Did Gatland anticipate the ful ramifications of dropping BOD?

First topic message reminder :

It was always going to be a huge decision given BODs stature in the game but even Im a little shocked at the scale of the outcry. There are messages all over the place from Irish withdrawing their support for the Lions, even sportsmen and figures outside of rugby are getting in on it. Socia media sites are awash with it. I get the feeling even if the Lions win the series Gatand has committed an unforgiveable sin. And if they lose! Heaven help us. Theirs big decisions and then there is asking for trouble! Im not sure Gatland realised the scale of this decision. Even opting for BOD on the bench and a late cameo might have taken the sting out it but hes really setting himself up for a fall here!

Standulstermen wrote:This place used to be a sane place to discuss rugby. The comments on this and many other threads are as much an embarrassment as that 'Justice for BOD' nonsense on Facebook.

I admire your honesty. Though I did assume Rodders, Notch and Rory joined that group. Will you be wearing armbands too?

You on the rugbybanter page Saint? Unbelievable ppl on there.

The Saint wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:This place used to be a sane place to discuss rugby. The comments on this and many other threads are as much an embarrassment as that 'Justice for BOD' nonsense on Facebook.

I admire your honesty. Though I did assume Rodders, Notch and Rory joined that group. Will you be wearing armbands too?

Sigh. I haven't even made a comment about the BOD situation. Nor do I have facebook.

So are you going to give it a rest yet or what?

Risca Rev wrote:No he hasn't. You could make a case for BOD, as much as anybody could make a case for JD2. That's not cruel. Injury is cruel. Selection isn't.

Maybe the Irish should concentrate on dedicating it to POC, as that's cruel luck.

Speaking of POC - Gats pretended to be sentimental about wanting POC to hang around because it would be his last Lions Tour.  Seems like that sentimentality went out the window when it came to BOD. (he just wanted POC to coach the forwards because Rowentree isn't up to it).

The hypocrisy of it all.

Well Warren, enjoy your revenge - you did declare that the Welsh hated the Irish - maybe it was himself he was talking about.

Yeah I clearly remember him saying hate aye.

Scrumdown wrote:Some things never change.

The irish always blame the coach for their players consistent failure at international level.

Warren Gatland, Eddie O'Sullivan, Declan Kidney, Warren Gatland (again).  

There was uproar from many including Keith Wood (again) when Gatland left Rory Best out of the original squad yet his performances on the tour proved Gatland absolutely right.  He is not international class. Neither is the 34 year old O'Driscoll.

Sexton also has it all to prove at international level.

If Gatland/Wales had a decent record against Australia, you might have had a point. Rory Best was one of Ireland's star performers against Australia in Ireland's win over them in the world cup in New Zealand. All the Irish players involved in Saturday have a couple of wins over Australia. Even the Munster Academy managed to beat Australia (when Murray was in it).

Most of us don't really care if Wales beats Australia next Saturday (but most of us expect Australia to win now).

Sin é wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:No he hasn't. You could make a case for BOD, as much as anybody could make a case for JD2. That's not cruel. Injury is cruel. Selection isn't.

Maybe the Irish should concentrate on dedicating it to POC, as that's cruel luck.

Speaking of POC - Gats pretended to be sentimental about wanting POC to hang around because it would be his last Lions Tour.  Seems like that sentimentality went out the window when it came to BOD. (he just wanted POC to coach the forwards because Rowentree isn't up to it).

The hypocrisy of it all.

Well Warren, enjoy your revenge - you did declare that the Welsh hated the Irish - maybe it was himself he was talking about.

Everybody knows he meant "playing against" the Irish. Read any rugby related history/autobiography and hating playing against the Irish is a common theme. I can't believe that people are suggesting that WG dropping BOD is anything other than a rugby decision. I may prove to be a wrong decision but there is no other reason for it other than WG has picked what he considers to be a team that can win the next test.

Should have picked a team that could win the first two ..first.

Let's not forget who brought you BOD in the first place - if it wasn't for Gatland you may never have got this Deity to worship in the first place.

SecretFly wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:No he hasn't. You could make a case for BOD, as much as anybody could make a case for JD2. That's not cruel. Injury is cruel. Selection isn't.

Maybe the Irish should concentrate on dedicating it to POC, as that's cruel luck.

You believe what you believe, and think what you choose to think, Risca.  That's your right.  Mine is to choose how I think.  I consider it an insult to a player who played both tests better than JD2...and was about to end a long career (helping) the Lions win, not being a passenger.

