he is told by his coach that he is in the second XV and he is going to have to work hard to make the first XV.

"It goes from prep school rugby right to international rugby. Say to them, ‘That is how I see it – your job is to prove me wrong, your job is to make sure you prove me right.’”

It wasn't the size of the squad that ruined 2005, it was the attitude, demeanour and behaviour of Woodward the consumate meglomaniac who alongside Alastiar Campbell took man management to an all new circus level - I have never seen so many demoralised players who were unsure of what they were doing - Absolute farce:thumbsup:

To be honest I only think Gatland's squad was 1 or 2 players light, and I completely disagree with the two teams approach.

I would have taken 38 or 39, and had an extra fly half and an extra centre, or possibly just taken James Hook or Ian Madigan, a player who covers both. I also think that three specialist fullbacks is too much. He should have taken two, plus a player like Maitland able to cover 15 if needed.

He's really been made to pay for not having enough cover at 10. Hogg was never going to be adequate cover, given he's never played a single pro rugby match in that position, nor been a first choice goal kicker at any stage in his career. With all the options Gatland had at his disposal that is a mistake, pure and simple.

RubyGuby wrote:It wasn't the size of the squad that ruined 2005, it was the attitude, demeanour and behaviour of Woodward

Undoubtedly, Woodward got the whole tone wrong but it was also a widespread opinion soon after that experience, that you could never make a large squad work. That was certainly McGeechan's view in 2009. It's not hard to find people who say that the best way to run a Lions tour is to look at what Woodward did, and do the opposite.

I think it's interesting that views seem to be shifting again. Rather than dismissing everything Woodward did, perhaps the thinking is that he might have had some good ideas, but appalling execution.

In the future, the question might not be "Should we take a large or small squad?" Instead it might be "Given that we need to take a large squad, how do we manage it so it doesn't become a farce like it did in 2005?"

No doubt Woodward cocked up pretty much everything he touched that year but the biggest problem was the quality of players available.  There just wasn't the quality available to compete with that all black team.

That is true - the Lions were never going to win that series. Still, SCW made a complete hash of attempting to do so.

funnyExiledScot wrote:To be honest I only think Gatland's squad was 1 or 2 players light, and I completely disagree with the two teams approach.

I would have taken 38 or 39, and had an extra fly half and an extra centre, or possibly just taken James Hook or Ian Madigan, a player who covers both. I also think that three specialist fullbacks is too much. He should have taken two, plus a player like Maitland able to cover 15 if needed.

He's really been made to pay for not having enough cover at 10. Hogg was never going to be adequate cover, given he's never played a single pro rugby match in that position, nor been a first choice goal kicker at any stage in his career. With all the options Gatland had at his disposal that is a mistake, pure and simple.

I agree that the two teams approach seems fraught with danger. However, thinking through your squad of 38/39, it wouldn't have covered the injuries on this tour unless you were prepared to field Test starters in the Brumbies match.

The problems really start when you have players out for a bit but not off tour. Jenkins, Kearney, Bowe, Tuilagi, Warburton, Roberts and North all missed, or will miss matches. Sexton wasn't risked when he felt tight and that in turn meant Gatland removing Farrell from front line duties.

The thing that people should appreciate is that NZ is the hardest place to tour, second to none.... people rave about the Lions in 09 but had the boks put out a 1st team out in the 3rd test we would have lost 3 zip also.

He had a plan, it didn't work out... but at least he had a method to win in NZ (which had been successful previously for him and England) better than then playing damage limitation rugby and just try and be respectable.

The main crux of it was the players... SCW didn't have the players he had in 01-03. Most of the players he relied upon up front had retired or were at the end of their careers and the new batch just wanted up to standard. He made a lot of mistakes though... he had a plan, he should have stuck to it and utilised it from the beginning... not springing it on the players 1 week before.

Wilkinson was only coming back from injury (similar to Warburton now) and whilst he didn't perform badly he was not close to his usual standard. SCW also never tested out his partnership with Jones (IMO his biggest mistake on tour).