Says who? Fate? In the movie script, sure, he'd play and he'd score the winning try. Should Gatland have picked him just in case, or should he, as he has done, taken sentiment out of it and picked what he believes is the best XV to win the deciding Test?

If it wasn't for Ireland you might never have had Gatland. The revolving door argument always works a treat.

Says who? Fate? In the movie script, sure, he'd play and he'd score the winning try. Should Gatland have picked him just in case, or should he, as he has done, taken sentiment out of it and picked what he believes is the best XV to win the deciding Test?

Well one movie script already has it down that Davies outplayed him.  I just use a different script writer.  Gatland is working on sentiment.  JD2 is his boy.

SecretFly wrote:If it wasn't for Ireland you might never have had Gatland.  The revolving door argument always works a treat.

And we're grateful for that - most successful period in Welsh rugby in my lifetime. So thanks for that, really. Gatland has been great for Wales.

The Saint wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:This place used to be a sane place to discuss rugby. The comments on this and many other threads are as much an embarrassment as that 'Justice for BOD' nonsense on Facebook.

I admire your honesty. Though I did assume Rodders, Notch and Rory joined that group. Will you be wearing armbands too?

No, you'd be wrong about that.

My mum has though!  Bless her.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:No he hasn't. You could make a case for BOD, as much as anybody could make a case for JD2. That's not cruel. Injury is cruel. Selection isn't.

Maybe the Irish should concentrate on dedicating it to POC, as that's cruel luck.

You believe what you believe, and think what you choose to think, Risca.  That's your right.  Mine is to choose how I think.  I consider it an insult to a player who played both tests better than JD2...and was about to end a long career (helping) the Lions win, not being a passenger.

Says who? Fate? In the movie script, sure, he'd play and he'd score the winning try. Should Gatland have picked him just in case, or should he, as he has done, taken sentiment out of it and picked what he believes is the best XV to win the deciding Test?

Surely the script is that JD2 has to withdraw just before kick off and BOD is called in to save the day?

Griff wrote:


And we're grateful for that - most successful period in Welsh rugby in my lifetime.  So thanks for that, really.  Gatland has been great for Wales.

Good, glad to know someone got value for money from him. We certainly didn't .

It could still happen, Aukster...

As I said in another thread -

Ignoring the stunning lack of success Welsh Warrenball has had in Oz, my disgust at Gatland remains at his inability to pick for form, adventure and x-factor, something the Lions need (and have somewhat with North).

Manu and BOD played well together and given the Roberts is off-form, coming off the back of injury and more importantly has NOT played with Davis this centre selection stinks.

They have to have been on fire in few training sessions they paired up. Manu is a massive yet under-used threat. I think his injury has also influenced the BOD selection.

I was really, really looking forward to the best attacking two centres of their generations playing together to take on the Aussies.

Both big game players, with both a lot to play for.

For shame Gatland.

Glad Gray is in the team, hoping Faz comes on earlier as he has a better kicking record and distance than 0.5p.

Hoping we run the ball lots...cos we aint gonna rely on our line-outs with Hibbard thats for sure.

Surely some, if not most, of the stick coming Gatland's way over tactics, gameplan and intransigence would be better aimed at those who appointed him Lions head coach in the first place? It's not as though he's developed those traits on tour, and his gameplan's been the same for years. They knew (or should have known) what they were getting.

Just a thought.

Who does elect a Lions coach Luckless?   Serious question, it's one of the suit activities that I don't ever think about or research.  He just appears one day, selected and I think no more of it.

Gatland is a good coach.  How could anyone say different.  And he was the pick of the bunch.  A natural.  But I'll admit, I initially felt enthusiastic about him because I felt he had sufficient ego to make a real impression on the Lions brand.

How did I feel this would transmit itself?  

Well, firstly I thought he'd see all the talent throughout the 4 nations - and there is a genuine bulk of it - and say to himself, the gameplans I could set in motion with this lot.
I felt he's be more adventurous in his squad and pick more than one or two real outside but exciting bets to spice things up.  
I felt he'd gain a lot of pride in turning many players from the other nations into Gats players.  A sense of "Here's what your players can do when they are coached by me"

It never transpired.  And I'm disappointed in him for that.  Two brilliant chances have already passed where he could have shown what happens when a menacing selection of players from the four nations get together and rumble.  
He had his ingredients had he chosen them and managed and coached them well enough.  He had his dominant Welsh players, he had players from England who scorced New Zealand, he had rough and tumble Irish players with their European crowns, he had a bullishly rejuvenated Scottish clan.

He gave us conservative, kick-away rugby designed to contain Australian invention instead...for two games.  The fury of creativeness just never happened and was never truly given a green light even to attempt it.

So yes, Gatland was the best man for the job. He lost a mighty chance to truly dominate a Lions test series.

Win, Lose or draw Gatland and this series will forever be mentioned in the same breath as 2005.

Fly, I really don't know who elects a Lions head coach. I think it's a question worth asking.

Glas a du has said, correctly, on another thread that the frustration fans from other parts of the UK and Ireland are feeling over the safety first / conservative gameplan Gatland has the Lions utilising are only feeling what many Wales fans have felt for years. It's not attractive rugby and even when it works, the feeling is that more could have been done and more points scored had there been a more attacking mindset. The thing is, success can blind people to the limitations of Gatlandball. In defeat, nothing can hide it.

http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/fleetwood/videos/hitler-reacts-badly-on-hearing-41682.html


To lighten the mood, here is another Hitler bunker rant on this topic.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Fly, I really don't know who elects a Lions head coach. I think it's a question worth asking.

Glas a du has said, correctly, on another thread that the frustration fans from other parts of the UK and Ireland are feeling over the safety first / conservative gameplan Gatland has the Lions utilising are only feeling what many Wales fans have felt for years. It's not attractive rugby and even when it works, the feeling is that more could have been done and more points scored had there been a more attacking mindset. The thing is, success can blind people to the limitations of Gatlandball. In defeat, nothing can hide it.

Wales against England wasn't conservative.  It was breathless swathes of attack....keeping the ball alive to stretch and tire the English, offloading and a furious intent to be the dominant, attacking side.  That's not anything like the game that was played in the first two tests.  Not the slightest impression of that game.  
You'll say Gatland wasn't coaching that team.  I say he kept his finger on the pulse of style because he knew he'd be picking a big selection of his Welsh players.  I also say the Welsh of the WC were that side, when he was coaching.

The one person I genuinely think is missing from Gatland's mix is Shaun (fistfight) Edwards.  He was a big part of that furious intent of the Welsh players during the England game.  He had anger and passion in his eyes as he put the players through some work before the game.  
So maybe the real ticket was all along not just Gatland, but Gatland and Edwards.

The score at half-time against England was 9 - 3. It was only because Wales's physicality told on the English that the spaces appeared (and there was an openside on the pitch who acted as a link man). When sides can withstand the physical onslaught and don't tire, the gaps don't appear. See England v Wales 2012, which required individual skill to finally break through, or France v Wales this season, which required a lucky bounce and neat finish.

It also helped that Wales were dominant up front against England in Cardiff, which the Lions haven't managed to be in this series.

"It never transpired. And I'm disappointed in him for that. Two brilliant chances have already passed where he could have shown what happens when a menacing selection of players from the four nations get together and rumble. "

Of course, the alternate view is that the players just aren't that good and he is doing the best he can with what he has.

Is it Gatland botching the lineout throws one after another? Is it Gatland struggling to contain the world's most reverse prone front row? Is it Gatland slow to the breakdown? Poor on discipline? Kicking poorly to straight to Beale? Missing goal kicks? Dropping the ball cold? Failing to execute simple overlaps?

These aren't things that Gatland could coach into them, they are basic skills that players at this level are expected to have.

If his plan involves getting clean lineout ball (which coach's plan doesn't?) then there is little he can do if no mid-field or backline moves can be launched because the Hooker keeps missing his jumpers. In the tough conditions (suddenly forgotten) of both tests, the territorial game plan may have been most apt, but if 1/2p and Sexton and Philips et al can't control territory because their kicking is weak and aimless then that's not Gatland's fault.

I think he's got a couple of things wrong, no mistake. Vunipola got beaten up in the scrum and was a liability around the pitch. He should have been yanked. BoD should have been dropped from the second test not the third, and maybe come off the bench. The Lions had a couple of injuries to their more exciting players, so Gatland went for stability. If he'd asked them to go out and chuck it around in the rain he would have been lynched when the Lions lost - let's face it, Australia is just better at playing the expansive game than the Lions ever will be. Australia play this game naturally, hone it in super rugby week in week out and face it down with the two other best teams in the world every year.

Gatland has done more right than he has done wrong, many other coaches would have made the majority of similar calls and frankly scapegoating Gatland for the inadequacies of NH rugby is not facing the reality of the situation.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Win, Lose or draw Gatland and this series will forever be mentioned in the same breath as 2005.