We should also remember how big an impact O'Driscolls injury had on the Lions. They lost their 1 true world class player and their captain. It knocked them for six and had he been on the field I think the match would have been very different.
When he went with his plan even after BOD was taken out Tony Soprano style the losing margin was closer then the other test matches where he just chose players on form in desperation.

In the end, he gets a lot of stick for the tour but in terms of lions tours that I've actively watched (from 89 onwards) I would say that this easily had the worst quality of players to chose from... and it was just unfortunate it was touring NZ during one of its best periods.
McGeechan made an awful lot of mistakes too.... in fact out of 4 tours he's managed his first test selections have been absolutely dire in 3 of them. However he had sense to correct himself and had a good dose of luck in both 89 and 97.

The 1993 tour was just as bad as 05 in terms of morale and the camp split was probably the worst it ever had been.... the difference was that the talent in that 93 side was second to none... in terms of a first XV I would say that was the best I've seen in 7 tours... SCW had no such luxury in 05.

I also tend to think of 2001 as having more than its fair share of problems, but do wonder if certain quarters talk up the many issues in 2005 to divert attention from what happened in 2001.

Rugby Fan - clearly you can't cover all injury situations, and all Lions tours have needed call-ups. However, had there been an extra fly half and centre on the tour from the outset, the Lions would have been far better placed to offer continuity in those key positions.

Madigan is certainly a better fly half/centre than Hogg, as is Hook. Hogg has been used as much at 10 than at 15. That's ridiculous!

Hogg's chances of a test jersey have been blown out the water by him having to play 10. Had he been playing 15 only he would have had a chance in a 3/4 spot in the 23... now, no chance.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Rugby Fan - clearly you can't cover all injury situations, and all Lions tours have needed call-ups. However, had there been an extra fly half and centre on the tour from the outset, the Lions would have been far better placed to offer continuity in those key positions.

Agreed, And Hogg has certainly been the victim on this tour.

The question remains, if a tour is only workable with an initial squad of under 40, supplemented by call-ups, are we willing to write-off some non-Test matches if we suffer a similar pattern of injuries?

Certainly, Gatland had every right to expect his side to fare better against the Brumbies than they did. However, it was clear the reason he didn't immediately try to change things on the pitch was because he wanted to protect the bench players for the Test. When you consider that we actually want tougher opposition in future lead-up matches, then there is every chance we'll have a similar patchwork side taking the field against a team with more firepower than we saw yesterday.

I do want to win the series but it was painful watching the Brumbies game. It was also frustrating because we had the players to win it but chose not to play them. Part of me thinks we should have fielded a stronger team and to hell with injury and fitness consequences. We may have underestimated how much of a boost this win would give to the Wallaby camp.

For goodness sake, the only thing that matters are the Tests. We can't criticise Gatland's tactics until the series is over.

Australia came over in 92' and were beaten by Swansea and Llanelli, but they won the Tests. I remember the Australian coaches said at the time that all they cared about were the Test matches. That is how this tour will be judged.

If we lose the series then it is fair to criticise, until that time criticism is pointless.

So people aren't allowed an opinion until after the dust has settled???

Without doubt its been a massive mistake to take no 3rd 10 and an unfit Kearney & Jenkins. The guys who are fit have had to play all around the clock and chaps like Hogg have had to play in a position he last played in school.

I mean whats the point of Hogg's selection???

There are a dozen better flyhalves in the UK who would have done a better job... the worst of it it,m Gatland has taken away his chance of a test spot and given he's struggled at 10 we've probably blown his confidence more than had he not toured at all. It would have served him better to have toured SA both for him and for Scotland... he's been messed around.

How is it a massive mistake???????? I'll say it again, all that matters are the TESTS.

You can only judge a "massive mistake" if it contributes to the failure of your ultimate goal.

so how has it helped?

Will it have an impact on the actual tests? Probably not... although its prevented Hogg from competing for a place in the 23 in all probability and remember how Balshaw's confidence got shot in 01.
Its unfair for players to expect so much.

(Not because I'm commenting on Woodward or Gatland making mistakes in this instance but just because the attitude in this area of some posters is one that I find insulting to the core of my character and something that must intrinsically be spoken against:)

Just saying, once again, that mistakes are mistakes regardless of their outcome and a refusal to acknowledge this leads to stagnation and to learning being impossible. The All-Blacks rarely lose. They do make mistakes, pick up on these mistakes, are unhappy with them and work on them, and thus get better and the pack behind them do not overtake them. Criticising how you could improve on something that was passable is an important part of the learning process. Saying that things are only a mistake if they result in a loss/failure is as illogical and as terrible an attitude for any area of life as saying that crimes are only crimes if they get caught and it makes me angry

Its not the first or last time that a tour will take place whereby some of the players are a risk injury wise.

Coaches very rarely these days have the luxury of picking a fully fit squad.

Jersey, You can say what you like, but what make you think that you can decide what are mistakes and what are not?

You want to do something about your anger issues as well! There are more important things to get angry about in this world!!!!

I don't think the only thing that matters are the Tests. It's clearly better to win each and every game on tour, and therefore by extension you have to attach some significance to the non-Test fixtures.

Even if the Lions win the Test series, I still think additional cover should have been taken at 10, because I do not believe using Hogg at 10 twice can possibly have been the right decision. It's clearly possible to win the Test series and still have made some mistakes along the way.

Of course if Gatland wins the series I doubt many will care very much about anything else. But as this is a board for debating rugby issues, I think it's perfectly legitimate to question rugby matters in real time, rather than all of us just logging off until the Test series is finished in order to judge everything with the benefit of hindsight.

Win or lose the Test series, there have been some selection errors in my view, and I think those errors contributed towards the Lions being beaten by the Brumbies. The outcome of the Tests will not change my view on that, it'll only change the extent to which I care.....

I wasn't stating in this case what I thought were mistakes or not, but claiming, as you but certainly not you alone, that there will only have been mistakes if we lose is in my opinion an attitude that does not merit tolerance. It is the kind of attitude that leads to many of the "worse things in the world to get angry about".

I am not an angry person, I do not know anyone who would call me that, and though I am currently stressed about a number of things none of these have coloured my view in this instance. Improvement relies on mistakes being identified, which can be done before they lead to "ultimate" failure and doing so is infinitely preferable

I totally agree that mistakes will have been made, they always are. The only ones that matter though are the ones that cost us the series. This is not about player or team development, it's about winning , hopefully 3 test matches.

One of the reasons to raise this question now is precisely to separate it from the result of the series. The idea of a large squad didn't win universal approval in 2005, but it was only condemned out of hand once it was associated with a heavy loss.

It's also important to be accurate about our current strategy. Woodward named an initial 44 man squad and had 26 support staff. Gatland has 41 players (42 when Williams was in camp) and 28 support staff. Only three of his replacements have actually replaced anyone: the others count as pure additions. If we do win this year, it would arguably provide greater justification for the idea of taking a larger initial squad.

Also, I think the question of how Gatland manages the specific resources available to him now, is slightly separate from the more general question of how any Lions tour ought to be structured and planned in the professional era.

daiglass63 wrote:I totally agree that mistakes will have been made, they always are. The only ones that matter though are the ones that cost us the series. This is not about player or team development, it's about winning , hopefully 3 test matches.

This is mostly true, though I'd still say that with the risk of a 10 injury (whether it happens or not) during the Tests pretty high, it is objectively a mistake to have only brought 2 specialist 10s, and I would much rather he flew another one (Biggar would do fine) in just in case rather than waiting until/in case the worst happens or trusting 36 or Hogg there in a Test

Potential banana skin I agree. Fingers crossed all goes well.

I actually think he had the idea completely right, because the warm up games out there were so tough - games against Wellington Auckland NZ Maori not to mention the tests.

Problem was he just didn't select the right players, I think he actually picked a lot of players as solely midweek players. Not a knock on them but I don't think anyone could see Andy Titterell, Ollie Smith, Matt Stevens, Dennis Hickie, Charlie Hodgson, any of the holy trinity of Back Dallaglio Hill as test lions at the time. He also selected a horribly out of form Wilkinson and D'arcy.