How on earth does that work?

So the Lions triumph by 25 points in destroying the W's and everyone will say...these guys were as bad as Clives lot. Really?

GloriousEmpire wrote:"It never transpired.  And I'm disappointed in him for that.  Two brilliant chances have already passed where he could have shown what happens when a menacing selection of players from the four nations get together and rumble.  "

Of course, the alternate view is that the players just aren't that good and he is doing the best he can with what he has.

There is always an alternative view, Glorious. I don't engage in them... that's always for others to do. The players are there.

SecretFly wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:"It never transpired.  And I'm disappointed in him for that.  Two brilliant chances have already passed where he could have shown what happens when a menacing selection of players from the four nations get together and rumble.  "

Of course, the alternate view is that the players just aren't that good and he is doing the best he can with what he has.

There is always an alternative view, Glorious.  I don't engage in them... that's always for others to do.  The players are there.  

So you keep saying. But when have they EVER delivered ANYTHING? It surely can't be someone else's fault every single time.

There have been sparse results for the NH over southern counterparts in recent years. As I recall it the list goes something like this:

Ireland's RWC victory over Australia
Scotland's victory over Australia (twice)
Scotland over South Africa
England's victory over Australia
England's shellacking of the All Blacks at Twickenham

Gatland has won a few 6N titles, but his record with these same players against SH opposition is dire.

Remember the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

Remember the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.



Yeah, yeah. I get the message Glorious... think I've heard that definition quoted now a number of times in recent weeks. It's kinda beginning to sound like it's talking to itself at this stage, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, as you say, if it never has happened it can't happen in the future. The JWC suggests different.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Fly, I really don't know who elects a Lions head coach. I think it's a question worth asking.

The 4 unions select the Lions Coach. Problem was that there were not that many candidates for the job as they say that the head coach must have been on a Lions tour previously either as player or coaching staff.

That would have left Gatland, Geech, Woodward, Eddie O'Sullivan and Andy Robinson as the front runners.

edit: The British & Irish Lions is registered in Ireland as a company (to avail of Ireland very generous tax laws to sporting organisations).

t1000advancedprototype wrote:This is Gatland mind games at its absolute best.

Everyone talking BOD, players quietly and unassumingly preparing to be victorious with everyone expecting them to lose, exactly what they want.

Are you kidding me? There could not be any more pressure on them right now. Every single time the centres touch the ball or make a mistake, the camera will cut to BOD in the stands. If AWJ makes a tough decision, cut to BOD. If Tuilagi comes on as a replacement, cut to BOD. It's a sideshow, a distraction they didn't need. Gatland has dropped them in a mess that, had he selected properly and on form, they shouldn't be in. The pressure is now coming from fans and non fans alike, pundits, players, ex players, even the Australians recognise that BOD should be there.

JmD wrote:Every single time the centres touch the ball or make a mistake, the camera will cut to BOD in the stands. If AWJ makes a tough decision, cut to BOD. If Tuilagi comes on as a replacement, cut to BOD. It's a sideshow, a distraction they didn't need.

Gatland and the rest of the coaches would have known what dropping O'Driscoll would bring, the likely repercussions. But having decided Davies and Roberts was the midfield they wanted, it would have been weak in the extreme for them to include O'Driscoll just to keep everyone sweet. You don't base selection on what's going to be popular.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

JmD wrote:Every single time the centres touch the ball or make a mistake, the camera will cut to BOD in the stands. If AWJ makes a tough decision, cut to BOD. If Tuilagi comes on as a replacement, cut to BOD. It's a sideshow, a distraction they didn't need.

Gatland and the rest of the coaches would have known what dropping O'Driscoll would bring, the likely repercussions. But having decided Davies and Roberts was the midfield they wanted, it would have been weak in the extreme for them to include O'Driscoll just to keep everyone sweet. You don't base selection on what's going to be popular.

Handy that you cut out the next sentence that I wrote. I didn't say he should select on what was popular, I said that had he selected on form BOD would be there. Davies was much worse than BOD in the tests and Roberts hasn't played for 3 weeks, and even before then he was in poor form.

I suggest respectfully that if Davies was indeed 'much worse than BOD in the tests', he wouldn't be starting in the third.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I suggest respectfully that if Davies was indeed 'much worse than BOD in the tests', he wouldn't be starting in the third.

That's the point, he shouldn't be.

Phillips is

.... over Murray

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I suggest respectfully that if Davies was indeed 'much worse than BOD in the tests', he wouldn't be starting in the third.