On form that test team should've been:

1. Jenkins
2. Bulloch
3. White
4. O'Connell
5. O'Callaghan
6. Moody
7. Martyn Williams
8. Ryan Jones
9. Peel
10. Jones
11. Lewsey
12. Henson
13. O'Driscoll (c)
14. Robinson
15. Murphy

Wouldn't have beat the All Blacks but maybe would've played with some pace and invention rather than trying to play 10 man rugby.

Great team Ulster illustrating his woeful decisions alongside his woeful man management at the time - The guy is an absolute dinosaur in rugby terms. His comments at half time in this years 6 Nations match betweem Wales and England were beyond belief and more in hope than any balanced critical appraisal of what was happening on the field.

On form doesn't mean much in test rugby....

on form Allan Bateman should have been in the test side in 97... but he was never close and for good reason too.

Not sure if you actually watched the series but players you mention such as Martin Williams,  Gavin Henson, Stephen Jones, Lewis Moody and Jason Robinson did little to achieve that "form" status.

In the end, outside of SCW no other home nations coach have achieved a win in NZ against NZ other than McGeechan in 93 in 40 years (who had one hell of a talented team.. and was against probably the weakest AB side in 30 years... perhaps the 98 side was worse but that was more of a hiccup rather than poor IMO though).
The fact that his idea (only used in the 1st test) gave the closest result especially given the impact BOD's injury had on the game it suggest his method was the best suited to challenging NZ.

fa0019 - Winning might have been beyond that team but IMO they would have competed, As for Woodward's management of Henson the less said the better. All that was missing from that tour was Max Clifford

His method was best suited You a fan of record defeats then

Who has managed him well? During the time he was releasing some expo book, dating a z lister celebrity and his performance on the pitch was not impressive all tour.

The fact that O'Driscoll detested him probably didn't make his case any better.

Personally I think SCW saw in Henson something we couldn't see behind closed doors, someting we found to be true given whats gone since.

Some parts were cringeworth.... Campbell etc, the BOD conference etc but thats where he over stepped the mark.

On the rugby field he made a number of mistakes in not training certain players together prior to the test.... but otherwise he had a very poor class to deal with. Lets not forget that.

He obviously overlooked Hensons 2 try performance for the Lions - Henson was head and shoulders above the rest and would have been perfect alongside BOD - Woodward didn't like him, a classic clash of posh boy v working class chav. He should have been able to put his own ego aside for the sake of the team, he couldn't and still can't - Simples

can't overlook something before it happened... it happened after the team was chosen, the midweek game before the 1st test.

After everything that has happened to him since then I think he's justified in the issues he had with Henson.

RubyGuby wrote:...Woodward didn't like him, a classic clash of posh boy v working class chav...

Woodward posh? I think you have him confused with someone else.

I think he was rather posh no? Went to Naval college with Iain Duncan Smith in North Wales if I recall.... tried out for Welsh schools was rejected!!!

Woodward is about as posh as Stuart Barnes, with Barnes probably having the edge over him.

I don't think class had anything to do with it.

Sir Clive wanted the right/left kicking combo of Jones and Wilkinson and wanted to fit them both into the squad. He valued leadership and experience ahead of talent and form.

He never blended the team to play a particular style of play. There was a clear defensive plan but no attacking shape to the side, or ascertainable tactics.

Regarding Henson I just don't think Woodward felt certain that he'd handle the pressure and play to script (whatever the script was).

Wilkinson at 12 was a horrible selection.

If you take only specialists in one position, then you need a large squad.

However Woodward could have taken 15 or 60 but it would not have changed the result. That AB side played some of the best rugby you will see and no scratch Lions side would have matched it.

Recwatcher wrote:If you take only specialists in one position,  then you need a large squad.

However Woodward could have taken 15 or 60 but it would not have changed the result. That AB side played some of the best rugby you will see and no scratch Lions side would have matched it.

I think that comment describes the problem very well.

When a Lions squad is being selected, we tend to think about who are the best two or three in each position. If reality, if you want a small squad then you can't take only specialists, you need to start thinking about props who can cover both sides, full backs who can play wing etc.