Come on now. The Lions couldn't possibly have expert analysts who have looked into player performances and come to a fair conclusion. We should trust the faceless experts on a fans forum.

Wales are in Ireland next six nations omg   the S A S to bodyguard gatland .

Risca Rev wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I suggest respectfully that if Davies was indeed 'much worse than BOD in the tests', he wouldn't be starting in the third.

Come on now. The Lions couldn't possibly have expert analysts who have looked into player performances and come to a fair conclusion. We should trust the faceless experts on a fans forum.

I have the answer to that... .

Mick Cleary

Stuart Barnes

Jiffy

there are plenty of pundits out there who are worthless in their opinions who time after time fans and commentators prove wrong or ill informed despite being 'professionals'.

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:Wales are in  Ireland next six nations    omg       the S A S  to bodyguard gatland .

Don't worry, he'll get his customary cigarette. Maybe even a cup'o'tea and a bickie if we're feeling really inviting.

Risca Rev wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I suggest respectfully that if Davies was indeed 'much worse than BOD in the tests', he wouldn't be starting in the third.

Come on now. The Lions couldn't possibly have expert analysts who have looked into player performances and come to a fair conclusion. We should trust the faceless experts on a fans forum.

They've been close-to-the-bone expert analysts up to this point. How close will they shave their reckonings on merit this time?

Risca Rev wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I suggest respectfully that if Davies was indeed 'much worse than BOD in the tests', he wouldn't be starting in the third.

Come on now. The Lions couldn't possibly have expert analysts who have looked into player performances and come to a fair conclusion. We should trust the faceless experts on a fans forum.

Do either of you really think Davies played well in the tests though? Do you think he has played better than BOD? Or even on the same level? You don't need to be an expert to see the answers to these questions, because I think it is rather obvious.

The excuse has been that Davies is a 13.. yet for the Scarlets he was their standout 12 for a long time. Not to mention the fact that he and BOD swapped positions (just like BOD and D'Arcy did back in the day).

Risca Rev wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I suggest respectfully that if Davies was indeed 'much worse than BOD in the tests', he wouldn't be starting in the third.

Come on now. The Lions couldn't possibly have expert analysts who have looked into player performances and come to a fair conclusion. We should trust the faceless experts on a fans forum.

You mean like the expert analysts who picked Jamie Noon for England, who thought Cardiff Blues playing in a soccer stadium out of town was a good idea, and so on?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Risca Rev wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I suggest respectfully that if Davies was indeed 'much worse than BOD in the tests', he wouldn't be starting in the third.

Come on now. The Lions couldn't possibly have expert analysts who have looked into player performances and come to a fair conclusion. We should trust the faceless experts on a fans forum.

Do either of you really think Davies played well in the tests though?  Do you think he has played better than BOD?  Or even on the same level?  You don't need to be an expert to see the answers to these questions, because I think it is rather obvious.

The excuse has been that Davies is a 13.. yet for the Scarlets he was their standout 12 for a long time.  Not to mention the fact that he and BOD swapped positions (just like BOD and D'Arcy did back in the day).

No, I don't think Davies has played well during the tests, but I can see why he has been left in alongside Roberts rather than hoping BOD and Roberts rekindle their form from four years ago. Davies was probably the better performing 13 pre tests and also against the Waratahs was probably the best I've seen the backs and that was with Saturday's centres.

Haven't you heard, Rev? Form in the warm-up games doesn't count any more.

It doesn't count when it doesn't transmit to tests, no, Luckless. You're right there. But Gatland doesn't agree with you and he points the finger.

Gatland lost credibility as a coach long before this selection, and it is futile to try to apply any logic to his decisions - he is obviously flying completely by the seat of his pants now.

Breadvan wrote:You on the rugbybanter page Saint? Unbelievable ppl on there.

Yes. What do you expect when it's overrun by kids. Though the admin team doesn't really help (it's Irish dominated), their 'banter' isn't good and lately the posts have been constant whinging. I unsubscribed since the opening tour games because they were posting score updates when I was behind on catching up with the matches. I subscribed again just before the second test and it's been nothing but whinge, just like the Irish posters on here.
If you want a great page which is run efficiently and has good banter then subscribe to the Rugby Championship page.

Come on Saint, you love the caustic 'banter' from the whinging Irish. Makes you feel all English, when they were in their prime and loved the idea that nobody loved them because they were better than everybody else and smashed other sides to pieces.

There's a good way of looking at whinging if you're smart enough.....